Old Bailey Proceedings, 13th November 1905.
Reference Number: t19051113
Reference Number: f19051113

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT

Sessions Paper.

MORGAN, MAYOR.

FIRST SESSION, HELD NOVEMBER 13TH, 1905.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE,

TAKEN IN SHORTHAND BY

ALFRED FITZGERALD DALTON,

ROLLS CHAMBERS, No. 89, CHANCERY LANE.

(For many years with the late firm of Messrs. BARNETT & BUCKLER, Official Shorthand Writers to the Court.)

VOLUME CXLIII.

SESSIONS I. TO IV.

LONDON:

STEVENS AND SONS, LIMITED, 119, CHANCERY LANE,

Law Booksellers and Publishers.

THE

WHOLE PROCEEDINGS

On the King's Commission of

OYER AND TERMINER AND GAOL DELIVERY

FOR

The City of London,

AND GAOL DELIVERY FOR THE

COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, AND THE PARTS OF THE COUNTIES OF ESSEX, KENT, AND SURREY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION

OF THE

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,

Held on Monday, November 13th, 1905, and following days.

Before the Right Hon. WALTER VAUGHAN MORGAN, LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir JOSEPH WALTON, BART., one of the Justices of His Majesty's High Court; Sir JOHN POUND , Bart., Sir DAVID EVANS , K.C.M.G.; Lieut.-Col. Sir HORATIO DAVIES , K.C.M.G., M.P., Aldermen of the said City; Sir FORREST FULTON, Knt., K.C., Recorder of the said City; Sir WILLIAM PURDIE TRELOAR, Knt., Sir JOHN KNILL , Bart., and DAVID BURNETT , Esq., other of the Aldermen of the said City; FREDERICK ALBERT BOSANQUET , Esq., K.C., Common Serjeant of the said City; LUMLEY SMITH , Esq., K.C., Judge of the City of London Court; and 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.

HENRY GEORGE SMALLMAN , Esq., Alderman.

THOMAS VANSITTART BOWATER, Esq.

Sheriffs.

JAPHETH TICKLE , Esq.

JOSEPH DAVID LANGTON , Esq.

Under-Sheriffs.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT

MORGAN, MAYOR. FIRST SESSION.

A star (*) denotes that the prisoners have been previously in custody—two stars (**) that they have been more than once in custody—a dagger (†) that they are known to be the associates of bad characters—the figures after the name in the indictment denote the prisoner's age.

LONDON AND MIDDLESEX CASES.

OLD COURT.—Monday, November 13th, 1905.

Before Mr. Recorder.

Reference Number: t19051113-1

1. WILLIAM TYSON (19) PLEADED GUILTY to stealing four metal watches, the property of Leonard Mumford, having been convicted of felony at Liverpool on January 6th, 1905. Two other convictions were proved against him. Fifteen months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19051113-2

(2.) FREDERICK ALBERT BEALE (17) to converting to his own use the sum of 30s. entrusted to him by Mary Ann Beale. Two months' hard labour.— [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

Reference Number: t19051113-3

(3.) WILLIAM ANSHORE (19) to stealing a purse from the person of Eliza Emily Jeams, having been convicted at West Ham on April 14th, 1905. It was stated that there were nineteen other convictions against him and that he was an associate of thieves. Fifteen months' hard labour.— [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

Reference Number: t19051113-4

(4.) WILLIAM GIBBS (27) to feloniously forging and uttering orders for the payment of £4 Us. 6d. and £6 6s., with intent to defraud. Six months' hard labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.] —And

Reference Number: t19051113-5

(5.) PETER PLATT (18) and JOHN SINES (22) to feloniously wounding William Marshall with intent to do him grievous bodily harm, Platt having been convicted of felony at Clerkenwell Green on November 10th, 1905, and Sines at Clerkenwell on March 3rd, 1903. Four previous convictions were proved against SINES and three against PLATT— Twenty months' hard labour each. The COURT awarded a witness named Lily Goddard £5 for her courageous behaviour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

NEW COURT, Monday, November 13th, 1905.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

Reference Number: t19051113-6

6. GEORGE HARRIS (62) and MARY BROWN (56) , Possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter the same. HARRIS PLEADED GUILTY .

MR. PARTRIDGE, for the Prosecution, offered no evidence against Brown, stating that the police were satisfied that she was Harris' wife, under whose direction she was acting.

NOT GUILTY . (See next case.)

Reference Number: t19051113-7

7. MARY BROWN was again indicted for uttering counterfeit coin, well knowing the same to be counterfeit.

MR. PARTRIDGE, for the Prosecution, offered no evidence.

NOT GUILTY .

HARRIS (†). against whom seventeen previous convictions were proved, dating from 1878— Seven years' penal servitude.

Reference Number: t19051113-8

8. DANIEL GREATOREX (47) and ANNIE LAWRENCE (38) , Feloniously possessing a mould for making counterfeit coin. GREATOREX

PLEADED GUILTY .

MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted.

WILLIAM BURNHAM (Sergeant, New Scotland Yard). About 12 a.m. on Saturday, October 28th, in company with Read and Gillard I saw Lawrence in the Portland Arms, Portland Road, Notting Hill—we kept observation on her and she was subsequently joined by another woman—we followed them—they took a lot of care to see whether they were being watched—we followed them to Lonsdale Road, where at the corner of Colville Road they met Greatorex, apparently by arrangement—we followed them for about an hour, and in the end Lawrence at about 2 p.m. entered 9, Bolton Road—about 3.30 p.m. Greatorex entered the same house—we continued the observation, but did not see any more of them—in company with the same officers on October 30th, about 4.50 p.m., I saw Lawrence leave 9, Bolton Road, alone—we followed her through various streets to Portland Road, where she met the other woman and Greatorex—they then went into the Portland Arms—the two women came out, leaving him inside—I spoke to both women and told them they were suspected of having counterfeit coin in their possession, and we should arrest them—Lawrence said she did not know anything about it—they were arrested and I went back and searched Greatorex in the public-house, when I found a door-key in his waistcoat pocket, which I subsequently found fitted his room door in 9, Bolton Road—they were all taken to Notting Dale police station, and from there afterwards to Notting Hill police station, where they were charged together with having moulds and counterfeit coin in their possession—Greatorex and Lawrence said, "That is right, sir," Lawrence subsequently saying, "You have got us to rights"—when they were at Notting Dale police station I went to 9, Bolton Road—in a coal cupboard amongst the coal I found these ten counterfeit florins wrapped up in paper separately in this piece of black stocking (Produced)—I also found in the cupboard four pieces of antimony wrapped up in paper (Produced) and a saucepan with some little pieces of metal round about it (Produced)—on the top of the cupboard I found these two bags of plaster of Paris (Produced) and a packet of gold leaf, a knife that has been burnt and put in hot metal, some pieces of rag, and bath brick—up the chimney I found, about a foot up, this mould (Produced), which was wrapped up in this stocking (Produced)—on November 1st I was present when another search was made and a file was found secreted in the chimney.

FREDERICK READ (Constable, New Scotland Yard). On October 30th I was with the other officers and took part in the arrest of the prisoners and

afterwards took part in the search at 9, Bolton Road—in the coal cupboard I found some antimony, a bar of tin, and a purse with the impression of a coin which had been greased and put into it before being cleaned off—I also took part in the search on November 1st, when I found this file up the chimney (Produced).

By the COURT. I did not myself see Lawrence come out of 9, Bolton Road, at all.

JOSEPH GILLARD (Constable, New Scotland Yard). I was with the other officers on October 29th and 30th, when the prisoners were being observed, and I took part in the arrest of Lawrence—I asked her her name and address and she said, "Annie Carter, 10, Earl Street, Edgware Road"—she gave me 5s., which was good money—I took part in the searches at 9, Bolton Road—I made enquiries at 10, Earl Street, when I found that she was not known there.

MARY ANN PEARCE . I am the wife of William Pearce, of 19, Bolton Road—I let the top front room of 9, Bolton Road, of which I am the landlady, to Lawrence at 6s. a week—she paid me the rent and lived there until the time she was arrested—Greatorex was living there, but I never saw him there—I cannot remember the name in which she rented the room—Mrs. "Ward, who lives in Bolton Road, works for me—I was ill on October 30th, and not able to go to 9, Bolton Road.

My the JURY. I gave her the key of the room when she took it; that was the only key to the door.

SOPHIA WARD . I am the wife of John Ward, who lives at 19, Bolton Road, and I sometimes work for Mrs. Pearce—on October 30th the police came to the house, and in consequence of Mrs. Pearce being ill I went with them to 9, Bolton Road—I was present when they searched the prisoner's room—I only know the prisoners by their being tenants of the room—I have seen them there together—they have been there about two months—they used to be there regularly.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . I am Inspector of Coin at His Majesty's Mint—this is a single mould for a florin, and from that these ten counterfeit florins were made—I have seen the antimony, file, plaster of Paris and other things, and they all form part of the stock-in-trade of a coiner.

LAWRENCE: "I don't want to say anything,"

GUILTY . GREATOREX then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction for uttering counterfeit coin on December 12th, 1898, at this Court. Six previous convictions were proved against him, dating from 1872— Seven years' penal servitude. LAWRENCE, against whom ten previous convictions were proved, one of which was for uttering counterfeit coin— Five years' penal servitude.

OLD COURT.—Tuesday, November 14th, 1905.

Before Mr. Justice Walton.

Reference Number: t19051113-9

9. IGNATIUS HUGH GERVAISE (28) PLEADED GUILTY to assaulting Ernest Alfred Piggott and occasioning him actual bodily harm. He received a good character. Nine months in the Second Division.—And

Reference Number: t19051113-10

(10.) WILLIAM THOMAS TAYLOR (41) to committing wilful and corrupt perjury. Two months in the Second Division. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

Reference Number: t19051113-11

11. FREDERICK GARDNER (32) , Manslaughter of Benjamin William Crow.

MR. MORICE Prosecuted.

JAMES SMITH (Sergeant N.) On October 8th, at 3 p.m., I went to 22, Norfolk Street, Essex Road, Islington, where I saw Crow, who had just died—at 10 p.m. I was at Islington police station, where I saw the prisoner, who had given himself up—he said, "My name is Frederick Gardner. I had a fight with Crow last night. I hear he is dead. I struck the man. I did not mean to kill him; it was a drunken quarrel"—he was charged and when it was read over to him he said, "I will take that charge. I gave myself up; I am sorry he is dead. They wanted to go down him," meaning to rob him—I examined the prisoner and on his right elbow I found a piece of flesh knocked off—his hands were marked and he had a scar on his face—he said the flesh had been kicked off his elbow by one of the men.

GEORGE MADDEN . I am a registered medical practitioner, of New North Road—on October 8th, at 2 a.m., I examined Crow—he was then alive suffering from compression of the brain and fracture to the base of the skull—there was a slight bruise on the side of his nose and one on the back of his head—he died a few hours afterwards—from the result of the postmortem examination the cause of death in my opinion, was due to the compression and the fracture to the base of the skull—it could have been caused by his falling down on the iron tyre of a wheel, or on the ground, or against the kerb.

EDWIN LOUIS BERRY . About 9.15 p.m. on October 7th I was in Green Man's Lane, when I saw a man lying on the brass rail of a public-house and the prisoner strike him on the left side of his jaw—the man reeled and staggered a terrible crash on the back of his head on the pavement—I walked away—I saw nothing before that—I was waiting for my wife—I had not seen what the two men had been doing before.

WILLIAM GARDNER . I am twelve years old and the prisoner is my uncle—on Saturday, October 7th, between 9.15 and 9.30 p.m., I was in Green Man's Lane playing with my friends—my uncle was there with some other men who said to him, "Are you going to treat us?"—he said to one of them, "Yes," and because he would not treat the others they wanted to fight—one of them named Bent struck my uncle and put his foot out so that he should fall over it—my uncle fell over it and then Bent and the others kicked him while he was lying on the ground—that was outside the Green Man public-house—my uncle got up after he had been kicked and the men ran away—my uncle wiped his nose and mouth and we went to look for my father—we went to the George the Fourth and then to the Golden Fleece and then returned to the Green Man—when we got there we went inside and saw Crow, who said, "Are you going to hit me?"—my uncle said, "Yes," and then Crow struck a blow, and as my uncle defended himself he caught Crow a blow on the chest which caused him to stagger and he fell and caught his head against the iron tyre of a barrow wheel—my uncle was not sober—they were all drunk.

JOHN CAIN . I am a labourer, and about 8.45 p.m. on Saturday, October 7th, I found Crow lying on the ground—I hired a barrow and took him home to 22, Norfolk Street.

PHOEBE CROW . I am the deceased's daughter, and about 9 p.m. on October 7th he was brought home on a barrow—he went to bed and the doctor was fetched—he was a bricklayer.

The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that on this night he went into the Often Man, when Crow asked him for a drink, which he gave him; that Bent and two other men asked him for one, but he said, "No," and would only give Crow a drink, because he knew him; that Bent asked him if he could fight and he said he did not wish to; that Crow said to Bent, "Go on and fight"; that he (the prisoner) walked out and they followed him, when Crow pushed Bent on to him; that they knocked him down and sat on him; that he (the prisoner) went away and came back again with his nephew; that they went inside and Crow said, "Are you going to hit me?"; that he (the prisoner) said, "No, I have got a bad hand "; that he came for him; that he (the prisoner) put up his hand to defend himself and that he did not know if he struck him or not.

Evidence for the Defence.

JOHN ELIJAH . I am a sawyer, and on this Saturday night I was going down Green Man Lane when I saw the prisoner have a bit of a bother with three men—I saw him struck and fall, and I walked away—I thought it was a Saturday night occurrence and went about my business—I was not there when Crow was knocked down.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t19051113-12

12. FREDERICK BUTT (37) , Manslaughter of John Brown.

MR. FULTON Prosecuted; MR. CURTIS BENNETT Defended.

HENRY JENKINS . I am the acting superintendent of the Bromley Sick Asylum—on September 27th the deceased was brought there—he was unconscious and had a wound in the middle of the back of his head in the most prominent part—it was not bleeding then, but blood was dried on it—he also had a wound behind the left ear, which was bleeding, and a swelling over the right eye and some small wounds about his face generally—in my opinion he died from the wound behind the ear which caused haemorrhage on the brain—that wound might have caused him to be unconscious, and so might the wound at the back of the head, but it was the wound behind the ear which caused the hemorrhage which caused the pressure upon the brain—he died on October 11th.

Cross-examined. The other marks on his face may have been the result of a fight—the bruise in the middle of the back of the head may have been caused by a fall, and the wound behind his ear may have been caused by a fall on the corner of the kerb.

GEORGE PARIS . I am a foreman at the Clay Hall 'bus yard at Old Ford, belonging to the London General Omnibus Company—on September 21st the prisoner and the deceased were employed there—I saw them when they started work that morning and I see them also about 11, when I heard a bit of a noise round the stable, and I went round and found

a strange woman in the stable with Butt—it was not Mrs. Butt—I proceeded down the stable and found Mrs. Butt and Brown struggling in a stall—I said, "This is no place for that; you had better get out of it"—about 11.30 or 11.45 the prisoner and the deceased came back and said they would not quarrel any more, so I let them resume work—they had not come back together—later on I see them both in the stable doing their work and I heard another row between 5 and 5.30 and I went round and saw the deceased lying on the ground in the stable, and the prisoner standing about a yard or a yard and a half away—as I went down the stable I see a man named Burkett picking him up—I did not see Mrs. Butt there; I had not seen her after the morning—I told both the men to put their coats on and get out of it, as I had had enough of it.

Cross-examined. I have been foreman about five years—the prisoner has been there just over five years—about 11.30 I said to the prisoner, "Are you all right?" and he and the deceased said, "Yes, we are not going to quarrel any more"—I mentioned that at the Police Court and at the Coroner's inquest.

The prisoner stated that he was guilty of manslaughter and the Jury returned a verdict to that effect. He received a good character. Discharged on his own recognisances.

Reference Number: t19051113-13

13. GEORGE SELBY (26) , Feloniously sending to Jane Murphy a letter threatening to kill and murder her, he well knowing the contents thereof.

MR. SANDS Prosecuted.

JANE MURRHY . I live with my father at 17, Love Lane, Shadwell—the prisoner is my first cousin—last March we were keeping company, but we were not engaged to be married; he had asked me to marry him and I had said yes, but the death of my sister had prevented it from being carried out—in August I saw him and told him I would have no more to do with him—since then he has been down several times to my house and has told me that rather than me have anybody else he would sooner do for me—on one occasion he showed me a carving knife, which he took from a drawer in the house and said, "I will kill you"—I know his writing—I received several letters from him, some of which I have destroyed—on November 2nd I received this letter from him: "Dear Janie,—These few lines to you which I must write. I am now going to do my duty and carry my words out the first chance I get. I can see now that you mean to part from me, which I consider you have been persuaded, so therefore you will suffer for others' advice. I am left entirely to the world and have got no friends, so I am sure I do not wish to live any longer myself, and I am not going to make an end of myself unless I serve it on you first, which I have thoroughly, made up my mind to do, and I must do it. I will watch every movement until I get the chance, and the sooner it comes the better, for I am alone, but the Lord will forgive me for my doings. George. If I break in the house I will do it"—on November 8th I received this letter: "Janie, I am going now to do what I said. This is the last letter I shall write, but if I cannot

catch you out I will do it through the kitchen grating, but will take care I shall do myself in as well, but if it is six months more you shall not escape me. I mean it this time; daylight or night I will have you, so you can make sure of it before you shall have another. George"—after that I was very nervous and afraid to go out alone—I applied for a warrant, and the day I had to go to the Police Court I got this letter from the prisoner: "Janie, I hear that your father has been looking for me, but I am looking for you, and the more it goes on like this the worse it will be. I am going to do what I say to you and nobody shall stop it, but there is plenty of time for you and me, so prepare yourself. I shall have you in this way. G."

By the COURT. He does not live near me; he lives at Hackney—I do not think he is in regular employment; he has been out of work for some time—I have not seen him since November 1st—it is two or three months ago that he first wrote me a letter like this—I received two or three letters every week, but not all threatening—some were threatening and some were forgiving—since August he has not followed me and has not done anything to me—the last time he came was after I had received the first letter and I shut the door in his face, and he has done nothing since except write letters.

DAISY TILBURY . I live with my husband at 19, Belgrave Street, Stepney—I know the prisoner and I remember the time when the engagement between Miss Murphy and himself was broken off—he has spoken to me about it; I have often been in his company—he said he thought a lot of her and that before anyone else should have her he would settle her or kill her—he said that twice, once on a Sunday evening, when he said he would kill her to-morrow—he always said that he would kill himself as well.

ALBERT HELSON (Detective Sergeant H.) I arrested the prisoner on November 10th on a warrant, which I read to him—he said, "I did not mean to do it"—I took him to the police station and charged him and he made the same reply—I searched him and found this razor and this knife upon him—the knife is new.

The prisoner's defence. "There was nothing I meant at all. I did not mean to do it; I swear, on my oath, I did not. I did not think anything of it. I did not know I was doing anything wrong. I did not think anything of the letters I had written; if I had thought anything of them I should not have sent them or written them."

GUILTY . Recommended to mercy by the Jury on the ground that they did not think he intended to kill. Six months in the Second Division.

NEW COURT.Tuesday, November 14th, 1905.

Before Mr. Recorder.

Reference Number: t19051113-14

14. FREDERICK BARNETT (60) PLEADED GUILTY to obtaining by false pretences £2 6s. from Lilian Lane, £2 4s. from Frank Nuncy and William Nokes, and 8s. from Henry Haywood; also to attempting to commit suicide, having been convicted of felony at the South Western Police Court on June 28th, 1904. He was stated to be an exceptionally

clever journalist, whose downfall had been due, to a certain extent, to drink. Six months without hard labour on each indictment, to run concurrently.

Reference Number: t19051113-15

(15.) WILLIAM HENRI WHITE (30) to embezzling, while in the public service, a Post Office money order for £5 5s. 2d., the property of His Majesty the King, and applying the same to his own use and benefit. MR. MATHEWS, for the Defence, desired sentence to be postponed till next Sessions, Judgment respited.

Reference Number: t19051113-16

16. JAMES McDONALD (23) and JAMES ALLEN (24) , Robbery, with three other persons unknown, on Thomas George Cooper, and stealing from him a canvas bag and other articles, and £5 5s.

MR. GREENFIELD Prosecuted; MR. JOHNSON Defended Macdonald.

THOMAS GEORGE COOPER . I am a coffee-house keeper, of 101, Salisbury Road, Kilburn—at 11.35 p.m. on October 2nd I was in Harrow Road when I saw a woman knocked down by Macdonald—I stopped him and he said, "All right, guv'nor; it is only my old woman"—I said, "Your old woman or not, it is a very cowardly action"—I went into the Neild Arms, when he followed me in with another man and the woman—he told me that he belonged to the National Sporting Club and asked me to treat him, as he could get me into that club at any time I wished—thinking that he was a genuine man, I treated him with one or two others—he produced to me this paper [Read: From the Secretary of the National Sporting Club, King's Street, to George Symmonds, Paddington, dated September 25th, stating that he was accepted in a heavy weight novice competition which would be boxed on Monday evening, October 2nd, at 8p.m.] and asked me to lend him a shilling on it—I brought out a florin and went to the bar and said, "Give me two shillings for one. I will lend this man a shilling on this paper"—Macdonald said, "Don't trouble about it; let me have the two," and I let him have the florin, and I took possession of the paper—I paid for three pots of beer, and also for some whiskey for two women—I treated them to three packets of Woodbines—the landlord said to me, "I think you had better get away," through a matter of conversation about military business—I do not think he suggested that I had had too much to drink—I did not hear him recommend me not to stand any more drink nor have any more myself—I went out by myself—when I got about eight yards away to the corner of Chippenham Mews Macdonald came in front of me and asked me for some money—I said, "What do you want money off me for?" and I refused to give him any—he was with two other men, one of whom was Allen—Macdonald struck me a deliberate blow on the jaw with his fist, and I was felled to the ground insensible—on recovering my senses I was sitting on the pavement, when Bryant, who serves me with vegetables, came and picked me up—the prisoners had gone away after having searched my pockets—I had 35s. in silver in a canvas bag in my right-hand pocket, a sovereign and two half-sovereigns in the watch pocket of my waistcoat, besides loose cash, which might have been about 3s. or 4s., my briar pipe, and the handle of my shop door which I took out nightly, all of which were missing; also my keys attached to my key chain were wrenched from me—I recognised Allen as I was being felled

to the ground—I had a kick on the head and I remembered nothing more—I cannot say who kicked me—I cannot positively say whether I had the wound on my head from falling on the corner of the pavement; I have an idea that I was kicked—the next morning I gave information to the police, and the following Tuesday week I was taken to the police station, when I saw thirteen men with different hats and caps on—Pollard said to me, "Can you identify the man who assaulted you last Monday?" and I pointed out Macdonald without the slightest hesitation—about a month after that, on November 9th or 10th, I was again taken to the John Street police station, where I was asked to identify the other man from nine other men, and I picked out Allen—I treated him in the public-house on the night I was robbed—he was drinking with me in the public-house a matter of twenty minutes altogether.

Cross-examined by MR. JOHNSON. It was about 7.30 to 7.40 p.m. when I left business that night, and I met these men about 10.55 p.m., as near as I can recollect—I had one drop of whiskey at the Faloon Hotel before I went into the Neild Arms; I had not been in that house before that evening—I had not a hazy idea of the events of that evening—Mac-donald forced his conversation on me in the Neild Arms—it is not likely that I treated him because he knocked a woman down—he asked me to treat her to a drop of whiskey, and I treated her out of kindness—I did not see her again after leaving the public-house—I would know her again if I saw her to-day—another man who assaulted me was fairish; I do not think I could recognise him—I had a very good reason for remembering Macdonald since I had spoken to him—it is rather a dull neighbourhood, but where I was assaulted was just opposite a lamp post.

Cross-examined by Allen. I am quite certain you were in the public-house.

Re-examined. I was absolutely sober at the time.

OMAR HALL . I am the licensee of the Neild Arms, Harrow Road—about 11 p.m. on October 2nd the prosecutor, whom I had never seen before, came into my house—Macdonald then came in with several others; I do not quite remember Allen—I saw them served with pots of ale and whiskey, for which the prosecutor paid—I heard him and Macdonald talking about the Army, and then I heard a further conversation about a two-shilling piece—I took particular notice of them because the prosecutor was a stranger to me, but I knew the others as rough-class characters—the prosecutor appeared to me to be a military man; he was treating all the others—I thought there would be trouble if I did not get rid of them, so I refused to serve—that was not in consequence of their being drunk—they stayed some time asking for further drink, but I remained firm—the prosecutor then went out, followed by Macdonald and the others in rotation; they all seemed to go at once—the prosecutor was not indignant with me for not serving him with further drink; he simply smiled.

Cross-examined by MR. JOHNSON. I cannot say that I saw a woman come in with any of the men; I think there were some women there—there were seven or eight men in the bar of the prisoners' class—since

Macdonald's arrest a woman came to see me—I did not see her there that night—I do not think she was there; I do not remember her; and I should rather say she was not there than that she was—I heard; from one of my customers that night that a woman had been knocked down outside—this was before the prosecutor and the prisoner left—I told the woman who came to see me that I knew nothing further of Macdonald.

ALLEN: "I do not know him and I have never been in his public-house."

GEORGE BRYANT . I am a greengrocer, of 28, Denmark Road, Kilburn,—on the night of October 2nd the prosecutor, whom I had known about three months, met me in Harrow Road—he asked me to have a drink at the Neild Arms and I went in, thinking he would follow me—when I went outside I saw him talking to Macdonald—I heard a disturbance through a woman being knocked down—I told the prosecutor to come in and Macdonald turned round and took him for a detective—Macdonald, with three or four other men, followed me and the prosecutor into the public-house—he then asked the prosecutor if he would treat him, which the prosecutor did—he then asked him to lend him 2s. on a piece of paper about taxing and the prosecutor did so, taking the paper—the landlord after a while declined to serve them with more drink—I was called outside and I left the prosecutor inside—about five or ten minutes afterwards I saw the prosecutor lying at the top of Chippenham Mews, unconscious—when I got up to him I saw three or four men running down the Mews, one of whom I recollect was Macdonald—I cannot identify Allen—they were about 200 yards away when I got up to the prosecutor, and the had their backs to me—I could recognise Macdonald because he was the broadest and stoutest one of the lot; I could not see his face—there were one or two others round him when I saw him lying on the ground.

Cross-examined by MR. JOHNSON. I lodge at the prosecutor's house—I came to know him by serving him with green stuff—I met him on October 2nd at 11 p.m., alone—he was not induced to drink by the prisoner first—he and I had a drink by ourselves first—the prosecutor was in rather a generous mood that night, and he is often in that sort of mood; he is a jovial sort of chap—I noticed a woman in the bar, but I did not know her name—the prosecutor stood her a drink—she did not talk to Macdonald while we were in there—after I was called outside I went back again and heard the landlord refuse to serve him—I should know the woman if I saw her to-day—I did not speak to Macdonald myself.

Re-examined. The prosecutor and I were quite sober that night.

WALTER HAMBROOK (Police-Sergeant. K.) On the night of October 3rd I received information of this robbery, and I had the description of three men given to me—about 9 p.m. on October 9th I was in Elgin Avenue when I saw Macdonald—I told him I should arrest him for being concerned with two other men in assaulting and robbing a gentleman outside the Neild Arms on the night of October 2nd—he said, "I hope you will give me a fair identification. I will call a witness whose company I was in on Monday night"—I conveyed him to Carlton Bridge police station and placed him with thirteen other men of similar stature and dress as himself—he was asked if he was satisfied with his position, and he said he

was—the prosecutor was then called in and at once picked him out without any hesitation—Macdonald then called me aside and said, "You are very fair. I am properly done, but I never had a penny out of it. There were four of us, and two of them cleared out with it all"—he then gave me the names of three men who were concerned with him which he asked me to treat in confidence—in consequence of information received, on November 8th I arrested Allen—at 10.30 p.m. he was placed with nine other men—I told him he was suspected of being concerned with James Macdonald, better known to him as "Fighting Mac," and another man, not known, for highway robbery and violence on a gentleman opposite the Neild Arms on October 2nd—he replied, "I do not know Fighting Mac; I never get up that end"—the prosecutor was then brought in and he picked him out from the nine other men, who were of a similar description to the prisoner, most of them being clean-shaven—immediately he was picked out he said, "I have never seen that man an before. I do not know this man"—I took him to the Carlton Bridge police station, where he was charged to which he replied, "All right; I will kick Fighting Mac's b—out if I get a chance at Brixton prison, for shopping me. If I have to wear the breeches for him, I will do for him."

Cross-examined by MR. JOHNSON. I am usually very careful in taking down statements—when Macdonald said, "I never had a penny out of it," I wrote it down in his presence at the time—I have known him for some years—there ate no convictions of felony against him, only for drunkenness.

Cross-examined by Allen. I wrote down part of your statement in your presence—you were in the charge room when you said it—you did not say you knew nothing about the affair.

Re-examined. The inspector was there when I took it down—he heard him the same as I did, and he saw me taking it down.

Macdonald's statement before the Magistrate: "On the night in question I was in the Neild Arms with prosecutor and this young woman; while there I heard some conversation. I said to the young woman, 'We had better get-out of it.' We walked to the Windsor Castle and from there to Kilburn; next day a chap came up to me and said, 'That man we were with last night had a bit of a row and I hit him and he fell down, and two of the other men cleared away. I believe they robbed him.' He asked what he should do. I said the best thing he could do was to clear away. I saw him again at night time, and he said there was a lot of detectives about here. I said, 'Well, I have nothing to run away for'; with that he said, 'I am going to clear away—me and the others.' I saw him two or three days after and he said, 'I think it has blown over now.' I said, 'You have done a very silly thing, and you ought to have known better.' I told the policeman, when I was locked up, the three men who had done this; the man who struck the prosecutor was brought to the police station and they could not identify him. He said he hit from behind or otherwise. I have done my best to catch the right man. I told this man that if I had known it was going to happen I would have stopped them; he said, 'I am sorry now, as they gave me nothing out of it and I have not seen them since.' "

Macdonald, in his statement on oath, said that on that night he was with Ada Cook, with whom he had been since about 8.30 a.m., and had pushed her for a lark, when she fell down, and the prosecutor interposed; that in the Neild Arms the prosecutor was treating everybody, and on his (the prisoner's) request lent him 2s.; that through being drunk the prosecutor was turned out; that about 11 p.m. he left with Ada Cook, with whom he remained till 1 or 2 in the morning; that he knew nothing of the prosecutor being assaulted and robbed; that he had not said to the sergeant, "You have been very fair. I am properly done, but I never had a penny out of it, nor, "There were four of us, and two of them cleared out with it all"; that when giving the names of three men to the officer he was only stating the names he had been told, amongst whom was Allen, whom he knew by sight, and a man named Packham; and that he had never been convicted of felony before.

Evidence for Macdonald's Defence.

ADA COOK . I am the wife of a costermonger and a friend of Macdonald—I was with him the most of the morning of October 2nd, when we parted for two hours, meeting again at 2 p.m.—I stopped with him till 2 a.m.—between 10 and 11 p.m. I was outside the Neild Arms with him when he pushed me, but he did not mean to knock me down—someone, whom I believe was the prosecutor, passed a few remarks about it—Macdonald and me went into the Neild Arms, when the prosecutor paid for several drinks—Macdonald, me and a friend then went out to the Windsor Castle, where we had another drink between 10 and 11 p.m.—there the friend left us and I was with Macdonald till between 2 and 2.30 a.m.—I did not see anything of any robbery—I gave this evidence at the Police Court.

Cross-examined. I first heard of the robbery on the next night.

Allen, in his defence on oath, said that on the night in question he was not in or near the Neild Arms, nor was he in any way concerned with the robbery; and that he only knew Macdonald by sight.

NOT GUILTY .

THIRD COURT.—Tuesday, November 14th, 1905.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

Reference Number: t19051113-17

17. CAROLINE PRICE (33) , Stealing £36, the monies of John William Price, and WILLIAM PAYNE (33) , knowing Caroline Price to have committed a felony, become accessory after the fact. PRICE PLEADED GUILTY to stealing £75, part of the £86, from her husband. PAYNE

PLEADED NOT GUILTY.

M. SYMMONS Prosecuted; MR. JENKINS Defended Payne. (See next case.)

Reference Number: t19051113-18

18. WILLIAM PAYNE was then indicted with unlawfully receiving £86 well knowing the same to have been feloniously stolen.

MR. JENKINS submitted that the indictment disclosed no offence and ought therefore to be quashed on the ground that it charged the receiving of the money, knowing it to have been stolen, as a misdemeanour, which was bad, as receiving knowingly is now a felony by Sec. 91 of the Larceny Act, 1861, and

the misdemeanour is merged in the felony. (Larceny Act, 24 and 25 Vic. c. 96, Sec. 91; Reg. v. Streater, 2 Q.B., 1900, p. 601, Foster's Crown Law, 1792, pp. 369 and 373 (this book refers to William and Mary, c. 19); Archbold, 550, the Queen v. King, Crown Cases Reserved, p. 266 (1877); Rossoe, 12th edition, p. 485; and Holes' Pleas of the Crown, p. 619. The COMMON SERJEANT held that the indictment was good, because Sec. 91 of the Act of 1861 did not apply to larcenies made so by statute subsequent to that date, and therefore the Common Law misdemeanour remained,

The COMMON SERJEANT, at counsel's request, said he would state a case for the Court of Crown Cases Reserved.

JOHN WILLIAM PRICE . I live at 648, Old Ford Road—I work on my own barge—Caroline Price is my wife, and lived with me at that address—I have known the prisoner, William Payne, since the end of last May—I had quarrelled with my wife, but we had made it up—early in August I missed some money—on August 5th I was at home with my wife—she went out about 6 p.m.—she did not come back—about 6.15 I had reasons to make my books up—I missed £86 in cash, which was in a bag—the bag was gone too—I had seen my money safe about 3 p.m. that day—I next saw my wife in custody—the detective who took my horse out of the green yard handed me £2 14s.—I got none of my money back from my wife or Payne.

Cross-examined. I had had a few words with my wife before she went—she went out pretending to buy something—almost immediately afterwards I went to look if my money was safe—on the Saturday afternoon I should have made my books up—Payne had not known my wife till recently, that I am aware of—I knew she had committed adultery with him, and I forgave her—I think that was in May or June—I had only forgiven her that once; then I took her back—she went off with Payne again—I last saw Payne, I think, the end of June—I warned him when I saw him—I was living happily with my wife in June and August—as far as I know, she had not then seen Payne, because I had not been away—I live on board the barge, and sometimes ashore—I will forgive my wife and take her back again, because I stand at a heavier expense than I did before.

EDWARD RIXON (Detective K.) I found the female prisoner detained at Knight's Hill police station, West Norwood, on September 28th—I found a bag containing £2 14s.—I handed that to Mr. Price—I left the bag in my other coat—it was a chamois leather bag.

JOHN WILLIAM PRICE (Re-examined). Rixon showed me the bag—it was my bag which had contained the money.

RICHARD NORRIS (Sergeant K.) At 2.45 p.m. on September 29th I saw the prisoner in the roadway and about the street at West Norwood—I told him I should take him in charge for being concerned with Caroline Price in stealing and receiving £86 from John William Price—he replied, "The horse and cart that is up in Cutting's field belongs to me; here is the receipt," and he produced these papers (Read) "Bought of J. S. Climpson, horse, van, and harness, £4 10s., paid 25th August," and "Mrs. to D. Hodges, September 14th, secondhand pony cart as

agreed, paid same time, £3 15s."—he said, "Mrs. Price came to me on the Saturday before August Bank Holiday" (the 7th); "I was going on my 'beano'" (that is a holiday, or the short for "bean feast"); "I stayed with her in and around Croydon; I was with her several days before I knew she had the money. We then went to Brighton, and to Kempton Park races and enjoyed ourselves. We then bought the horse and cart, and travelled the country round the hop gardens together, selling cakes and fish. I heard that Price was carrying a revolver to shoot me if he saw me; I could have him for that, but I will settle with him when I get out of this. It was not all his money. I had £11 when I started"—when the charge was read over to him at Bow Street police station he replied, "Quite right, sir"—I found no money on him—the charge was for being concerned with Caroline Price in stealing and receiving £86.

Cross-examined. When he said, "It was not all his money," he knew the woman had been arrested.

FAIRBANK CAMPLIN . I am a bricklayer, of 223, Romany Road, Wes Norwood—I know Payne—I saw him on Friday, August 18th, in High Street, West Norwood, outside the Gipsy Queen public-house—I said, "Hullo, Billy, how are you getting on?"—he said, "All right"—I said, "Have you seen the barge owner?"—I had heard that Price, the barge owner, was looking for his wife—he said, "No, I have been looking for him"—I said, "He is going to have a lark with you"—he said "Mind I don't have a lark with him with his own toot"—he did not call it money, he called it toot.

Payne's statement before the Magistrate: "I have not received a penny of it."

Payne, in his defence on oath, said that Mrs. Price came to him on the Sunday before the August Bank Holiday at the Gipsy Queen public-house and asked him if he was going to "the bean feast"; that he replied, "Yes, but not if you are going," and that he was going to Portsmouth; that he did not go to Portsmouth, but that they went to Kenley Downs, Purley; that he asked her to go home; that she said the money she had got belonged to her and that she had earned it; that she was spending freely among "chaps" and women; that she came to him and said, "I have bought a pony and cart" and gave him the receipts; and that he did not know it was her husband's money, as she said she had worked on his barge and earned it.

PAYNE GUILTY Respited. PRICE— Respited.

Reference Number: t19051113-19

19. CHARLES SMITH (46), HENRY JARDINE (36), and GEORGE ELLIS (32) , Uttering counterfeit coin twice on the same day. ELLIS

PLEADED GUILTY .

MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted; MR. COHEN Defended Jardine.

EMILY CULLEN . I am cashier at Hill & Sons, wholesale confectioners, 91, Cannon Street—on October 23rd Ellis came in and asked for two 1d. scones, which I could not supply—he purchased two 1d. buns—he put a coin on the desk, which I looked at—I thought the milling round it was rather strange, and also the gilt—it was like this one—I asked him if he had

smaller change and be said, "No, I have not," but be paid for the bun with other money—I did not retain the coin—he took it away with him—I afterwards went to the Cloak Lane police station and identified him.

LENA WEINEL . I am employed by Messrs. Hampton, confectioners, of 8, Copthal Avenue—on October 23rd a man, whom I think is Ellis, came into the shop and asked for two packets of cigarettes at 1d.—a police officer came in and made a communication to me—I spoke to Mr. Hampton—about an hour afterwards I looked into the till, and I saw this coin lying on the top—I thought it was half-a-sovereign—I gave it to Mr. Hampton.

ROBERT HAMPTON . I am assistant to my father, a confectioner, at 8, Copthall Avenue—I remember Weinel speaking to me on October 23rd, and handing me this coin—I scratched it, and took it to Moor Lane police station and handed it to the sergeant.

RICHARD DUNSTER . I am a shoemaker, of 44, Knightrider Street, E. C—on October 23rd Ellis came into the shop between 3 and 4 p.m. for a pair of boot laces, price 2d.—he handed me this coin which looked a "gilty" half-sovereign—I declined to change it, handed it back to him, and took back my laces—whilst I was looking at the coin the taller man (Jardine) came in and asked for a box of Nugget polish—I told him I did not stock it—the men went out together.

FLORENCE STUBBINGS . I am a tobacconist, of 4, Godliman Street, E. C.—on October 23rd Ellis came into the shop a few minutes after 3 p.m. and asked for some cigarettes—I showed him a 3d. packet, and then some better ones at 5d.—he chose the 5d. packet and put down what appeared to be half-a-sovereign—I took it up and examined it and declined to change it—I gave it back to him—I took the cigarettes back—he said he would not have any off me—I saw him put the coin back in a little leather purse—while he was in the shop Jardine came in, bought some tobacco, and paid 2d. for it—they went out almost together—I had sounded the coin on the counter—it was very light.

Cross-examined by MR. COHEN. I was not quite sure about Jardine at the Police Court—I think I have seen him before—I said I would not swear to him—we have a lot of humble people of his character coming into the shop.

LILIAN SKEATS . I am assistant at Messrs. Harrington's, Limited, 13, Ludgate Hill, confectioners—on October 23rd Ellis came into the shop in the afternoon and asked for a quarter of a pound of chocolates, price 3d.—he put a coin on the counter—I rang it and took it to be a good half-sovereign—I gave him change and put it in a tin in the till by itself—when I cleared the till I put it away where the manageress, Miss Cook-man, had told me to put money, and where it remained till the following morning—this is the coin, which is marked on both sides.

ALICE ELIZABETH COOKMAN . I am manageress to Messrs. Harrington at 13, Ludgate Hill—on October 24th I opened the till when Detective Lawrence came in and made a communication to me—I found this bad half-sovereign—it was not marked in my presence—it was where the

money was put away when cleared from the till—the place was not locked—I handed it to Lawrence.

WILLIAM LAWRENCE (Detective, City). On the afternoon of October 23rd I was in Cannon Street—I saw the three prisoners together outside Hill's, 91, Cannon Street, looking in the shop window—I watched them—I saw Ellis go into 91, followed shortly afterwards by Jardine—Smith stood partly in the doorway, keeping observation—there is an archway there—the men were about two minutes in the shop—they came out singly, but close behind one another, and joined Smith—I still kept observation—they went up Bridge Row, walking together—Ellis went into a restaurant, shortly afterwards followed by Jardine, Smith keeping observation outside—they came out and joined Smith—I followed them through several streets—they were still keeping together—at Copthall Avenue I called Sergeant Stewart to assist in keeping observation—Ellis went into Hampton's restaurant, followed by Jardine, Smith keeping observation outside—they came out and joined Smith—the three walked away together, Jardine two or three feet behind the other two—I followed them to Watling Street, and to 9, Bow Lane—Smith looked into an Italian restaurant; the others remained outside, one on each side of the window—Smith came and spoke to the other two—then Ellis went into the restaurant, followed by Jardine—they came out and joined Smith shortly afterwards—I followed them to Gow's restaurant—Ellis went in first, Jardine following—they came out and rejoined Smith, then I followed them through various streets to Lawrence Lane—Detective Sutton joined me at the corner of Graham Street—Stewart had then left me—Sutton and I continued to watch—we followed the prisoners to Knightrider Street—I saw Ellis go into Punster's, the bootmaker, No. 44—shortly afterwards Ellis was followed by Jardine, Smith again keeping observation—Sutton was still with me—they came out and rejoined Smith—they looked in shop windows—they went to Mrs. Stubbings' tobacconist's shop at Godliman Street—Ellis went in shortly afterwards followed by Jardine, Smith keeping observation outside—Ellis and Jardine came out and rejoined Smith—Sutton and I followed them to Ludgate Hill—Ellis went into Harrington's, shortly afterwards followed by Jardine, Smith quietly looking in the window outside—in about a minute they came out and joined Smith—I got assistance to arrest them—I told them who we were, Smith at the same time knowing me—I charged them with loitering for the purpose on stealing—after making inquiries I charged them with uttering—they were taken to the police station and searched by a reserve man in my presence—I took a note—on Ellis was found £1 5s. 2 1/2 d., being a half-sovereign, and the remainder in silver—on Jardine I found £1 2s. 9d., mostly in sixpences and shillings; also two buns, one pork pie, three packets of sweets, two oranges and a packet of cigarettes—on Smith I found 3d. in bronze, and a packet of chocolates—in consequence of inquiries I went to Messrs. Harrington's—I saw Lilian Skeats—Miss Cook-man handed me this coin, having been bent—the prisoners were charged with these coin offences—all three said, "We know nothing about it."

JOHN STEWART (Detective, City). I was with Lawrence on October 23rd, watching the prisoners—I saw Ellis enter Hampton's restaurant, followed by Jardine, Smith remaining outside—they came out and rejoined Smith and went towards Greshem Street, where I left Lawrence and another officer, Sutton, to keep observation—the following day I went to Hampton's restaurant, when this coin was handed to me.

WILLIAM GEORGE SUTTON (Detective, City). I took part in keeping observation on the prisoners on October 23rd—I joined Lawrence in Gresham Street when the other officer left—we followed the prisoners through several streets to 44, Knightrider Street—I saw Ellis enter, the shop first, shortly afterwards joined by Jardine, and then they re-joined Smith—I saw Ellis and Jardine come out of Dunster's, the bootmakers, And join Smith—all three went together to Godliman Street—Ellis entered Stubbings', Jardine followed, Smith remaining outside till the others rejoined him—I followed them to Harrington's in Ludgate Hill, when the same thing occurred there—Lawrence and I arrested them with the assistance of a uniform officer.

Cross-examined by MR. COHEN. I said at the Police Court, "Beyond these men being together and going to various shops I saw nothing suspicious, so far as Jardine is concerned."

Re-examined. Up to the arrest I had not made inquiries.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . I am Inspector of Coin at His Majesty's Mint—these sixpences are gilt to resemble half-sovereigns.

Smith's statement before the Magistrate: "I know nothing about this counterfeit coin."

GUILTY . SMITH, against whom were six previous convictions— Two years' hard labour. JARDINE, against whom were four previous convictions— Twenty months' hard labour. ELLIS, against whom were three previous convictions, but who produced letters of reference as to later employment, the police stating that his employers gave him a good character— Twelve months' hard labour.

FOURTH COURT.—Tuesday, November 14th, 1905.

Before Lumley Smith, Esq., K. C.

Reference Number: t19051113-20

20. ALFRED VERNON (28) PLEADED GUILTY to feloniously sending a letter, knowing the contents thereof, to Alice Alp, demanding money with menaces, and without any reasonable or probable cause, having been convicted of felony at the Tower Bridge Police Court on August 18th, 1905, in the name of Henry Vernon. The police gave him a bad character and stated that there were several convictions against him. Twelve months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19051113-21

(21.) JOHN HENRY BUCKLE (51) to feloniously marrying Margaret Johnston, his wife being alive. The police gave him a good character. Four months in the Second Division.— [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

Reference Number: t19051113-22

(22.) JOHN HISKETT (19) to fraudulently converting to his own use and benefit 10s. entrusted to him. He received a good character. Discharged on his own recognisances in £5.— [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

Reference Number: t19051113-23

(23.) HENRY HAILES (32) to stealing and receiving two boxes and twelve blouses belonging to Thwaites, Taylor & Edwards, Limited,

having been convicted of felony at Chelmsford on June 28th, 1898, in the name of James Roberts. One other conviction was proved against him. Six months' hard labour.—And

Reference Number: t19051113-24

(24.) EDWARD COLLINS (21) and ALBERT QUADE (21) to breaking and entering the shop of George Porteous Johnston and stealing a piece of bacon, two pounds of tea and other articles, his property, and a pair of trousers belonging to John Pearson, Collins having been convicted of felony at Newington Sessions on July 20th, 1904, in the name of Patrick McCairn. Four other convictions were proved against him— Three years' penal servitude. QUADE— Nine months' Hard labour.

Reference Number: t19051113-25

25. FREDERICK CHARLES BURGESS (34) , Feloniously marrying Mary Helen McCraith, his wife being alive.

MR. CUNDY Prosecuted.

ROBERT SHARP (Detective-Sergeant N.) I produce two certificates; one purports to be that of a marriage on September 28th, 1895, at the Parish Church, Hackney, of the prisoner to Laura Edmunds, and the other is of a marriage on February 1st, 1902, at the registry office, Hackney, of the prisoner to Mary Helen McCraith—I arrested the prisoner about 10 p.m. on October 28th—I told him I was a police officer and was going to arrest him for bigamy—he said, "Who has put me away; was it Mary?" meaning his second wife—I said I did not know her name, but it was the second wife; she was then at the station making a complaint—he said, "Well, she knows it was through her that I got married; she proposed that we should get married, then go to Paris and from there to Canada"—I took him to the station—he there said, "I did not know my first wife was alive. I had not seen her for six or seven years; I did not know till about fifteen months ago that she was alive; when I had come to my house" (I would not be sure if he said "My house" or "my father-in-law's house")—"afterwards my wife told me that she had been here"—when charged he said, "Very well"—he was drunk.

MARTHA CORNER . I am the wife of George Corner, who is an architect—I live at 17, Maola Road, Clapton, and am the sister of the prisoner's wife, Laura Minnie Edmunds—on September 28th, 1895, I was present at the prisoner's marriage to my sister—they afterwards cohabited together for about five years, off and on—they did not get on well together owing to the prisoner's drunkenness—my sister is alive—they separated and my sister went to live at Leyton—she never underwent an operation—she has had to earn her own living.

MARY HELEN MCCRAITH . I am a single woman living at 4, Woodley Road, Stoke Newington—I first made the prisoner's acquaintance in 1902—mine was a runaway marriage with him—I never inquired if he was married—this certificate is correct—he is there described as a bachelor—after that I informed my father, and the prisoner was received at my father's house—we cohabited together—I have two children—we lived very happily together—I first knew the prisoner was a married man in July, 1904—he told me, but that he thought his wife was dead—I said, "Never mind, perhaps you had better find out"—he said he would—in October,

1904, his wife came to my father's residence—I told the prisoner something at which he was surprised and left the house—he said he thought his first wife had died in hospital—he wanted to give himself up several times but I said, "Don't do it, just let them find you"—we did not live together after that—he had his own apartments and I had mine at different addresses s—my sister and I went to the station as the prisoner would come to see his children and we wanted him sent away—we did not mean to give information and I am really sorry it occurred—I freely forgive him, because he has been very good to me.

The prisoner, in his defence, said that after he left his second wife he left her well provided for.

GUILTY , The police gave him a good character. Four months in the Second Division.

Reference Number: t19051113-26

26. ALBERT GILLOTT (22) and WILLIAM HENRY SIMKINS (18) , Unlawfully attempting to fraudulently obtain from John Harrison Smart twelve pairs of lace curtains by means of false pretences with intent to defraud. Second Count. Conspiring together to defraud those persons.

MR. RAVEN Prosecuted; MR. PUCELL Defended Gillott.

MR. RAVEN, for the Prosecution, stated that he would offer no evidence against Gillott, upon which the Jury returned a verdict of

NOT GUILTY against him.

JOHN HARRISON SMART . I carry on business with a partner as Steeger & Smart at 11, Milk Street, City—on October 18th last I was in my office about 1.30 p.m.—I received a telephonic message—about fifteen minute afterwards Gillott came and said, "I have come for the curtains that were telephoned for"—we got them ready—they were valued at about £10 16s.—he had no written order with him—he said a Mr. Steele had sent him—we did not let the goods go—the prisoner Simkins had been in our service for about four weeks—he left about the end of August—he would have been able to learn all about telephone orders while with us—I went with Gillott to the top of Milk Street to see the other party that he expected to meet—not seeing him I took Gillott back and gave him two dummy parcels for him to take up to Milk Street in case his man turned up—I spoke to a constable while I was out—I telephoned to the customer from whom the message was supposed to come, Tarn & Company, of Newington Causeway—Tarn's buyer is here.

Cross-examined by Simkins. Our rule is to have a written order for goods unless we know the man personally who comes for the goods—if a man brought an order you might bring it in to me.

By the COURT. The prisoner would know that it was no use trying to get any goods without an order in a case where the buyer sends in specially for them.

ALBERT GILLOTT . I was charged with assisting to commit this offence—I do not know the prisoner—I first met him on the day of this case in the Southwark Library—he came up to me and said, "Will you do a job for me?"—I said, "Yes, what is the job?"—he said, "I am

a porter at Tarn's and my governors have telephoned over to Milk Street for a parcel, but I do not want to go up for the parcel, as I have been discharged from there for horse-racing"—he added, "If they ask who telephoned, say Mr. Steele"—he said he would wait at the top of Milk Street—we both went to the top of Milk Street—I went on to Mr. Smart and said I had come from Tarn's for a parcel—I did not get the parcel—I went out with Mr. Smart to the top of Milk Street—we waited there for some time and then I went back to Smart's—I had a parcel given to me and went out again and stood about for some time, when I was arrested—Simkins did not come—that is all I know about it.

Cross-examined. In the statement I made to the detective I said you were wearing brown boots, but I might have made a mistake in the description—I did not make a statement to the effect that I had left you at the top of Milk Street at 2 o'clock.

Re-examined. I went to the station and picked the prisoner out as the man who had spoken to me in the library.

ALFRED ANDERSON (Detective, City). On October 18th, about 2.45, I went to Cheapside by Milk Street—I there saw Gillott standing with two parcels—I spoke to Mr. Smart—I then went to Gillott—after asking him some questions I arrested him and took him to the station, where he was charged—he gave a description of the prisoner—he was kept a prisoner—I and Detective Brown went to Henshaw Street, Walworth, about 11 p.m. the same night and saw the prisoner—I told him we were police officers and had a man named Gillott in custody for attempting to obtain some goods from Steeger & Smart, 11, Milk Street, where he, Simkins, had been employed as a porter—I said, "Have you sent any telephone message to that firm to-day?"—he said, "No, I have been in the City; I have been down to the King Lud and up Cannon Street, but I have not been in Cheapside; I entered the firm about a fortnight ago for two days' wages which they owed me, but they did not pay me"—I told him that the man's name was Gillott whom we had in custody and that he lived in Weston Street, Bermondsey—he said, "I don't know him"—I said, "You answer the description of the man he mentioned and you will b taken to the Cloak Lane police station and placed with a number of men"—he answered the description with the exception of brown boots—he had on black ones—I said he would be taken to the police station for identification—he said, "All right, I am willing"—when through that identification I told him he would be charged with being concerned with Gillott in attempting to obtain these goods, he immediately said, "I want to make a statement"—I took the statement down in writing and read it over to him—he said, "That is all right" and signed it—he was then charged (Statement read): "I am a porter out of employment. Last Friday morning, between 10 and 11 a.m., I met the man Gillott in Black-friars Road. We were both looking down the "Chronicle" column. He said, 'Been out long?' I replied, 'Six or eight weeks.' He said, 'Where were you working last?' I told him Steeger & Smart, Milk Street, City, and told him they were curtain manufacturers. We came out and walked over Blackfriars Bridge, where I left him at the corner of Ludgate Hill

I have not seen him since until he identified me in the line with eight other men. To-night I met a person, a young lady, outside the King Lud public-house at 12.15 p.m. I stopped talking about ten minutes. I walked up Ludgate Hill, Cannon Street, down Queen Street to Chitty's Dining Rooms, Upper Thames Street, and got there about 12.40 p.m. I had dinner and left there about 1.20 p.m. I then walked to London Bridge, over the Bridge, down the Borough to the Elephant, along the Walworth Road to a coffee house at the top of York Street and got there about 1.50 p.m. and remained there until 4.30 p.m. (Signed) William Henry Simkins."

Cross-examined. You had got no brown boots—Gillott never mentioned any time at all—the telephone girl failed to identify anyone—I know that Mr. Smart never sacked you for horse-racing.

ROBERT MOODY (Inspector, City). The prisoner was brought to Cloak Lane station and charged—Gillott was brought from the cells and at once identified him as the man who had sent him to Smart & Steeger, without any hesitation whatever—his remark was, "Yes, he knows me; I met him last Friday in the Southwark Public Library."

Cross-examined. I did not say at the Mansion House, "Blackfriars Library"—I said you went for a walk with him over Blackfriars.

WILLIAM EVANS . I am from Tarn's—we have got a special telephone of our own—if anyone wanted to telephone to anybody in Milk Street they would speak from our own place—we did not send any message to Milk Street on the day in question—all our assistants and buyers would have access to our telephone, but they could not go there without being seen—there is practically no check on what they do—the telephone is in a box and nobody would hear what they said unless they were close up.

The Jury here said they did not wish to hear any more evidence, and returned a verdict of

NOT GUILTY .

(The Courts did not sit on Wednesday, November 15th.)

OLD COURT.—Thursday, November 16th, 1905.

Before Mr. Justice Walton.

Reference Number: t19051113-27

27. LENA SMALE (23) PLEADED GUILTY to having unlawfully, by the secret disposition of the dead body of her female child, endeavoured to conceal its birth. She received a good character. Six month' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19051113-28

28. LYDIA GREEN (20) , Manslaughter of her female child.

MR. ARTHUR GILL and M. HUMPHREY WARD Prosecuted; MR. ELLIOTT Defended.

FLORENCE GERTRUDE EAL . I am the wife of Edwin Earl, of West-field, Compton Road, Winchmore Hill—the prisoner, Lydia Green, has been in our service four years and eight months—I had not noticed that she was pregnant before September 19th last—she had not said a

word to me about her condition—on that morning, about 8.15, she complained of pains, which she attributed to diarrhoea—I gave her some chlorodyne, and she was able to continue her work during that day, but her pains continued—I gave her medicine three times—she prepared the evening meal about 8 p.m.—after that I told her to go to bed, and said that I would wash up—about 8.45 she went to her bedroom, a room to herself—her pains were worse—all the bedrooms are on the same floor—we went to bed about 10 p.m.—she said the diarrhoea was better, but the pains were bad—I went to her door, and looked in before retiring—her door remained open—she was in bed and groaning—she had left her bedroom door open all the time—the room was near ours—she told me a certain thing had arrived, and I told her she would be better in the morning—she was in bed when I first went in—I mean by "a certain thing" that her periods had come on—I said, "Good-night" to her—I told her she might keep the light all night if she turned it down—I went the last thing to see if she wanted anything, and looked at her from the door—the interval between my first and second visits was about ten minutes—on my second visit she was on a chamber—I noticed a good deal of blood on the hearth rug—I did not see that rug again; I told the woman who cleaned the room that she might have it—when I saw the prisoner on the chamber I told her she ought not to stay there—she said she would get into bed—I went on to the landing, and decided to send for a doctor—there is an ante-room between our room and hers—when I was on the landing I heard a gurgling sound which I thought was my youngest son gargling his throat in the bath room—I listened—I heard the noise twice—I stayed on the landing till the doctor came—I only looked into the room on two occasions—I had not noticed any preparations made for a confinement.

Cross-examined. During the four years and eight months she had been with us, with the exception of this unfortunate matter, she has given us satisfaction—so far as we knew, we thought her a well-conducted girl—she made no attempt to shut the bedroom door; it was open the whole time—she knew we were near, because I spoke to her—from the time I first went in, to the doctor coming was about twenty minutes—after I saw her on the chamber, as goon as I left the room, I sent for the doctor—he came in two or three minutes at the outside—she appeared to be in great pain—I do not think she made any attempt to get into bed, as I had told her to do on my first visit—she was groaning when she was on the chamber, and showing every sign of being in agony.

Re-examined. The doctor came in about ten minutes after being sent for.

EDWIN EARL . I am an umbrella and parasol manufacturer, of West-field, Compton Road, Winchmore Hill—on September 10th I was in bed all the day till after tea time, with a bad cold—my wife told me the prisoner complained of diarrhoea—I got up about 5.30 p.m., and stayed up till after 9—I was in the morning room when she laid the supper—I did not take particular notice of her—a little after 9 I went to bed—a little after 10 my wife left the room to go and see how the girl was—I

heard a gurgling noise, which I thought came from the bath room, and that one of my sons was gargling his throat—I got out of bed to tell him that if he was not better in the morning he had better stay at home till he was better—I then found he was not in the bath room—I looked into his room and saw him there—when I came away I again heard the gurgling noise, which appeared to come from the ante-room, which leads to the, girl's bedroom—after speaking to my wife I sent my son for a doctor—I heard this peculiar noise once or twice afterwards, a kind of choking sound.

Cross-examined. The doctor arrived about 10.45 p.m.—I think he was sent for about 10.30—the girl was an orphan, and she has been with us about four and a half years—apart from this unfortunate matter she has been a good, well-behaved girl.

RICHARD THOMAS VIVIAN , L. R. C. P., M. R. C. S. I practice at Roseville, Winchmore Hill—on September 19th I was called to Westfield by Mrs. Earl—I arrived there about 10.45 p.m., about five minutes after I was sent for—I was shown up to a bedroom on the first floor—there was no light—the door was open—I lit the gas—I saw this girl kneeling on the side of the bed—the bed-clothes and her bed-gown were saturated with blood; there was a considerable amount of blood on the hearth rug, and the chamber was half full of blood—I heard the feeble cry of a child—I said to the girl, "You have had a child; where is it?"—she would not reply—the mistress from the ante-room said, "Why don't you answer the doctor, Lydia?"—after looking about she said, "It is under the bed," where I found it—the child was absolutely without covering—I took it up, and found it was a fully-developed female child—it was very cold—the cord had been torn across, and not severed by the scissors, and there was about a foot of it still attached to the child's body—there was a nasty gaping wound on the face, and on putting my finger inside the mouth I found that the jaw bone had been cut through, and there were several other wounds on the body of the child—I wrapped it up, after getting some wrappings, for there was nothing in the room, and I had to look about and get things to wrap the child up in, when I made it as comfortable as I could—I then attended to the mother—I removed the after-birth—when I found the child was in the condition in which it was I said to the girl, "You wicked woman, you have been cutting this child about; what have you done it with?"—she said, "With the scissors"—looking about I found a pair on blood-stained scissors on the floor of the room—the child was still alive; crying, just breathing, that was all—it lived about two hours—the gurgling noise probably came from the child's mouth, through the blood in its efforts to breath, as a gurgling noise would be the result of any fluid down the throat—after removing the after-birth I sent out for female assistance—I made a post-mortem examination, the details of which I can now give: I found that the child was a fully-developed female infant, measuring twenty-one inches long, and weighing five and a half pounds; there was an incised wound, extending from the right corner of the mouth for two inches, and completely severing the cheek and facial artery, and the lower jaw bone near its angle, also slightly wounding the side of the tongue, and

some of the adjacent soft tissues—considerable force must have been used with this pair of scissors, which are not very sharp; there was a superficial wound on the neck just above the centre of, and parallel to, the right collar bone, three-eighths of an inch long; a superficial crucial incised wound in the front part of the right arm pit, half an inch each way; five scratches on the left side of the face and neck; one superficial incised wound, three-quarters of an inch long, running transversely midway between the left ear and collar bone; a punctured wound three-eighths of an inch long, just below the wound between the left ear and the collar bone, extending into the throat, immediately behind, but not wounding the great vessels of the neck; a split wound of the anus, probably caused by the forcible passage of some instrument—all those wounds could have been caused by these scissors—the punctured wound in the throat might have been caused by the scissors being inserted, and then opened—I should say there was nothing abnormal about the confinement, which was quite natural—there was no exceptional laceration—the girl's demeanour was very morose, and it was difficult to get anything out of her—she spoke quite sensibly—I gave her tea—after I had attended her I left her in charge of Mrs. Barrell—that was about 2 o'clock—early the next morning I found her in such a good condition that I could recommend he removal to the workhouse infirmary, where she was removed.

Cross-examined. This was a first delivery, which is usually attended with greater pain than subsequent cases—I think probably five of the wounds had been caused by the scissors being drawn together, as though one was cutting something—in child-birth sometimes women by reason of the agony they undergo are deprived of self-control—that pain very rapidly diminishes after the birth.

Re-examined. By being deprived of self-control I mean that there is such a condition from necessary pain that for the time being there may be a loss of self-control—the mind would be affected temporarily—the patient would be quite conscious—as to knowing what she was doing, that is a very difficult thing to give an opinion about: whether there is an absolute knowledge at the time; I think there might be a condition of frenzy, which would be very short—possibly a woman might struggle in a mad sort of way with scissors, without knowing what she was doing—it is difficult to measure between what is knowledge and what is not knowledge.

ELIZABETH BARRELL . I am the wife of Noah Barrell, a coachman, living at Eastnor Cottage, Winchmore Hill—on September 19th I was sent for to Westfield House and arrived at about 11.30 p.m.—I saw the prisoner in bed in a room—Dr. Vivian was there—I saw the child on the foot of the bed, alive—I attended to the prisoner—I was there all night—the child lived till about 2 a.m., and then it died—I noticed some blood on the hearth rug, and on the bed, and between the bed and the fire place—I cleaned the room—these are the scissors, which I saw on the mantelpiece in the bedroom—a quantity of blood was on them, and pieces of flesh—I washed them, and gave them back to Dr. Vivian—I continued to look after the prisoner till 6 a.m., when I was allowed off for an hour and a half, and I came back and stopped till she went away the next day—I only asked

the prisoner one question: where the child was born—she replied, "On the floor"—I looked to see if any preparations had been made, and there were none.

ARTHUR NEIL (Detective-Inspector). I am stationed at Kentish Town—on September 20th, about 12 noon, I went to Westfield House—in the ante-room on the first floor I saw the body of a newly-born female child—I went into a bedroom and saw the prisoner in bed—I examined the room—I saw blood on the wall and on the gas jet—I examined a chest of drawers, and a wardrobe, but I found no preparations for the birth of a child—I assisted in the removal of the prisoner to the Edmonton Infirmary, where she remained till October 23rd, when I brought her up to the Edmonton Petty Sessions—I told her that I was a police-inspector, and said to her, "I shall arrest you on the charge of the wilful murder of your newly-born female child at Westfield, Compton Road, on the night of September 19th—after cautioning her she said, "Yes, I understand; I am very sorry"—on the way she said, "The scissors were mine; I remember picking them up, but I was in such pain and agony that I do not remember what I did"—when the charge was read over to her she made no reply.

Evidence for the Defence.

WILLIAM BARNETT BENJAFIELD , M. B. C. M., M. R. C. S. I live at Bletchenden and am the Medical Officer of the Edmonton Infirmary—Lydia Green was admitted into our infirmary on September 20th, and remained under my care until she was discharged on October 23rd—with regard to her physical condition, she was fairly well, considering she had undergone a recent confinement—with regard to her mental condition, I regarded her of very low intelligence; in fact, her demeanour the whole time she was in the infirmary was quite inconsistent with knowledge of her position; she took no notice of those about her, she never spoke unless she was spoken to, and her general condition convinced us that she did not realise the terrible condition in which she had placed herself—in conversation she told me that she was in such agony that she did not know what she was doing; that what she did with the scissors was whilst the child was being delivered; that she took the scissors, and tried to deliver herself; but until some gentleman from Messrs. Wontners came down she never realized her position in the least—she appeared to me, and to my assistant, that she had such a low form of intelligence that she was not in a right mental condition—scissors are the proper instrument to sever the umbilical cord if they are used in a proper manner, and, if properly done, are what is generally used for the purpose—something like 3,000 cases of parturition have passed through my hands—it is not a common thing for women in child-birth to lose self-control, but it is not unknown—first cases are usually more severe, and more prolonged—women do lose self-control, but it is usually practically for a few minutes that they lose self-control, or become demented, not knowing what they do—in that case they would be irresponsible, and may do acts which they otherwise would not do; in fact, that is the reason why in many cases chloroform is administered, so as to enable the patient to endure anything, or to become unconscious of it.

Cross-examined. She told me that while the child was half out of her she endeavoured to deliver herself from it with the scissors, to lever the child out of her, as I understood, and to deliver herself, although she did not use the term "lever"—I did not see the wounds on the child, and it is difficult to say whether they are consistent with that—the question depends upon how long she was in labour—some of the wounds have been described as cutting, and some were punctured, and I do not express any opinion on that, or from her description—she told me she might have picked up the scissors and tried to free herself—the patient might or might not remember, because directly the child is delivered the pain ceases practically, though while in labour she may be absolutely uncontrollable—I should consider it rather a case of temporary loss of control than of temporary insanity—I do not know that I should say that she became insane, but her demeanour was absolutely inconsistent with premeditated intentional injury to the child; she went so far as to say that she did not know that she was pregnant—she never told the supposed father of the child that she was pregnant, which is not consistent with the ordinary run of girls—I have seen scores of such cases, and all of them are too ready to go and tell the reputed father of their trouble, but she seemed to know nothing about it—all that indicates that her intelligence was of a low order, and that she was a stupid, silly girl, I take it.

Re-examined. I do not think in her suffering she was able to decide whether her action was proper or not—I think in a very severe case the patient becomes quite irresponsible.

GEORGE BATHER GRIFFITHS . I am Medical Officer in charge of H. M. Prison, Holloway, which is used for the detention of females—the prisoner from the time of her admission on October 23rd has been entirely under my supervision and care—I have had experience of a large number of cases of this kind, where the general bodily health has suffered—I frequently conversed with the prisoner—I think she is a person of low intelligence—when she first came she was a little bit depressed, but I could not certify her as insane—I have seen many cases of child-birth—I have known instances where women at the time of the birth of their child, by reason of their great agony have lost for the time self-control—I have heard the evidence in this case—in my judgment it is consistent with this young woman having been for a short period quite deprived of self-control, owing to the agony which she endured, and during the actual period of the frenzy owing to the pain—I do not regard a person under those conditions as being responsible for her actions—I consider such a person as being deprived of the power to appreciate the nature and quality of any act she may commit—it is possible that the injuries inflicted by the scissors upon this baby might have been inflicted by this unfortunate young woman without her really appreciating what she was doing—scissors are the proper instrument to use to sever the umbilical cord—during the period the frenzy lasts a person may suffer from a form of transient insanity, consistent with the person being of normal mind—that is quite a recognised condition, and it may be of sufficient degree to prevent the subject being able to appreciate the nature and quality of the act committed.

Cross-examined. The evidence of Mrs. Earl as to the demeanour of the girl being reasonable and sensible does not affect my judgment, because the frenzy would last such a short time; as soon as the delivery it over the patient becomes better—she would remember where the child was, for the reason I have explained, and if she came to herself immediate after delivery she might have seen the child—she might remember that she used the scissors for the purpose of delivering herself—she was a person extremely likely to suffer from that state of mind which would render her irresponsible for the time—the act looks like an insane act—that is my opinion after mature deliberation.

Re-examined. Supposing she had the scissors before she was seized with mania for the purpose of severing the umbilical cord, and then the paroxysm came on, she might take up the scissors, and inflict the injuries shown in this case upon the child—that would be intelligible.

The Jury returned the following verdict; " We find that the injuries we inflicted by the prisoner at a time when, owing to physical agony, she was not responsible for her actions. We recommend the prisoner to mercy, and think that had Mrs. Earl taken a greater interest in her, the crime would not probably have been committed." To be kept in custody until such time as His Majesty's pleasure be known.

FOURTH COURT.—Thursday, November 16th, 1905.

Before Lumley Smith, Esq., K. C.

Reference Number: t19051113-29

29. JOHN WEST, otherwise JOHN KELLY (20) , Unlawfully uttering a counterfeit florin, knowing it to be counterfeit.

MR. WILKINSON Prosecuted; MR. METHVEN Defended.

GLADYS NORTON . I am the daughter of Alfred Norton, who keeps the King Henry Eighth in High Street, Lambeth—on October 10th last, about 4 p.m., I was in our bar when the prisoner came in with a young woman and called for glasses of shandy, price 2d.—he gave me in payment a bad 2s. piece—he put it on the counter—I did not see where he took it from—I put it in the tester, when the coin broke—my father was then in the parlour at the back of the bar—I told the prisoner the coin was bad and he said he never noticed it—he gave me a good 2s. piece and I gave him 1s. 6d. and 4d.—I showed my father the bad coin—a constable was sent for and the prisoner given into custody.

Cross-examined. The bad coin was put on the counter; I had no difficulty in seeing it—it might have been picked up off the floor; I cannot tell—when I told the prisoner the coin was bad he went quite white and was all of a shake—while waiting for the constable he had another drink—that did not make him less white—the policeman came from near the church—my father stood near the door in case the prisoner wanted to go out—I have mentioned this now for the first time.

Re-examined. This is the bad coin that the prisoner tendered—it was not so bright as it is—it was discoloured.

ALFRED NORTON . I am the landlord of the King Henry Eighth in High Street, Lambeth—on October 10th my daughter brought me a coin

—this is it, to the best of my belief, from the way I bent it—I went out into the bar and sent for a policeman—I said to the constable, "This man has passed a bad 2s. piece. I think the best thing you can do is to take him to Kennington Lane and see if there is anything else about him"—the constable searched him in the bar, but found nothing—he was taken on the station, where the inspector asked him his name and address several times—he would not say anything, as he did not want his parents to know—the inspector asked him, "Where did you get this coin from?"—he said, "I changed a half-sovereign last night"—he was asked, "Where?"—he replied, "I do not know; I was drunk"—he was asked, "Where did you sleep?"—he replied, "Nowhere"—he was asked, "Where did you go last night?"—he replied, "On the Embankment and round to the coffee stall"—he was charged—he said he changed a half-sovereign last night and he had a suspicion about it, but thought as he had had it given to him it was only right he should pass it on to somebody else—this is the second bad coin I have received.

Cross-examined. I charged the person who passed the bad coin before—I shall not do so again; somebody else can have the trouble—I did not hear the prisoner say, "Now I come to think of it," at the beginning of his remarks.

WILLIAM HUGGETT (419 L.) On October 10th, about 4 p.m., I was called to the King Henry Eighth and found the prisoner there detained—the last witness charged him with uttering a counterfeit 2s. piece—he said, "I must have got that last night when I changed half-a-sovereign. I was a bit boozed. I had my suspicions about that coin last night, because it looked so funny"—I searched him at the public-house and found on him 1s. 6d. silver and 2 1/2 d. bronze—I took him to the station—on the way he said he had his suspicion about the coin—he was charged and said nothing in reply—while I was trying to find out what he had been doing he said, "I had it given to me and I thought I had a right to get rid of it"—he gave the name of John West—he said, "I refuse to give any account of myself"—next day at the Westminster Police Court he said his name was John Kelly—he gave no address.

Cross-examined. It took me about three minutes to get to the public-house from where I was stationed—I did not make a note of the conversation on the way to the station till afterwards, when the charge was being taken.

ALFRED LONG (Sergeant L.) I was in the waiting room at the Police Court on October 11th—I asked the prisoner if he felt inclined to give any further information about himself, and said, "Whatever you tell me I shall make full inquiry"—after some hesitation he said his right name was John Kelly and that his father and mother lived at 27, Praed Street, Westminster—he also said that he was living at 23, Stangate Street, with a woman named Emily Dale, and that he had not done any work for the last two or three years—the same day, about 8 p.m., I went to 23, Stangate Street—a room was pointed out to me by the landlord—in a cupboard I found this bag containing about 4 or 5 lbs. of plaster of Paris, also a file which has apparently recently been used for filing metal,

also eleven keys, five of them skeleton keys—on the following Monday I Again saw the prisoner at the Police Court—I mentioned to him what I had found—he said, "The plaster of Paris was bought to clean the hearth with and the file was in the furniture"—23, Stangate Street, is about ten minutes' walk from the public-house.

Cross-examined. I have not come here to give the prisoner a good character—I know nothing against him—I am not suggesting that these keys were for burglarious purposes—I say they are skeleton keys which an innocent man would not have in his possession—a man might use such things in his business as a workman—I am not aware that he has ever been charged with any offence before—I said to him at the station that if he felt inclined to make a statement I would make inquiries—I did not tell him it would be taken down in writing and used against him—I thought I was in order in doing what I did—I have examined this file and can see traces of metal on it—it is not unusual to have a file for filing metal—I had no difficulty in finding the plaster of Paris.

AUGUSTA ADAMS . I live at 23, Stangate Street, Lambeth, and let rooms there—the prisoner and his wife took a room of me on August 15th for 5s. 6d. a week—they have occupied it down to the present time—on October 11th the police came and I pointed out the room to them.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . I am Inspector of Coin at His Majesty's Mint—this coin is counterfeit—there are upon this file more marks of plaster than metal.

By the COURT. I have never seen a coiner at work.

The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I did not change any counterfeit florin; I got no change for it. I did not know it was a bad one. I said I had a suspicion of it."

The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that his name was John Kelly; that he got the coin in change the night before, but did not know where; that "he had nothing to do with the making of it; that he gave a wrong name as his father had a good position and he did not want it in the papers; and that the plaster of Paris found was used for cleaning the hearth with.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t19051113-30

30. ERNEST ELLIS (56) , Unlawfully uttering a counterfeit florin, and on the same day another counterfeit florin.

MR. PARTRIDGE Prosecuted.

ELVINA SHERE . I am employed at the Builder's Arms, Grundy Street, E.—on October 31st, about 4.45 p.m., I was in the bar when the prisoner came in and called for two-pennyworth of rum cold—he tendered in payment a 2s. piece—I did not like the look of it, but said nothing and gave him his change—I put the coin on one side to show my master—about ten minutes afterwards he came in and called for another two-pennyworth of rum—before I served him he laid down another 2s. piece—I picked it up and compared it with the other one and said to him, "You are passing bad money"—he said, "You're a liar"—I said, "I shall detain you and we will see who is telling the truth"—before that I had said

to him, "Here is your glass, I will serve you in that"—I had not removed his glass that he had used before—he did not answer—I gave him the rum in the same glass—I examined the coins and found them very smooth and I looked at my thumb and saw it was black—a policeman was sent for—I have seen the prisoner before as a customer.

THOMAS STRICKLAND . I am a baker, living in the neighbourhood of the Builder's Arms—on October 31st I was in the house and saw the prisoner there twice—I saw him served twice—I saw him give the barmaid a 2s. piece each time.

Cross-examined by the prisoner. I was watching all the time—I saw a constable come in—he searched you—I did not see the constable take down a statement from you.

Re-examined. All the constable found was 2d. on the floor, nothing on the man.

By the COURT. Ten minutes elapsed between the prisoner's drinks.

ALBERT SAWYER (680 K.) On October 31st I was called to the public-house—the prosecutor accused the prisoner of uttering two coins—he said, "He came in about 4.45 and called for two-pennyworth of rum cold; she served him and he gave a 2s. piece for the first two-pennyworth of rum; she gave him change; he then left the house and came back about ten minutes after; he then offered another 2s. piece and the barmaid told him she thought they were bad; the prisoner in reply said, "It's a lie; I have not been out of the house. I have not got a farthing on me"—I asked him where he got the coins from—he said, "I got them from Jack Wild, 14, Bedford Street, Canning Town. I worked for him last week; he paid me two 2s. pieces, half-a-crown, a shilling and a sixpence"—I searched the prisoner and found on him 9d. in his right-hand vest pocket—there was no money on the floor—Sergeant Lee made the inquiries about Bedford Street.

Cross-examined. I did not take the statement down in the public-house—I wrote it in my notebook when I got to the station—I did not come to the cell and ask you questions—you were not drunk—I should say you were sober.

GEORGE WILD . I am a stevedore and work with my brother, Jack Wild—I know the prisoner—twelve months ago he worked for me and between seven and eight months since he worked for my brother.

By the COURT. He was a pretty good worker and we had no fault to find with him.

The prisoner. "I never said I worked for this man."

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . I am Inspector of Coin at His Majesty's Mint—both these coins are bad—they are of the same mould.

---- LEE (Police Sergeant). I went to Canning Town to make inquiries—I did not find a Jack Wild—I found Mr. George Wild at 66, Vernon Street—there is no Bedford Street in Canning Town.

GEORGE WILD (Re-examined by the COURT). I know the jobs that go on in the Thames—I know my brother's jobs as well as my own—there is no other Jack Wild there.

The prisoner, in his defence, admitted passing the coins, but said that he did not know they were bad; that he had used the public-house for the last twenty-five years; that he had been a householder for twenty-five years; that he had been working in Poplar and Limehouse for thirty years; and had been thirty-three years a member of a Trades Union.

GUILTY . Three convictions were proved against him. The police stated that he had been in employment as a casual hand and that there was no complaint against him except drunken habits. He received a good character as a hard-working man. Three months' hard labour.

OLD COURT.—Friday, November 17th, 1905.

Before Mr. Justice Walton.

Reference Number: t19051113-31

31. COLEMAN WEINGOTT (41) PLEADED GUILTY to conspiring with GEORGE ARTHUR GIBBARD, GEORGE GARBETT, FREDERICK PILCHER and others unknown to steal a large quantity of cigars; also to stealing on September 7th 750 cigars, on September 11th 16 cigar boxes and 800 cigars; to stealing on September 8th 1,000 cigars; to stealing on August 9th 1,000 cigars, on August 19th 1,000 cigars, and on September 1st 1,700 cigars, those offences being within six months; to stealing on July 12th 296 cigars; on July 25th 365 cigars and on August 2nd 500 cigars, the property of Hatch, Mansfield & Co., Limited. (See next case.)

Reference Number: t19051113-32

32. COLEMAN WEINGOTT (41) and GEORGE ARTHUR GIBBARD (25) , Stealing on August 9th 1,000 cigars; on August 19th another 1,000 cigars, and on September 1st 1,700, the goods of Hatch, Mansfield & Co., Limited, the employers of Weingott.

MR. TRAVERS HUMPHEY and MR. WING Prosecuted; MR. THOMPSON

Defended Gibbard.

FRANK LAMB . I am assistant to J. F. Bravington, pawnbroker, 27 and 29, Wardour Street—I have seen Gibbard before August 9th, when he pawned 1,000 cigars for £10—this is my memorandum, which I made out before I went to the Police Court—they were redeemed later—this is the contract note (G. A. Gibbard for C. Weingott)—on August 19th Gibbard again pledged 1,000 cigars for £7 in the name of Gibbard for Weingott—these were redeemed on September 25th.

Cross-examined. On August 9th and 19th Gibbard brought a letter in an envelope from Weingott (Asking for the advance on the cigars)—he handed me the note and the parcel, and said he came from Weingott—I did not know Weingott—I had received goods from him previously—I knew he was connected with the tobacco trade.

Re-examined. I do not think I should have advanced to Gibbard without a note, because his appearance would not justify it—he did not look as though he dealt in cigars—the notepaper has the address and the words, "Cigar dealer" on it.

WILLIAM GROSVENOR . I am assistant to Mr. Brooks, pawnbroker, of Wardour Street—on September 1st Gibbard came and said he had come from Mr. Weingott to pledge some cigars—I asked him what authority

he had—he said he had no authority, and that Mr. Weingott had sent him—he left 1,700 cigars in 33 boxes—he showed me this authority from Weingott—I said I would rather see Mr. Weingott, the principal in the matter—the next morning Weingott came with him—I did not know him before then—I think I saw Weingott three times altogether—some receipts were brought, which I looked at—I advanced £18 on the cigars—this is the contract note, which is signed "G. A. Gibbard for C. Weingott"—I think Weingott could not have been present then—the address is "2, Victoria Villas, Fortis Green"—those 1,700 cigars in 33 boxes were redeemed on September 15th—I have marked it at the back of the agreement.

Cross-examined. Gibbard handed me a note which was enclosed in an envelope—I opened it and told him I should require some invoices—I did not advance the money to Gibbard.

JAMES OFFREDI . I am a waiter and live at 126, Wardour Street—I know Hughes and Townsend—in September Townsend handed me five pawnbrokers' contract notes to dispose of, in consequence of which I sent them by post to Mr. Elman—each of these notes are for 1,000 cigars—two similar notes for 1,000 cigars each were Bravington's or Brooks'—Townsend paid me—I handed the money to Townsend, and deducted money for my trouble.

SAMUEL ELMAN . I am a jeweller—I live at Kenilworth House, Milton Street, W. C.—in September, or some time after, I got a letter from a man I know as Hughes through the last witness, Offredi, which contained five pawnbrokers' contract notes, for altogether something over 4,000 cigars—I handed those notes to Mr. Levoi—I got nothing out of the transaction.

MICHAEL LEVOI . I received from Samuel Elman some time in September five pawnbrokers' contract notes—I handed them to Mr. Van Raalte, who purchased them for £2 10s.—he took the cigars out of pawn—I was not there, but I went one day with him to look at them—he handed me samples, which I took to Mr. Harwood, who keeps the Adam and Eve public-house in the Euston Road, and on Van Raalte's behalf I sold the cigars to Mr. Harwood for £44 15s.—I had my commission—the cigars which Mr. Harwood purchased were the cigars mentioned in the five contract notes that I had received from Mr. Elman.

WILLIAM HARDWOOD . I am the proprietor of the Adam and Eve public-house, Euston Road—on September 27th I bought from Mr. Van Raalte 4,000 cigars through Mr. Levoi, for which I paid him £44 15s. by cheque—this is the receipt (Produced)—some of them were a small size and some a larger size—they consisted of 2,500 Ramont Carillo, 200 Padro Murias, 300 J. S. Murias, 300 Romeo and Julieta, 300 Coronas, and 400 Henry Clays.

HENRY DAVID BROWN . I am an accountant in the service of Messrs. Hatch Mansfield & Co., Limited, 15, Cockspur Street, wine merchants—they have also a cigar department—Weingott was one of their buyers—he had an office there for that purpose and was paid a salary at the commencement of his engagement at £3 per week and afterwards at £4 per

week, and a commission for all introductions—on the night of September 25th their premises were broken into, and a very large number of cigars were missed—upon the stock-taking there were missed about 13,000 cigars—this is the list produced—we put the matter in the hands of the police—I have examined the whole of the 4,000 cigars in the possession of Mr. Harwood—they are similar, in brand and mark, to those missing from our stock between June 30th and September 25th—on the stocktaking on June 30th everything was all right—I did not know Gibbard—I did hear that Weingott was employed by Newman & Co.

Cross-examined. Weingott is known in the tobacco trade—he has had practically the control of the selling at Hatch, Mansfield & Co's.—it was not known there that he had dealings on his own account—it is not usual in the trade for persons in a responsible position in a firm to do business on their own account—Weingott's duty was to give his whole services to the company—I do not know an instance of anyone in a similar position doing business on his own account privately.

Re-examined. Weingott was paid a weekly salary—he was expected to devote all his time to the company—the first time I knew of his having any dealings on his own was from the detective, I think, after this case arose.

SIDNEY ALBERT DAWES . I am a commissionaire employed by Hatch, Mansfield & Co., of 15, Cockspur Street—I have been in their employment since March, 1904—Weingott was a buyer for the firm—if anyone called to see him they would see me first—I have seen Gibbard fairly often, about a dozen times—he came to see Weingott—I always fetched Weingott to him—Gibbard said he came from Hunter & Wilcher, tobacconists—I showed him into Weingott's private room—no one else was in that room—so far as I know they would be alone together.

Cross-examined. I showed Gibbard into Weingott's private room each time he came—it was really a cigar room, and not a room into which people are shown as a matter of course—there is an outer office where I sit—Weingott always went into the cigar office—there would be no secrecy about Gibbard seeing Weingott.

Re-examined. Weingott would sometimes see Gibbard in the room downstairs and sometimes upstairs—stores were kept in both those rooms.

ABRAHAM VAN RAALTE . I am a cigar merchant of Lisle Street, Leicester Square—in September Levoi showed me these contract notes for 4,000 cigars, which had been pawned at Messrs. Bravingtons and at Messrs. Brooks, of Wardour Street—I went with Levoi to see the cigars at the pawnbrokers—I eventually bought the contract notes for £2 10s.—I took some of the 4,000 cigars out of pawn and some were taken out by my order—we looked at the cigars before they were bought—I gave them to Levoi to sell for me—practically Levoi bought them to sell to Harwood, but on my invoice—I think the cigars cost me £43 9s. 6d. end I sold them for £44 15s.—I had to pay £4 to the pawnbrokers and interest—I lost a small amount over the transaction.

EDWARD MONTAGUE LEWIS . I travel in cigarettes, and live at 74, Wardour Street—I know Weingott—I saw him on September 12th or 13th, when be gave me a contract note for thirty-three boxes of cigars supposed to contain 1,700 cigars—I redeemed the cigars in Wardour Street—they were 1,000 J. S. Murias, 200 Villa Villas and 500 Legitimidad.

HENRY DAVID BROWN . I have seen 1,700 cigars in thirty-three boxes in the possession of Lewis—they correspond with the cigars I missed from stock, the taking of which was taken between June 30th and September 25th.

THOMAS TAPPENDEN (Detective-Sergeant A.) Gibbard was in my custody at Marlborough Mews police station on October 3rd—I cautioned him—he made a statement in writing, in the course of which he says, "The note shown to me by Sergeant Tappenden is the one Weingott gave me"—this is the note produced.

Cross-examined. I was present when Weingott was brought in—he made a statement to me before I took him to the police station—the only time Weingott saw Gibbard was when they were charged—I did not hear Weingott say, "What are you going to charge this man with?" nor "I have deceived him" or anything like it—Inspector Fuller took the charge—he is here—I did not hear Fuller say, "I do not disbelieve what you say, but he is connected with the case, therefore I must hold him in custody"—I knew Weingott's position in the firm of Hatch, Mansfield & Co.—I know now that his name is well known in the tobacco trade—I have seen the documents produced, at the head of one of which he is described as a cigar importer and merchant—I believe he is respectably connected—I believe Gibbard did say that he thought the goods were the property of Weingott and that he had a right to sell them, and that if he had thought there was anything wrong he would not have touched them, or something to that effect.

Re-examined. Weingott's father is well known in the trade.

ROBERT FULLER (Inspector A.) On October 3rd I saw Gibbard near Argyle Place—he made a statement, which was taken down by Sergeant Tappenden—I do not recollect his saying anything else, apart from what was reduced to writing—he was taken to Marlborough Mews police station when he made his statement—he and Weingott were charged together—Weingott said something exculpating Gibbard, the substance of which was, "What he has done he has done at my suggestion; he did not know that I had stolen them."

Cross-examined. The words might have been, "What are you going to charge this man with? He is innocent of what he has done; I have deceived him"—I did not say, "I do not disbelieve what you say, but he is connected with the case, and therefore I must detain him in custody"—I did not hold any argument; I listened to what he had to say.

Gibbard, in his defence on oath, said that he agreed to pledge some of Weingott's cigars, believing them to be his own; that some of the cigars were left at the Charing Cross South Eastern Railway cloak room, because Weingott brought them from his home at Fortis Green; that he had no reason to think that Weingott was stealing cigars, or he would not have touched them;

and that he believed he and his family were highly respectable. GIBBARD

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t19051113-33

33. GEORGE ARTHUR GIBBARD was again indicted for stealing 296 and divers other cigars belonging to Hatch, Mansfield & Co., Limited, and on another indictment for unlawfully conspiring together with others unknown to steal large quantities of goods, the property of Hatch, Mans-field & Co., Limited. No evidence was offered.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t19051113-34

34. COLEMAN WEINGOTT and FREDERICK PILCHER (31) , Breaking and entering the shop and warehouse of Hatch, Mansfield & Co., Limited, and stealing 2,400 cigars, value £30, and afterwards breaking out of the same place. The prisoners stated in the hearing of the Jury that they were guilty.

GUILTY .

Reference Number: t19051113-35

35. GEORGE GARBETT (38), and COLEMAN WEINGOTT , Stealing cigars, the goods of Hutch, Mansfield & Co., Limited. >WEINGOTT

NOT GUILTY .

MR. TRAVERS HUMPHRIES and MR. WING Prosecuted.

WILLIAM GROSVENOR . I am assistant to Mr. Brooks, pawnbroker, of Wardour Street—on September 8th Garbett pawned with me ten boxes of cigars for £10 in the name of John Harris for C. Weingott—this is the contract note—he came in the morning—we paid him two £5 notes—I think he handed me some invoices and receipts at the same time for the purpose of showing that Weingott, for whom he acted, dealt in cigars—one receipt for £49 14s. 4d. was headed Muratti—on that, which I assumed was a genuine document, I advanced the money—I had not seen Garbett before—the cigars were redeemed on September 25th, and I have marked that at the back of the contract note.

Cross-examined by Garbett. I think you came to the shop with Weingott once—he told me you were his agent—the Muratti document was in the letter you brought—Weingott brought £8 worth of cigars on September 11th—he said the parcel pawned for £10 was all right, and that it was his own signature to the contract—I chink he signed that himself.

THOMAS TAPPENDEN (Detective A.) On October 4th, about 9 a.m., I went to 8, Lambeth Road, with Sergeant West—I told Garbett we were detective officers and should take him into custody for stealing and receiving cigars from 15, Cockspur Street—he said, "Where?"—I said, "From Messrs. Hatch, Mansfield & Co.—I did not caution him—I took this note of what he said at the time—he said, "I only pawned a parcel of cigars at Brooks', Wardour Street, for £10. I had nothing to do with the burglary, and I did not know Weingott until he was introduced to me by Pilcher. The cigars I called for at the shop of Hatch, Mansfield, and when I pawned them I thought I was doing a pal a good turn"—he was taken to the police station and charged—he made no further reply.

Cross-examined. I did not ask you if you wanted to make a statement.

Re-examined. The prisoner has only lived at 8, Lambeth Road, a short

time—I asked him if his name was Garbett or Harris—he said, "My name is Garbett."

WILLIAM HAWOOD . I produce samples of the 4,000 cigars I bought from Levoi, acting on behalf of Van Raalte—Levoi was the salesman, a traveller, I presume—I produced these samples of those shown to Mr. Brown, of Hatch, Mansfield & Co.

ABRAHAM VAN RAALTE . Prior to selling the 4,000 cigars to Mr. Harwood I purchased contract notes for them for £2 10s.—those cigars were all pawned at Brooks' or Bravington's—I took the cigars out of pawn—I got the contract notes from Levoi by arrangement with Offredi and Elman—Levoi was present when I paid Offredi—I redeemed one parcel of 1,000 from Brooks on September 23rd and the other parcel of 1,000 from Bravington on September 25th.

JAMES OFFREDI . I sold Van Raalte five contract notes for cigars pawned with Brooks for £2 10s.—I gave him the receipt with my name and address—I got the notes from a man named Townsend, in September.

FRANCIS ELRINGTON THOMAS . I am the London manager of B. Muratti, Sons & Co., cigarette manufacturers, of 5, Creed Lane, Ludgate Hill—this letter is on some of our printed paper—we have no A. S. White-house in our employ—this letter does not emanate from our office—it is a forgery [This was a receipt dated July 28th]—I did not receive £49 14s. 4d. on or about July 28th—I have known Weingott twenty years—I have seen his writing—to the best of my belief it is his writing.

HENRY DAVID BROWN . I am accountant to Messrs. Hatch, Mansfield & Co., Limited, 15, Cockspur Street, wine and cigar merchants—Weingott was our cigar buyer—I know nothing of Garbett—I have never seen him—after September 25th, in consequence of a burglary, we took stock, and missed about 13,000 cigars—I have examined the parcel of 4,000 in Harwood's possession at the Adam and Eve public-house—they are similar in brand and size to those missed from our stock.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t19051113-36

36. GEORGE GARBETT was again indicted for conspiring with Coleman Weingott and others to steal a large quantity of cigars, the goods of Hatch, Mansfield & Co., Limited. No evidence was offered.

NOT GUILTY .

PILCHER then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at Marlborough Street Police Court on October 4th, 1903. Another conviction was proved against him. Nine months' hard labour. WEINGOTT— Eighteen months' hard labour.

FOURTH COURT.—Friday, November 17th, 1905.

Before Lumley Smith, Esq., K. C.

Reference Number: t19051113-37

37. GEORGE SNOW (28) , Stealing a half chest of tea, the property of Charles Patten.

MR. R. A. GORDON Prosecuted; M. WICKHAM Defended.

ALFRED DUPEY . I am a carman employed by Mr. Charles Patten, and live at 10, Crundall Street, Hoxton—on October 27th last, about 1.30 p.m., I was driving my cart through West Smithfield, and saw another

of my employer's vans—I saw the prisoner lift up the rope of the van and take a chest off—he put it on his shoulder and went through Smithfield Market with it—I spoke to a constable—the chest was worth £2 11s.

Cross-examined. I swear the prisoner is the man—when he put the chest on his shoulder he just trotted along.

CHARLE AMIS (288 City). On October 27th, about 1.30, I was on duty in the Central Avenue Meat Market, Smithfield—I saw the prisoner going in the direction of St. John Street—from information received I followed him—he was carrying a chest of tea on his left shoulder—as I got close to him he threw it down and ran along St. John Street, and through two or three streets—he was eventually arrested in a house by another constable—he was handed over to me and told he would be charged with stealing the tea—he made no reply to that—I took him to the station where he said, "The other man stole the tea and gave it to me."

Cross-examined. There were a number of people about at the time.

The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that he had been selling flowers, tarrying parcels, and hop and fruit picking for a living, but that he had no regular work; that on the day in question a man asked him if he wanted a job; that he (the prisoner) said "Yes"; that the man asked him to carry the case of tea, which he did; that as he was going along he looked round and saw the man was gone; that he then dropped the chest and went away as he got frightened, and thought there was something wrong; and that he had nothing to do with stealing the tea.

GUILTY . He then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at the Newington Sessions on September 6th, 1898. Ten other convictions were proved against him. Three years' penal servitude.

OLD COURT.—Saturday, November 18th, 1905.

Before Mr. Justice Walton.

(For cases tried this day see Essex and Surrey cases.)

FOURTH COURT.—Saturday, November 18th, 1905.

Before Lumley Smith, Esq., K. C.

Reference Number: t19051113-38

38. WILLIAM EDWARD CRACKNELL (45) PLEADED GUILTY to feloniously embezzling and stealing on June 25th, 1901, a cheque for £9 8s. 8d.; on July 29th, 1902, a cheque for £9 8s. 8d.; on June 29th, 1903, a cheque for £9 8s. 8d.; on June 27th, 1904, a cheque for £9 8s. 8d., and on June 30th, 1905, a cheque for £9 8s. 8d., all received by him for and on account of the Compensation and Guarantee Fund, Limited, his masters.

Judgment respited.

Reference Number: t19051113-39

39. HERBERT SCOTT (30) , Unlawfully receiving two quarters of beef belonging to Joseph Pemberton, well knowing they had been fraudulently obtained from Leslie Covell, by false pretences.

MR. METCALFE Prosecuted.

WILLIAM HEAD . I am a salesman employed by Leslie Covell and another, trading as Wright & Covell, meat salesmen, in the Central Meat

Market—I know the prisoner as a licensed porter—in that position he would have to bear a good character, and he does so up to now, I believe—we have a regular customer named Pemberton—on October 27th last he bought a side of beef at as near as I can say, 2.15 p.m.—it was quartered up after he bought it—he is a butcher at Hoxton—between 2.30 and 2.45, as near as I can say, a man, a stranger to me, came into the shop and asked for Mr. Pemberton's side of beef—I said to him, "I have a side of beef for Joseph Pemberton, but you have no badge on"—he said, "No, they told me I could have it out without a badge"—I said, "If you work for Joseph Pemberton you can have it out; how long have you worked for him?"—he said, "since last Tuesday"—this was on the Friday afternoon—the man took away the first quarter, and then came back for the second—the beef was worth, I believe, £7 3s. 3d.—I had a suspicion and followed him outside—when I got to the top of the shop I saw him put the quarter of beef on a truck with the prisoner standing against it—I was fifteen to twenty yards away—it was quite a clear day—I have known the prisoner for several years—I cannot possibly be mistaken that the prisoner was the man standing at the truck—I saw the strange man get hold of the handle of the truck with the prisoner shoving up behind—they went towards St. John Street—you can go that way to Hoxton, but it would not be the nearest way—seeing the prisoner there, I naturally thought it was all right—I afterwards received a communication from Mr. Pemberton and communicated with the police—at 7.20 the same evening I went with Detective Bligh to the prisoner's house, 36, Fawcett Road, Deptford—the detective told him he was making inquiries about a side of beef that had been lost in the Market—the prisoner said, "I don't know what you mean"—I then told him that I saw him behind the truck with the side of beef—he said, "You have made a mistake"—he was then given into custody.

JOSEPH PEMBERTON . I am a butcher at 12, Pitfield Street, Hoxton—I regularly deal at Wright & Covell's, at the Meat Market—on Friday, October 27th, I went there soon after 2—when I got to the Market I just saw the prisoner—I do not think he saw me—that was just as I arrived there—I had with me an employee named Farley—I got to the prosecutors between 2.15 and 2.30 and bought a side of beef—I then went further on into the Market—at 4 o'clock I tried to find the prisoner, but could not—I then instructed another porter—I had told no one to take my meat away up to 4 o'clock—I never got my beef.

Cross-examined by the prisoner. You have paid one or two small items for me at the shops where I do not have a weekly account—I have known you since last June.

HENRY FARLEY . I am employed by the last witness—on October 27th I left our shop at Hoxton with him at 2.10—to the best of my recollection we got to the market at 2 20—we were driving in a van—I waited outside the market—I saw the prisoner at 2.40 outside the market—he asked me if the governor was up here—I said, "Yes"—he asked how long he had been up—I said, "Since twenty past 2"—I looked at a clock outside a shop—afterwards when I got the order I went with another porter to the

prosecutor's shop, but found the meat gone—this was about 4—I was going to take the meat to the van.

Cross-examined. I am sure it was 2.40 that I spoke to you.

FREDERICK BLIGH (Detective-Constable, City). About 7 p.m. on October 27th I went to 36, Fawcett Road, Deptford, accompanied by Mr. Head—I there saw the prisoner—I told him I was a City officer, and that I was making inquiries about a side of beef stolen from Smithfield that afternoon—he said, "What beef?"—I said, "A man not in custody went to Wright & Covell's and asked for a side of beef for Mr. Pemberton. The man took the beef away and placed it on a truck; he was teen to wheel the truck away in the direction of St. John Street, assisted by you"—he said. "I know nothing about it; this gentleman" (meaning Head) "has made a mistake"—he was then given into custody—on the way to the station the prisoner said to me, "What time do you say this beef was stolen?"—I said, "About a quarter past 2"—he said, "Well, I was in the 'Free Pit'" (meaning a public-house in Bartholomew Close) "with Jim, from Swift's, and two men who work for the Great Western Railway, playing bagatelle from about 1.30 to 4 o'clock, when I went home"—the prisoner has held a licence for about sixteen years—a licensed porter must bear a good character, or the license would be revoked at once.

Evidence for-the Defence.

GEORGE ANDERSON (By the prisoner). I gave evidence before the Magistrate—I am foreman porter for the Hammond Beef Company and live at Chatham Street, Walworth—I have known you for about ten years—on the Friday in question I remember seeing you in the Coach and Horses at 2.15—you may have been in the house before then, but I did not notice you till you spoke to me—that was about 2.15 to 2.20—the Coach and Horses is sometimes termed the "Free Pit"—I was going to play a man at bagatelle, a single-handed game as it is termed, when you said, "Make it a four-handed"—I said, "No, I want to play this man by himself"—I cannot recollect seeing you for more than five minutes after I started playing—I remained in the house till 3.30—I do not recollect seeing you any more till the Monday morning, when you said to me, "You remember seeing me in the house"—that was after you had been charged.

Cross-examined. I did not look at the time—it might have been 2.25, the latest time I saw him.

ALBERT WILLIAM SHEARS . I work at the Frozen Meat Stores and live at 22, Shaftesbury Place, Aldersgate Street—I only know you by using the Coach and Horses—I saw you there on the Friday in question at from 2.15 to 2.20, as near as I can say—you asked me to play a game of bagatelle—I said, "No, I wanted to play Anderson by himself"—I next saw you in the bar at about 2.45—that was after I had finished my game.

Cross-examined. Between 2.20 and 2.45 the prisoner might have been in the house or might not, I cannot say—the public-house is about thirty yards from the Market.

FULLER. I am a licensed victualler and keep the Coach and Horses—I know you—last Friday fortnight I had occasion at 1.55 to go into the bagatelle room to collect the glasses and I saw you there—I had sent my potman out for some bread—I saw you again in the room at 2.20.

EDWARD KEIGHLEY . I am potman at the Coach and Horses—I know you as a customer—on Friday, October 27th, I went out at 1.55 to the baker's, returning at 2.5—I saw you in the house at the bagatelle table—I went to clean my pots and returned about 3 and saw you again standing near the bagatelle board.

Cross-examined. I cannot say if the prisoner went out of the house between 2.5 and 3 o'clock.

The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that if he had any intentions of stealing he had had plenty of opportunity of taking money before this without being troubled with beef; that he had got a sixteen years' character to study; that he did not help to wheel the beef away; that he saw Farley at 1.40; that he saw Mr. Pemberton talking to a gentleman at 1.45 and that he then went to the Coach and Horses and stayed there till past 4 o'clock; and that he then went home.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t19051113-40

40. MICHAEL MESSER (26) , Feloniously assaulting George Bell and robbing him with violence of 30s. He PLEADED GUILTY. to the robbery.

M. FITZGEALD Prosecuted.

HELEN FREE . I am a widow—on October 25th, between 9 and 10 p.m., I was at the top of Vesey Street, Poplar—I saw four men get off a tramcar—the prisoner was one of them and the prosecutor another—the prosecutor spoke to me—I cannot tell you exactly what he said—I did not pay much attention—one of the four men made some jocular remark—I turned round a minute afterwards and saw the prosecutor on the ground—I went to see what was happening end heard him say, "Leave me alone, you are choking me"—I could see he had been drinking, and I thought he might be bad—when I got up to him I saw the three other men standing over him—the prisoner was one of them—I said if they did not leave him alone I should scream for the police, which I did—the prisoner came up to me and put his hand over my mouth and said if I made a noise he would put the knife across my throat—I saw a knife in his hand—then two detectives came up—the other two men went off.

Cross-examined by the prisoner. I am certain you got off the tram with the other men—it was not more than twenty yards to where the robbery took place—I did not see any of the men throw the prosecutor down—you and the others had hold of his throat—you told me to be quiet.

GEORGE BELL . I am a sailor, at present living at Mrs. Gillett's, Victoria Dock Road—on October 25th, about 10 p.m., I was in Poplar in company with three others—I know them by sight—the prisoner was one of them—I got off a tramcar and asked them to have a drink—I met a lady and asked her to have one—the men then came behind me and caught me by

the throat—the prisoner was there—they robbed me of £1 10s., and then threw me on my knees—the police then came up—if they had not, the men would have choked me—the men ran off, including the prisoner—the police caught him.

Cross-examined. I said before the Magistrate I met two men on the tram, but there were three—I am quite sure you were on the tram with me.

By the COURT. I was taken from behind—I could see; I was not blind—I could turn my head so as to see the prisoner—he could not keep out of my sight—I had been drinking, but I was sober.

CHARLES LEE (Detective K.) On October 25th, about 10.30 p.m., I and Wedden were at the corner of Vesey Street, Poplar, when I heard cries of "Help" and "They are strangling me"—we went in the direction of the cries—on our approach I saw the prisoner and three other men surrounding the prosecutor, who was on the ground—all the four men left him when we got near—they looked as if they were robbing the man—the men all ran away—we took up the chase and I caught the prisoner about fifty yards from the scene—he said, "I have not got anything; it was not me. I work hard for my living"—the prosecutor then came up and at once said, "That is one of them that nearly strangled me and robbed me"—the prosecutor was bleeding and fuming from the mouth; he had had a very rough time—Mrs. Free came up and followed us to the station—the prisoner was charged and made no reply—at the Police Court he said, "I plead guilty to the robbery, but not to the assault or violence"—it was one of those two.

Cross-examined. I saw you leave the prosecutor and run across the road with the other men.

RICHARD WEDDEN (Detective K.) On October 25th, about 10 p.m., I was on duty with the last witness—we heard cries of "Help, he is choking me"—we went in that direction and saw the prosecutor on the ground with three men surrounding him—on our approach the men ran away—we chased them and caught the prisoner—I have no doubt he is one of the men—the prosecutor was not drunk—I afterwards went back to Vesey Street and found these two tickets, two sixpences and a button, which the prosecutor afterwards identified as his property.

The prisoner: "A lady and her daughter came to the station and brought those tickets and the sixpences in."

By the COURT. That is not so—no woman and child came to the station—I am quite certain the prisoner was one of those surrounding the prosecutor—I never lost sight of him.

HENRY JOSEPH O'BRIEN . I am Police Surgeon of the K Division—I examined the prosecutor at the station about 11 p.m.—he had a wound on his upper lip and there was discoloration on his neck, and he was in a very exhausted condition—his neck looked as if he had been throttled.

The prisoner, in his defence, said he was standing at the top of Vesey Street when the prosecutor and two men passed him; that he followed them and heard a scuffle and went up to them; that the men let the prosecutor go and he (the prisoner) picked up two tickets and several bits of silver; that he looked

round and saw a lot of people come running down and then crossed the road, when he was arrested.

GUILTY of robbery with violence. One conviction and four detention convictions while in the Navy were proved against him. He was stated by the police to bear a very bad character and to have been discharged from the Navy. Eighteen months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19051113-41

41. DAVID RING (43) , Breaking and entering All Souls' Church, Hampstead, and stealing therein a safe, fourteen pieces of paper, five books and a plan belonging to Leslie Hunter and another, the church-wardens.

MR. PARTIDGE Prosecuted; MR. WARDE Defended.

REDVERS WILKINSONS . I live at 30, Queen's Terrace, St. John's Wood, and am verger at All Souls' Church, Hampstead—on the night of Thursday, September 28th, I safely locked up the church—when next I went there I found the vestry window was broken and had been opened—there had been a safe in the vestry, which was missing—from memory I should say there was in the safe a plan of the church, two licenses and other documents—there were a number of precious documents in it—I have seen the safe since—it had been forced open and there was nothing in it—I have seen a prayer book and a hymn book which belonged to the church—the hymn book has the name of St. Paul's Church on it.

Cross-examined. It was in our church; we have many books left there—I generally collect them and put them on one side.

ARTHUE STEGGLES (Detective X.) I received information as to this sacrilege and went with other officers to 41, Grenville Road, Kilburn, at 1 a.m. on October 3rd—I made enquiry downstairs and then went up to the prisoner's room—he opened the door and I told him I was making inquiries respecting a case of sacrilege, and that I had reason to believe he had part of the stolen property in his possession—he said, "Blimy, you're wrong this time," and tried to shut the door in my face—a woman inside said, "What's the matter?"—the prisoner said, "It's no use; they are splits. They have come about the 'silent boy' underneath the bed"—I went into the room and there found a safe, which weighed about 2 cwts., underneath the bed—it was closed, but not locked; it had been forced open—I told the prisoner I should take him into custody—I asked him if he had any more rooms—he said yes, the other room belonged to him—he said, "I bought this safe off of four men for half-a-crown"—I went into his other room and found these two books—he told me they had been given to him by a Mrs. Lines—some of the books there had got the name of "Lines" in them; there were about a dozen other books.

Cross-examined. All the books were of a devotional character—he did not volunteer to show me the safe under the bed until I held the door open—we pushed the safe to the police station—the prisoner did not help us to take it there—we helped him there.

Re-examined. The other books found have nothing to do with this case.

FREDERICK BOWDEN (Sergeant S.) I saw the prisoner at the police station and told him I was a police officer and that he would be charged with breaking and entering All Souls' Church and stealing a safe containing documents, etc., of the value of £30—he said, "Not me; I didn't steal them. I bought it last Saturday afternoon for 2s. 6d. of four men I did not know. They had it on a barrow in Cambridge Road. We all went and had a drink together"—I took him to St. John's Wood police station, where I showed him the two books—he said they belonged to an old man who was in the workhouse—he did not tell me they had been given to him—I subsequently went to the prisoner's house, but found nothing.

The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I am perfectly innocent; I have never been in trouble for felonies before. I have just lost my mother."

The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that he had worked for the Willesden Local Board for about twelve years; that he bought the safe for half-a-crown, thinking he could sell it and make a profit; that the books found had belonged to a Mrs. Lines, whom he helped to move, and who had given them to him; and that he had never been in the church in his life. In cross-examination he said he had been taken into custody for assault while drunk and fined, but had not been charged with stealing and committed for, trial.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t19051113-42

42. PETER THOMSON (46) , Feloniously marrying Annie Eileen Walden, his wife being alive.

MR. SYDENHAM-JONES Prosecuted; MR. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS and

MR. THORNE Defended.

WILLIAM HAILSTONE (Detective-Sergeant T.) On October 10th, 1905, I was at the Brentford Police Court and there produced a certified copy of the certificate of marriage of Peter Thomson and Ada Turner on January 28th, 1892, which took place at the Wandsworth District Registry—Peter Thomson is there described as thirty-one years of age and a widower—Ada Turner is described as twenty-four years of age and a widow—I also produced subsequently a certificate of marriage between Peter Thomson and Annie Eileen Walden, which took place on April 14th, 1903—Thomson is there described as being forty-three years of age, widower, and Annie Eileen Walden is described as being forty-four years of age, widow.

Cross-examined. I have made inquiries about the prisoner—it is correct that he was a widower—I have ascertained that from Somerset House.

JAMES TRIMMER . I am a horse-keeper and live at Church Road, Wandsworth—on January 28th, 1892, I was present at the Wandsworth District Registry when Peter Thomson and Ada Turner were married—I did not know her as Ada Turner, but as Ada White—I do not know of her having been married to a man named Turner.

ANNIE EILEEN WALDEN . On April 14th, 1903, I went through the form of marriage with the prisoner at the Registry Office, Edmonton—he is described as a widower and I as a widow.

Cross-examined. I first became acquainted with the prisoner, I think, in August, 1902—I was then living right opposite to him in Lingfield Road, Isleworth—he was then living with Ada Turner—he told me she was not his wife and that she knew she was not—he told me that many times; also that he married her because she threatened to get him out of the place that he was in for so many years—he said that her husband, Jack Turner, was not dead when he married her and that she was always giving notice that she would go down to the police and get him out of it and he then had two children depending on him—I think he said he had discovered she had a husband alive about three or four years after he married her; I cannot be sure as to the time—he has been must kind to me—we have never had a cross word since we have been married—before I married him I knew of everything from both sides—I knew that he had been through the form of marriage with the other woman and that he considered it was not a valid marriage.

By the COURT. I took all risks.

GEORGE WINTERS (222 T.) On October 2nd, at 9 p.m., I went to Ponder's End and there saw the prisoner—he was living in the name of Ellis—I told him I should arrest him on a warrant for arrears of maintenance of his wife, Ada Thomson—that was an order made on September 21st, 1903, by the Justices at the Brentford Police Court—the warrant was issued on February 17th, 1904—the arrears of maintenance, I believe, amounted to £8 14s.—I have not got the order with me—I reed the warrant to him—he said, "She is no wife of mine; this is my wife," pointing to another woman, who had let me into the house—I said, "Have you any proof of this?"—the woman said, "We have proof," and ran upstairs and fetched down the marriage certificate—I asked her to let me read it—I did so and told her that I should take possession of it as I believed it would lead to a case of bigamy—I then arrested the prisoner and took him to Brentford—he was remanded for a weekend then charged with bigamy with this woman—I charged him—in reply he said, "She is no wife of mine."

Cross-examined. Sergeant Hailstone has made inquiries about the prisoner.

WILLIAM HAILSTONE (Re-examined by MR. THORNE). I find that the prisoner joined the Metropolitan Police as a constable on August 20th 1888, and resigned on July 14th, 1902, with a certificate No. 1, which is the best character that he could possibly get—he had previously been in the Army, in the Royal Scots Guards, and had left with the best character.

By MR. JONES. These documents were given to me last Tuesday by Ada Thomson.

The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said he teas now a fishmonger; that it was true he went through the form of marriage in 1892 with Ada Turner; that she at the time told him she was a widow; that about two years after he married her he was informed by her sister (Mrs. Pearce) that her husband, Jack Turner, was still alive; that Mrs. Pearce told him that Jack Turner had deserted his wife six weeks after they were married; that on one occasion

he taxed Ada Turner with the fact of her husband not being dead; that she replied, "Well, if he is not dead he ought to be"; and that he did not remember any conversation about a letter which Ada Turner said she had received from her husband. In cross-examination he stated that he had made a will on December 8th, 1902, in which he described Ada Turner as his wife, but that he did not believe her to be his wife; he put it so because he wanted to benefit her in the will; and that he signed this document (Read); "149, Lidford Terrace, Lingfield Road, Isleworth. 11th February 1903. We, the undersigned, mutually agree to separate, I, Peter Thomson allowing my wife 12s. per week. (Signed) Peter Thomson. Ada Thomson"; that on the maintenance proceedings at Brentford he told the Magistrate that Ada Thomson was not his wife, but that the Magistrate said if the order was made he (the prisoner) could have it annulled; and that the order was made as the onus of proving that Jack Turner was alive rested on him (the prisoner).

Evidence for the Defence.

DAVID WHITE . I live at 65, Lingfield Road, Isleworth, and am a labourer—I am the brother of Ada Thomson or Turner—she married John Owen Turner at St. Albans on December 10th, 1887—I saw him once—I was not at the wedding—she and her husband came to a house that I was minding, and which my mother was going to take possession of, and brought a bottle of whiskey with them and I let them in, but I did not know whether they were married or not—I did not ask them if they were married; I did not trouble—he was then about twenty-one and was a smart, trim little fellow—I said to my sister once after she married the prisoner that if ever Turner cropped up she would get him, meaning the prisoner, into trouble, and she said, "I shall say I had a letter to say that he was dead"—I said to her, "Why did not you keep that letter, because you will be getting into trouble if you have not something to show?"—the prisoner looked round at me and said, "Your sister says she has a letter, but I have never seen it; mind you, I have never seen the letter, and I have married her."

MARY FIVEASH . I am the wife of Alfred Henry Fiveash and live at 58, Gonsalva Road, Wandsworth—when I first knew Ada Thomson she was living next door to me—it is now about thirteen and a half years ago as near as I can remember—she was then living with the prisoner—they shortly after took two rooms in my house and lived there for about fifteen months—she told me on one occasion that she was married from the Ship at Croydon, and from there she went to St. Albans, and that her husband's name was Jack Turner—I cannot swear whether it was through embezzlement, but she said he had had to fly the country—when she has been the worse for drink she has cried and said she wondered where Jack was—it was very often that that happened—I went one day with her to see her sister Betty, and during the conversation the sister said, "How is Jock?" (the prisoner was known as "Jock" at that time)—Mrs. Thomson replied that he was all right—the sister then turned to Mrs. Thomson, as I then knew her, and said, "Well, you would look very funny if Jack Turner was to come up"—another sister who was there

said, "Hold your tongue" (with an oath) "you fool"—on another occasion I remember a quarrel between Ada Thomson and the prisoner—she was the worse for drink—she called him a lot of foul names and I turned round and said, "Oh, he is not your husband; he is no more your husband than I am, from the conversation I have heard"—I told the prisoner when by himself what I had heard—Ada Thomson was very seldom sober.

Cross-examined. I have never seen Turner myself, and I do not know if he is alive or not—I am only repeating gossip as it came out in the ordinary way.

Re-examined. It was gossip that was told to the prisoner.

The Jury, being unable to agree, were discharged without giving a verdict, and the trial was postponed till next Sessions, the prisoner being liberated on his own bail.

THIRD COURT.—Monday, November 20th, 1905.

Before Lumley Smith, Esq., K. C.

Reference Number: t19051113-43

43. WALTER THOMAS (30) , Forging and uttering a request for the payment of £ with intent to defraud.

MR. SLADE BUTLER Prosecuted.

JOSEPH HYDE . I live at 1, Belt ram Road, Fulham, and am a baker in the St. George's Union Workhouse in Fulham Road—the prisoner has been an inmate about fifteen years, but I have known him about three years, ever since I have been employed there, as a person receiving relief in the workhouse off and on—his duty was to assist me in the work-house—I know his writing; I have seen him write—my mother lives at High Street, Shefford, Bedfordshire—I have never given her address to anyone—on August 4th the prisoner had access to the mess room when my coat was hanging there, from which a letter was stolen bearing my mother's name and address, and I suspected the prisoner of having stolen it—this telegram, of October 3rd, is in the prisoner's writing: "Mother, send £8 by telegram at once. Urgent. In trouble. Am writing. Joe"—I gave no authority to the prisoner to write that—received no answer to that telegram, but my brother called on October 3rd and showed it to me, when I made a statement to him—this second telegram is also in the prisoner's writing, and the answer is in my brother's writing. The answer was: "Meet Frank King's Cross, 3.30. Wire if not." The prisoner suggested he should write, and the COURT directed him to write the first telegram in pencil and the address of the prosecutor's mother: "Mrs. Hyde, High Street, Shefford, Bedfordshire"; on the' telegram the address was "Beds."

Cross-examined by the prisoner. I saw you sign your name in the book at the workhouse several times, "W. Thomas," and I know your writing perfectly well—I think I received my mother's letter about July 16th—I had it in a note book—the note book was not gone, but the letter was—only you had access to where my coat was hanging on August 4th, and the door was locked before you were there and after

you left—you were sent to clean the mess room by my orders—you have to do what I like to tell you to do—I have a banking account—I do not talk about it—the inmates might talk about it, but they do not know my business.

Re-examined. I have seen the prisoner write different hands; he is a great letter writer.

ARTHUR SHUFF . I am a clerk in the Hammersmith Broadway Post Office—on October 3rd I received the first telegram from the prisoner about 12 o'clock to send off.

Cross-examined. I said at the Police Court that I could, and I certainly can, recognise you, having seen you once—it is not possible I have made a mistake.

By the COURT. He was dressed as he is now, except that he did not have a collar, only a handkerchief round his neck. The prisoner said he never wore a handkerchief, but always a collar.

CLEMENT BROWN . I am a clerk in the Hammersmith Broadway Post Office—on October 3rd the prisoner came and asked for a telegram in the name of Hyde—I asked if he was Mr. Hyde, and where the telegram would be from—on his giving the name and the town it came from as Shefford he was handed the telegram—there was some conversation, as the surname on the telegram was "Hind" instead of "Hyde"—he was under my observation not more than a minute or two—he took the telegram away.

Cross-examined. I have not seen you at the Post Office at any other time—with your distinctive features I have no possible doubt—I saw you at the Police Court about October 10th—I would serve a post card—this is a fair plan of the Post Office. The prisoner said he bought a post card on September 27th and that was the only time he was there.

DANIEL CHRISTMAS . I am counter clerk at the Hammersmith Broadway Post Office—on October 3rd I handed the prisoner a reply-paid telegram about 2.30 p.m.—I had previously seen him talking to the last I witness with reference to a difference in the name in the telegram, and I saw him hand something to him, when he went to the back of the office and apparently wrote a telegram in one of the boxes with his back to me—then he handed me this form, "Unable to meet. Send money. Will come home. Joe."

Cross-examined. I had not seen you previously at the Post Office—having seen you once, it is not possible to mistake you—you were dressed in a blackish coat with a wrapper round your neck.

FRANK FREDERICK HOLLAMBY . I am a clerk in the Accountant General's Office in the General Post Office—I produce the three original telegrams marked la, 3, and 4.

FRANK HYDE . I live at High Street, Shefford, Bedfordshire, with my mother, Mrs. Hyde—I do not know the prisoner—on October 3rd this telegram, asking for £8, was received at my mother's house—Joseph Hyde is my brother, and lives at Beltram Road, Fulham—late the same day I came to London and saw my brother Joe as he was coming home from work—I showed him the telegram, and in consequence of what he said

to me, and my reply, my brother gave information to the police—I sent, the answer: "Meet Frank, King's Cross, 3.30; wire if not" to the Post Office, Hammersmith," and saw the answer: "Unable to meet. Send money. Will come home. Joe" when I got home—my mother's name is Ann Hyde.

Cross-examined. I was suspicious at once, and came to London—I knew my brother did not work in the district of Hammersmith.

ARTHUR ALLEN (Detective-Sergeant T.) On October 10th I arrested the prisoner in the St. George's Workhouse, Fulham Road—in answer to the charge he said, "I know nothing about any telegrams"—on the way to the station he said, "I did it on purpose to get some help to get away from the workhouse. I have often seen in the papers where help is given to some from the Police Court. I did it to a friend I knew by the name of Hyde. I sent the two telegrams to his mother for the money. The one I received from Bedfordshire I tore up. I intended to give myself up, but I had not the heart to do so"—I did not at any time say to him, "If you tell no lies they will help you."

Cross-examined. Inside the union I told you I was going to take you into custody, and the charge—outside I said I was going to take you to Hammersmith police station to be placed with others to be identified by Post Office officials—I did not ask you, "What did you do with the telegram that was sent to you?"—you did not answer, "Having received no telegram, nor having sent any telegram, I did not do anything with it"—I did not say, "What is the use of telling lies? If you speak the truth we might be able to help you"—what was said I wrote down at the time.

The prisoner before the Magistrate said: "I wish my written statement to be put in, and to call a witness."

The statement was: "To the Magistrate, West London Police Court. Sir, I wish to withdraw the statement I made to the detective, and to plead not guilty. I was not advised it would be used in evidence against me, and I made it on the spur of the moment, as in the first instance I denied the accusation, and was then told that if I told no lies they would help me. In the face of this I then made the statement I did. Sir, I have an answer to the charge against me, and I desire by your permission, sir, to put questions to the postal witnesses, and to call a witness on my behalf."

JOSEPH HYDE (Re-examined by the prisoner). I did not report my loss, because I knew you had the letter—I did not see you take it, but it was gone—I went for my holiday on August 7th, and came back on August 18th.

The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that he did not know the address of Hyde's mother, nor how to get money from the Post Office; that he had never seen the letter he was accused of stealing, nor sent the telegrams, but that it was a case of mistaken identity, after his having once gone to the Post Office and bought a post card, though he had often said he wanted to get away from the union.

GUILTY . Six months' hard labour.

THIRD COURT.—Tuesday and Thursday, November 214 and 23rd, 1905.

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

Reference Number: t19051113-44

44. ARTHUR ANDREWS (49) PLEADED GUILTY to breaking and entering the dwelling house of Joseph George Taylor and stealing his goods; also to breaking and entering the house of Phineas Cohen and stealing his goods; also to breaking and entering the house of Albert Henry Hunt and stealing his goods; also to breaking and entering the house of Morrice Low and stealing his goods; also to breaking and entering the house of Bertha Coleman and stealing her goods; also to breaking and entering the house of Christopher Cartwright and stealing his goods; also to breaking and entering the house of Alexander George Miller and stealing his goods; also to breaking and entering the house of Charles William Hogg and stealing his goods; also to breaking and entering the house of Robert Evans and stealing his goods; also to breaking and entering the house of Joseph George Taylor and stealing two tankards and other articles, his property.—And

Reference Number: t19051113-45

(45.) JOHN CONWAY (29) to breaking and entering the house of Alexander George Miller and stealing a quantity of sheets and other articles, his property. ( See next case.) [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

Reference Number: t19051113-46

46. ALFRED FENIGSTEIN (34) and BARNETT FENIGSTEIN (19) , Receiving two tankards, a stamp, album, and other goods, well knowing them to have been stolen.

MR. ARTHUR GILL , MR. PERCIVAL CLARKE, and MR. FITZGERALD Prosecuted; MR. ELLIOTT and MR. BASIL WATSON Defended.

PHINEAS COHEN . I am a tobacco manufacturer and live at 42, Aberdare Gardens, West Hampstead—I left my house on June 26th, securely fastened, to go for my holiday—I returned generally once a week to see if the house was in order and safe—on July 18th I found it had been broken open and was in a state of disorder, and in the drawing room some blacking had been put over the carpet—amongst the property I missed were these two silver cigar cases—I think the pair would cost about £6 new—I missed about £130 to £150 worth of stuff, including gold lace and so on.

JOSEPH GEORGE TAYLOR . I am an official at the Marylebone County court, and live at 75, Hillfield Road, West Hampstead—I went for a holiday on October 2nd, leaving my house locked up and unattended—I returned on October 8th or 9th and found an entry had been made—a number of things were missing, amongst them this stamp album, and these two tankards and the forks and spoons which had my initials on them and which have been erased—I missed from a case six napkin rings, this pair of grape scissors, two fruit spoons, this sugar spoon, two fish knives, this butter knife, and this pickle fork—I also missed a marble clock and some silver articles—the total value of everything was about £80—that includes the stamp album, which I put at £55—nearly all the best stamps are missing—there were two transparent envelopes full of stamps, which I do not known the value of—there is a quantity in these envelopes, but I cannot tell you what are missing without going through the book—I believe valuable stamps are missing—the prices are marked up to £48 10s., but there Was a quantity I did not know the value of—I took the prices

from a book published by Whitfield, Kent & Co., of Ipswich—the envelope and all were taken together—I am not an expert in the value of stamps—whatever material I had for forming an opinion of their value, anybody would have—on October 17th I accompanied Inspector Bower to the shop, 224, Groswell Road—I was present when this stamp album was produced from the back of the shop by the prisoners, and when Bower executed the warrant, and found the two tankards—I saw them protruding from the safe, and taking them out I noticed at once the initials had gone.

Cross-examined. I am not a collector of stamps—I lent a gentleman some money without interest, and told him that when he paid me he could have his album, but he might not accept it now—the transparent envelope was in the album, which has a clasp—the envelope could not drop out—this police list was found in the shop—the prisoners mentioned the name of Baldwin—I believe the forks are mine—the initials on them are "E. F." or "E. H.," I believe, the same as are on these rings.

Re-examined. After October 9th, when I knew the house had been broken into, I communicated with the police—I gave a description of the book, but the tankards had gone out of the chiffonier.

FREDERICK ANDREWS (Detective S.) At 10 p.m. on October 10th I visited 75, Hillfield Road—I found an entry had been effected by forcing the kitchen window catch back, passing upstairs, and taking goods from the first floor, opening the door on the ground floor with a key, taking goods out, locking the doors and taking the keys away—two keys were missing from the room doors upstairs—I took from Andrews, who has pleaded guilty, a parcel at the station, which contained the two keys—I tried them in the doors—they fit.

ELIAS BOWER (Inspector S.) On October 17th, with Inspector Kyd and other officers, I visited 224, Goswell Road, about 5 p.m.—I said to the Fenigsteins, "We are police officers, and have come to see you with regard to a stamp album, a tantalus, and a marble clock" (a tantalus is a decanter stand with three flasks, which are locked)" which have been stolen by two men by means of housebreaking, and they are in custody. Have you those articles here?"—Alfred said, "A man brought a stamp album here about a week ago for us to sell; he promised to call for it, but has not done so"—Barnett said, "Yes, that was a week last Thursday"—I asked where it was, and they pointed to a shelf near the back door in a partitioned off portion of the shop—Mr. Taylor, who was with us, identified the stamp album—I said, "Have you sold any of the stamps?"—both of them said, "No"—I said, "have you attempted to dispose of any?"—both replied, "No"—I had received information about Baldwin—I said, "Did not you take some of the stamps to Baldwin in an envelope?"—Barnett replied, "Yes, to get them valued. I brought them back"—he then produced an envelope from a letter rack, and another from the safe—those two envelopes are produced here, and contain stamps—I had other information—I said, "Are you sure you did not get anything else from that man?"—Barnett said, "No, we did not; he has never brought a marble clock here, nor a tantalus"—Alfred then said, "The man has only been here once, when he left the stamp album, for which he promised to call the following week, but has not done so"—I had a search warrant—I

read it to them, and proceeded to execute it—in the safe I found these two tankards, which were identified by Mr. Taylor—I said, "How do you account for the possession of these tankards, and pointed out that the initials had been filed out—Barnett said, "The same man left them to have the initials taken out, and re-plated"—I said, "Who is the man?"—Barnett said, "We do not know him; he gave us his name as C. Rows, 36, Great Ormond Street"—I said, "Did not he bring other things in?"—Alfred said, "No, he did not"—I proceeded with my search—I said, "Can you show me any entry in your books relating to those articles?"—both of them replied, "No, we do not enter repairs"—I said, "How do you know whose goods they are?"—I received no reply—I told them I should take them into custody and charge them with receiving the tankards and the album, knowing them to have been stolen—Alfred said, "We may have taken them unconsciously"—Barnett said, "Surely you are not going to lock us up?"—this list produced is circulated among pawnbrokers and other kindred businesses containing notification of losses—in it appears, "Two tankards, with initials E. H."—I found it on the desk—I pointed out the entry to them—Alfred said, "That was a long time after, and you cannot remember everything "the list was published on October 14th—the goods were stolen between October 2nd and 9th—I found invoices, one containing an entry respecting a plated decanter stand—the heading on the invoices is "Fenigstein Brothers, gold, silver, and platinum refiners, buyers of every description of materials, gold, silver, or platinum"—Alfred said, "That would be a tantalus, as you call it; it is at home, but I bought that from another man"—I asked who the man was—he said he' did not know him, but he described him as of soldierly appearance—other goods were mentioned in the invoice—I asked Alfred if he bought them from the same man, and he said he had not—I asked them what their practice was with regard to invoices from people from whom they made purchases—they said (I think it was Alfred) they made out a duplicate invoice which they gave the vendor, and kept the duplicate—I said, "You, do not appear to have done so in this case"—Alfred, I think, said, "No, the man did not give me his name, therefore I could not put it on"—I took them to the police station—they gave their address as 25, Rushmore Road, Lower Clapton—I took from each of them a bunch of keys—I then went with Inspector Kyd to that address—Barnett pointed out this large key on his bunch, which he said was the key of the safe in his bedroom—Inspector Kyd made a note of what we did in Rushmore Road—later on I went to 224, Goswell Road, where I found this dessert spoon, which ha been identified by Mr. Taylor as his property, also the mackintosh, as the proceeds of housebreaking—I also found a bag of coins, since identified by Robert Evans as taken from 85, Melrose Avenue—the previous day I had asked Alfred, "Whose mackintosh is that?"—he said, "it is mine"—I said, "Where did you get it?"—he said, "A lodger that left our house left it behind"—that is the reason I did not take that day—I also found in The safe at Goswell Road this gold ring with a gold pig on it and a charm, identified by Mr. Crabtree as taken from his house at Forest Gate—I found at the prisoners' house these chased silver stick mounts and four plain ones—those have been identified as the property of Goodwood &

Co.—I also found two pairs of carvers and a cruet taken from the house of Mrs. Hawkins, of Upleaden, Watford—Kyd showed this property to the prisoners, and heard what was said.

Cross-examined. When I went to the prisoners' premises at 224, Goswell Road, both prisoners were present—I had three officers with me—I did not at first tell Alfred I had a warrant—they were in the front of the shop and I asked them to go into the back part—we did not want to create public attention—I am not able to say if any stamps are missing—Baldwin is a respectable man—his specialty is Colonial stamps as distinguished from Continental stamps, and so on—no stamps were sold to Baldwin—I have no evidence of a sale of stamps to anyone—the key of the safe is large, and I said, "I suppose this is the key of the shop?"—there is a police whistle with it—I have not the original note given to the prisoners' father—I gave it to the father as I received it—the terms were general, something like this: "Dear father, something has happened, and we are now charged at City Road police station with receiving some stolen property. The officers are enquiring about that decanter stand. Go and bring it from the safe"—Fenigstein, the father, was about to do that, and I said, "I want to look in that safe—there we found other stolen property—he could not read the note and I read it for him—it did not say, "Give the officers every assistance"—Alfred said the tankards were left by a man named Rows—Barnett, who was by, did not say, "oh, this is Rows, of Great Ormond Street"—he picked up a book and showed me the name "C. Rows, 36, Great Ormond Street," written in it—he said, "Here it is"—as far as I could judge, the purchase price of the articles found at 224, Goswell Road, would be £8 or £9, not including the album—the police notice to pawnbrokers and others was delivered between 8 and 11, on October 11th, possibly at Goswell Road, about 10 a.m.—the articles were delivered between October 2nd and October 9th, some days before the issue of the police list—we went on Friday about 5 p.m.—I found about twenty police lists on the counter on the premises—I did not take possession of them—I looked through them casually—I do not think all were there—they were not in order.

Re-examined. The shop-keeper, if he has an article in the list, acquaints the officer, who brings the list, or gives notice at the police station.

ANDREW KYD (Inspector G.) I went with Inspector Bower to the prisoners' house in Rushmore Road, Clapton, on October 17th—in a safe in a bedroom on the first floor, amongst other things, I found these two silver cigar cases, which have been identified this morning by Mr. Cohen; also the case of fish knives and forks, salt cellars and sugar tongs, identified by Mr. Hunt as taken from the first floor front room, with a pair of grape servers and a plated vesta box, eleven silver spoons, identified by Morris Low as taken from 100, Chichele Road—Alfred was wearing the vesta box on a watch chain—Mr. Hogg, of 20, Anson Road, Cricklewood, had lost things some of which I found on the first floor of the prisoners' house in Rushmore Road, and in the sideboard downstairs, a plated egg cruet, a crumb scoop, a pair of tongs and two jam spoons—these Mr. Hogg identified—I also found in the same front room downstairs another cruet stand, an ink stand, a sugar basin and sifter, two pairs of fish knives and forks and fish carvers,

which were identified by Mr. Cartwright, of 4, Hoveden Road—also in that room an entre dish, identified by Miss Coleman, 166, Fordwych Road, and a decanter stand, cream jug, sugar basin, six fish knives and forks, two sauce spoons, a soup ladle, forty-two spoons, twenty-four forks, two butter knives, a sugar sifter and two fruit spoons and two studs, identified by Mr. Miller, of 10, Sarre Road, West Hampstead—Mr. Taylor lost six napkin rings, a pair of grape servers, two fruit spoons, a sugar spoon, butter knife and pickle for—those I found in the front room—this tantalus, and spoon warmer, salad spoon and fork, sugar basin and tongs, and tea caddy have been identified by Mr. Robert Evans as having been taken from 85, Melrose Avenue, Cricklewood—I also found twenty of these silver stick mounts in the safe—those were identified by Mr. Crockett, of Goodwood & Co.—Mrs. Hoggs of Watford, also identified half-a-dozen fish knives, a pepper box and two pairs of carvers—I took the property to Hampstead police station the following day, the 18th, and showed them to the Fenigsteins, and said that I had found all that was at the station, at their address—both of them said, "We bought it from a man named Messen, and some man we do not—now"—Alfred continued, "We make no entry of purchases of silver. We simply say so much silver. I am responsible for buying it all"—at that time the property was not identified, except that of Evans—some has not yet been identified—I was not then aware of the burglaries that I now—now of.

Cross-examined. I should say the articles found in the sideboard and in the house had not been used; they were all piled together in a bundle—I found no articles in actual use—we went about 10 or 10.30 p.m., after we had taken the prisoners to the station—the prisoners' father was present—the prisoners' letter to him was that he should hand over to us the tantalus, some for—s, and other things I cannot recollect—he appeared willing to assist in finding the things—he carries on a separate business, and the prisoners live at home with him, and their mother and sister—he is a gold and silver refiner in Old Street, St. Luke's—I am aware that the prisoners had differences with their father, and started business on their own account.

RICHARD IVES (Inspector S.) On July 19th I visited 42, Aberdare Gardens, the house of Mr. Phineas Cohen—I found an entry had been affected by breaking the glass over the catch in the pantry window, and pulling back the catch—an inner door had been forced, giving access to the whole of the house—the rooms were in disorder, doors had been forced, and some almost empty whiskey bottles were on the table.

ALBERT HENRY HUNT . I am an electrical engineer, and live at 39, Sarre Road, West Hampstead—on August 11th I went away for my holiday, leaving the house safely locked up—when I came back on August 15th I found the house had been entered in the meantime, and was in great disorder—the house had been entered through the kitchen window, and access to the house obtained through the kitchen door—I missed a gold watch, ring, some brooches and bracelets, a lady's silver watch and bracelet, and other things—the value of my loss is about £60—I recognise the fish knives and for—s, case of salt cellars, and pair of sugar tongs, as my property.

FREDERICK ANDREWS (Re-examined). On August 15th I visited the house, 39, Sarre Road, found that the place had been broken into, and summoned the last witness.

DAVID MORRICE LOW . I live at 100, Chichele Road, Cricklewood—I went away for my holidays on August 12th—I came back on September 9th, and found my key would not open the door—going round to the back, 1 gained an entrance through the scullery door, which was unlocked—the interior of the house was in great disorder, and I missed a great deal of property, including articles of plate, jewellery, wearing apparel, fur coats, watches, knives, forks, and so on, to the value of about £60.

ALFRED TRITTON (Sergeant X.) On September 9th, having received information, I visited 100, Chichele Road—I found an entry had been made by breaking the glass above the kitchen window, and taking off the screw that held the two sashes together.

BERTHA COLEMAN . I live at 165, Fordwych Road, Cricklewood—I left my house on September 19th, after safely locking it up—I came back ten days later, on September 29th—I found the place was in disorder, and that it had been broken into—I missed an entre dish, a fish knife and fork, four dozen table knives, a cruet of six bottles, a leather dressing case, brown sealskin jacket and a muff—I put the value of my loss at about £42—amongst other things I recognise the ertre dish.

FREDERICK ANDREWS (Re-examined). I received information from a neighbour of the last witness on September 21st, in consequence of which I visited 165, Fordwych Road—I found the kitchen window had been broken near the catch, and the rooms were in great disorder, apparently ransacked.

CHRISTOPHER FREDERICK CARWRIGHT . I live at 4, Hoveden Road, Cricklewood—I went for my holiday on September 9th, leaving my house unoccupied—on September 25th I came back and found the place all in disorder; the glass in the hall window was broken, and some of my property taken—amongst the things I lost I have since been shown an egg-stand and other articles which I recognise as my property—between £50 and £60 worth of articles were lost.

GEORGE CHICHESTER (Detective). I went to 4, Hoveden Road, on September 26th, and saw that the place had been broken into by a pane in the side passage of the house having been broken, and the catch forced back.

ALEXANDER GEORGE MILLER . I live at 10, Sarre Road, West Hampstead—I went away from my house on August 18th, leaving the key in the custody of the charwoman, Ellen Jacobs—I returned in consequence of receiving a telegram on September 20 th—I found the house had been entered, and certain property missing, amongst other things a silver sugar basin, jug, decanter stand, knives, forks, spoons, etc.—I think my first loss was about £30—I recognise the cream jug, decanter stand, and those things found at Rushmore Road as my property—I locked up my house and left it in charge of the police, securely fastening every door of the house, with the result of getting all my locks smashed—as soon as I had gone away the house was burgled again, and I lost another £40 worth of articles—altogether my loss was about £70.

MARTHA GOULBORNE MILLER . I am the wife of the last witness, and

recognise as property stolen from our house some of these articles before me—an "F" has been added to the spoons since they were stolen.

Cross-examined. Before I lost it the plate had not any mark on it—I can identify it because I have had it for twenty years—the spoons are all one Old English pattern—I can identify the other articles more easily but I know the shape of these—I have not any doubt about any in this list.

ELLEN JACOBS . I am a charwoman, and was entrusted with the key of 10, Sarre Road, by Mr. Miller when he went away—I used to go to the house every morning—on September 26th I took the key, and went to feed the cat and see if there were any letters to send on, as usual, but I could not get in, because the chain was up—it was not up when I visited the house the day before—I rang the door bell, thinking Mr. Miller had come home on business—I then went next door, and spoke to a girl—I afterwards found the kitchen window broken above the catch—I reported the matter to the police.

HENRY TAYLOR (Detective S.) I visited 10, Sarre Road, on September 26th—I found an entry had been effected by breaking the kitchen window just over the catch, and forcing the catch back—a lock had been unscrewed, which gave an entrance to the whole of the house, which was in great disorder.

CHARLES WILLIAM HOGG . I live at 20, Anson Road, Cricklewood—I went to the seaside for my holiday on September 9th, leaving my house without anybody to look after it, but securely fastened—I returned on October 2nd and found the house in a state of great disorder—it had been entered, and I missed a considerable amount of property, including silver plate, jewellery, wearing apparel, and so on—I value my loss at £46—I recognise the sugar tongs, dress ring, and some other articles which have been shown to me as my goods.

SOL DAVIES . I am a jeweller, of 24, Clerkenwell Road—the dress ring produced came into my possession from Alfred Fenigstein—he brought it to me to sell somewhere about October 5th—I had mentioned to him that I had an order for a dress article, and that if he came across one I could sell it—I suppose that was three or four days before—he wanted 55s. for it—I mentioned that the ring seemed rather dear, but I would see what I could do with it—I left it with my customer—I eventually obtained it back, and gave it to a police inspector—I wrote to the customer to return the ring as soon as I heard of the affair in Goswell Road, next day.

Cross-examined. Until I heard that the police had been in Goswell Road I assumed that the transaction was a perfectly honest one—it was carried out in the ordinary course of business—I believe I had had seven or eight transactions with Alfred Fenigstein—I had always found him perfectly honest and straightforward—I usually did business with him, and not with the elder brother—I had known Alfred before he started business on his own account, when he was with his father, and when he left his father and opened his own place of business—the prices at which the goods were dealt in were fair and reasonable prices—I have been at his premises at 224, Goswell Road—the elder brother was the principal person in the business, but he was assisted by his younger brother—in this case it was I who wanted the ring for a customer; the suggestion came from

me—the transaction was open—I had never bought a ring from him before, but I have sold him one; not more than one—I asked him about this ring, as I asked several people about it.

Re-examined. As far as I can remember, I sold him an Egyptian ring, and a pair of ear-rings—that was the nature of all the business—had I not known that this ring was stolen I would have described this transaction as straightforward and honest—I am licensed to deal in jewellery. [MR. ELLIOTT here stated that he had heard from Inspector Bower that the prisoners were also licensed.]

GEORGE CHICHESTER (Re-examined). On the evening of October 2nd I went to 20, Anson Road, Cricklewood—I found an entry had been effected by breaking a pane of glass just over the catch of the kitchen window—the rooms were all ransacked.

ROBERTS EVANS . I have independent means and have no occupation—I live at 85, Melrose Avenue, Willesden Green—on September 21st I went to Torquay for a holiday, leaving the key of the house with my next-door neighbour—no one was left in the house, but it was fastened up after me so far as I understand—the drawing room door was intact before I went away—on my return I found an entry had been made—that return was in response to a telegram of October 3rd—a pane of glass had been broken and a rusty instrument had been inserted into the catch of the window—a good many things were missing, including this tantalus, this spoon warmer, also the tea caddy, sugar basin, and sugar service, syrup service, clothing, and other things, besides this mackintosh—I also missed these copper coins, and these two silver coins—they were attached to a box, and were in a drawer in one of the rooms—on October 17th I recollect going with Bower and Kyd to Rushmore Road, Clapton, where I saw a lot of property, amongst which I identified some of my own—a tricycle was also missing—it is difficult to estimate the value, because the articles were presents, but I should say about £25.

ARTHUR TRITTON (Detective-Sergeant). In consequence of information received from Mr. Harold Evans I went to 85, Melrose Avenue, on October 2nd—I found that the house had been entered by the back, and by breaking a small pane of glass in the French window of the drawing room, and turning the bolt in that way—this waistcoat I found on Andrews, who has pleaded guilty—he was wearing it.

DOROTHY HAWKINS . I am the wife of Tom Hawkins, of Upleaden, Upton Road, Watford—on June 3rd I left the house with my husband to pay a visit—in consequence of receiving a telegram I went back to it on July 1st—I found the house had been broken into, and several articles missing to the value of about £20, consisting of knives, forks, a paper box, and so on—my pair of carvers are the same, but my fish knives have been marked with a "D"—there was no "ID" on them when they were in my possession—there was a mark at the bottom of this pair of tongs—that has been removed.

Cross-examined. The fish knives and forks had no marks upon them—I identify them by their general appearance, ard in some cases the handles of the knives are a little separated from their blades by just a crack; they do not fit very well—this butter knife had not the mark of

"D" on it—the pattern is of an ordinary character—I have not noticed the separation of handles from blades of knives at friends' houses.

WALTER MERRIMAN . I live at 92, St. Mary's Road, Watford and am a gardener—in June and July I was caretaker for Tom Hawkins, of Upleaden—I looked at the premises on the evening of June 30th—they were then all right, and I locked them up at 8.30 p.m.—about 10 a.m. on July 1st I found that the place had been broken into—I saw that the window on the right side of the larder had been tampered with, a pane of glass had been broken, likewise the door leading into the garden, at the side entrance, had been tampered with—the glass had been taken out by moving the lead work—in consequence of what I saw I reported to the police—a policeman came and got in at the window.

WILLIAM WOOD . I am superintendent of the Herefordshire Constabulary, stationed at Watford—from information I received from Merriman, I went to Upleaden, a house in Upton Road, Watford—I found that an entrance had been effected by means of the corridor door window, which had been broken, and that the house had been entered and thoroughly ransacked—it was in great disorder.

Cross-examined. I have reason to believe this is one of the burglaries committed by Andrews.

ALFRED THOMAS CRABTREE . I am a master plumber, residing at 219, Ranford Road, Forest Gate—on October 3rd I went to work as usual about 10 a.m. and returned about 9.40 p.m.—I noticed the place had been forced open—the front and back doors were open—I went upstairs and found the back bedroom upstairs disturbed and all in disorder—various things had been taken—I cannot tell you all I missed, but I missed two watches, two rings, three brooches and various other jewellery—when I left the house my family was there—the value of the things missing was about £15—there was a mark on the front door which had evidently been forced by a chisel, or an iron bar or something—this ring (Produced) belonged to my daughter; also the charm.

Cross-examined. The pig is not gold, but metal washed, and is worth about half-a-crown—I have no doubt this is the ring I bought for my daughter—it has a turquoise between pearls; I am certain it is the same.

MABEL EVELINE CRABTREE . I am the last witness's daughter—when I left the house on October 3rd, about 5 p.m., the place was secure—a 10 p.m., when I returned, I found articles had been taken away—amongst them was a ring and a small charm in the shape of a pig—this is the ring—it is mine—it was given to me by my father.

GEORGE HANSON (Sergeant K.) I am stationed at Forest Gate—about 10.50 p.m. on October 3rd I went to 219, Ranford Road, and made an examination—I found the front door had been forced by some blunt instrument and an entrance had been effected by thieves—proceeding up the stairs, in the middle bedroom I found the contents of boxes and drawers emptied on to the bed.

WILLIAM POPE . I am a stick mount fitter, of 155, Balls Pond Road—I was in the employment of Messrs. Groodwood & Co. for about a month—while in that employment I knew the prisoners for about three years as trading with their father at his shop in Old Street—I was then employed

in the same street as a stick mounter—Barnett came to me and asked me if I could get some "stuff," meaning silver—I was working for a man named Randall, in a genuine business, and I went to the prisoners' father's shop—in October this year, when they were carrying on business apart from their father, I took to them some silver stick mounts, the property of my employers—the next time I saw Barnett Fenigstein I handed them over to him and received payment—Alfred was not there—these are some of the stick mounts—you open these out and put the stick through them—when I handed those to him across the counter he said, "That is right, my boy; make a living out of it"—he gave me 1s. 7d. for them—I returned the following day with some more mounts, when I found the prisoners there, but the police were in possession, and I was arrested with the prisoners—I was paid the right price for scrap silver, because these things were not good for anything else—I had had dealings with the prisoners about a week previous, when I took Barnett some silver mounts—he did not ask me where I got them, or any question.

Cross-examined. I had known the prisoners for some time—some months before this I had borrowed 10s. of them—I met them in the Kingsland Road, when they mentioned the loan, and they also said, "Why don't you go back to the line? They are very busy now"—I did not know that the trade was busy, but I had been in the trade of stick-mounting for eight years—I did go back to the stick-mounting business—I went to the firm of Goodwood & Co., stick mounters—when I brought the prisoners the scrap they weighed it in the ordinary way—they paid me the ordinary market price for scrap silver—I did not say a word to them about having stolen it—when Barnett said, "That is right, my boy; make a living out of it," I was trying to make a living out of the stick-mounting business, and was employed by Goodwood & Co.—the transaction was openly done in the shop—we did not go to the back or anything of that kind—the ordinary process was gone through, and I was paid according to the scale.

WILLIAM FREDERICK CROCKETT . I live at 22, Paynton Street, Stamford Hill, North Road—I am a warehouseman and stock-keeper in the employment of Messrs. Goodwood & Co., stick mounters—the last witness was employed by us three weeks prior to October 18th—these mounts are some of the mounts given to Pope to work—their value is about a guinea.

Cross-examined. I could not say the value of the stick mounts—there is a great deal of difference between the value of these mounts and the value of scrap silver—I could not give you the value of scrap silver.

Re-examined. There is not such a difference as between a guinea and 1s. 7d.

MARCUS MESSEN . I am a jeweller, of 8, King Edward's Road, South Hackney—I have had dealings with the prisoners—I have seen the articles produced in Court to-day—they did not buy any of those articles from me—I never had any of them in my possession.

Cross-examined. I have done business with the prisoners a good many times; not every week, sometimes twice a week and sometimes not at all—the transactions were of a perfectly honest character—they always

behaved perfectly honestly and straightforwardly—until this matter arose I had great respect for them.

Re-examined. I sold them gold and silver for smelting—they gave me a better price than I could get elsewhere.

WALTER BEX (Detective-Sergeant S.) On October 17th I went to 224, Goswell Road, about 4 p.m.—I saw Alfred Fenigstein—I asked if Fenigstein was in—he said, "I am Mr. Fenigstein"—I said, "I wish to see your younger brother"—he said, "My younger brother is out"—I said, "What time will he be back?"—he said, "In about half an hour?; what do you want?"—I said I wanted to see him on private business—he said, "Have you any stuff?"—I said, "I would rather see your brother"—he said, "It is all right; I will deal as fair with you as my brother. It is all the same; we are partners"—I said, "I will call again"—he said, "Did you come from Mr. Curtney?"—I said, "Yes"—I do not know who Curtney is—he said, "It is all right; my brother told me all about it. We have been expecting you"—I said, "I have not got the stuff with me; I will go and fetch it"—I then left the shop—when I returned it was with Inspector Bower.

ARTHUR ANDREWS (who had pleaded guilty). I was released from prison on March 30th last on ticket-of-leave—I have been employed as a painter, and have been gaining an honest living until I was arrested for failing to report myself, for which I received' one day's imprisonment at Beacons-field—I did not report myself after that—I had a reason for it—amongst other places that I have broken into is the house of Mr. Taylor, of 75, Hillfield Road—I cannot remember the order I took the houses in—I can remember some of them—I remember taking the stamp album, the marble clock and two tankards—I pawned the album—I opened the album and found that the values of the stamps were written over each stamp in the book, and I found a piece of paper with some pencil marks on it,"£48" odd, "1s. 7d.," I believe—I took the album and the marble clock to 224, Goswell Road, the shop kept by the prisoners; I had dealt there before—one stamp has a mark over the top of it of £6—I think it is in the envelope—I said, "I shall want £10 for the stamp album"—a few of the stamps are marked in lead pencil on a slip of paper—ultimately, after arguing, I received £1—I had dealt with them before—they had the clock and tankard—it was the same day of my breaking into the premises and stealing the articles, or the following day, that I took them to the prisoners—only one of the prisoners was there when I went—on that occasion as I was going out, I met the other one coming in, and I went back again with him—the prisoners gave me £1; they were to give more if the articles were found to be of value—I would not like to say the date when I called again, but when I called, the prisoners said that they had taken it to a Mr. Baldwin, of Duncannon Street, Strand, and that he had said they were all forgeries—I said that they had been through all the post offices in the world, and that could not be the case—I left the album with them—besides selling them the album, the clock, and the tankards, I sold the other articles at times—I know there were some cigar cases—one of the houses we broke into had the name of "Commissioner for Oaths" on the door—from 42, Aberdare Road, I took the gold watches

and other articles at which the value has been given at £130 or £150—I took the silver cigar cases to Goswell Road—I cannot remember what the prisoners gave me on each occasion—the most they ever gave me for a haul was £4 10s., I believe—I sold the proceeds of the burglary at Sarre Road to Fenigstein; also the proceeds of the burglary in Chichele Road—the things were wrapped up in the fur coat—I also sold the prisoners the things I took from Mr. Hogg, and those I took from Mr. Cartwright—I recognise some of the things, but not all of them—I remember taking a brown mackintosh from Melrose Avenue—I left it with the prisoners, amongst other things—I never said my name was Rows, nor that I lived in Great Ormond Street—I never produced to them a card of Rows and never went to them in that name—I never told them I was a dealer—they never asked me what I was—they knew I was not working straight—I never was a lodger with them at Rushmore Road or anywhere else, and I never left a mackintosh while lodging there—I always used to go by the name of "Harry"—I cannot positively say that they did know my right name—I do not remember seeing any initials on the articles—at Brixton Alfred told me to say my name was Rows, and that I came from the Caledonian Cattle Market, where I was an antique dealer—I took the tantalus to him—I could not say which house it was stolen from—he also told me to say that I sold stuff to a man over Blackfriars Bridge and that that man sold the stuff to him—nothing was said about taking the initials out—at the police station Alfred told me to say that I had taken the things to be re-plated and to have the initials taken out.

Cross-examined. I came out of prison last March, just before I went to Melrose Avenue—that was on ticket-of-leave—it was not the firs time I have been in prison—I cannot tell you how long I have been in prison, but I have had five years, seven years, and two imprisonments of nine years concurrently; also twelve months, a month, and six months—I think that is the whole of it—I think I started about 1881, but my records will tell you—when I went to 224, Goswell Road, I did not give any name—I did not present any card—I know Bill Walters; he introduced me to 224, Goswell Road—I have not said before that I was introduced by Bill Walters, because I was not asked—I have sold him things—I never sold anything to Harry Allen, who has been in custody—I knew "Jerry Jem"—I sold things to him—I did not tell Alfred that I purchased electric lamps—that is what I was told at Hampstead Police Court to say—I did not ask Alfred what he paid for them, and he did not say 6s. a gross—no such conversation ever took place between us—I did not say that it was a pity, as I could have saved money because I threw them away—I have not been in the habit of throwing electric lamps away, or anything—I did not ask where I could get repairs done cheap—on the first occasion I would not say that I was not carrying a bag, but nothing of that conversation occurred—I remember taking out of the bag some plated ornaments, but I did not ask for the initials to be taken out, and for the articles to be re-plated, but I was told to say that—this is the first time I have been in the witness box—Alfred did not say to me, "I can do the job for you as cheaply as anybody"—I did not reply, "Very well; all right, do it"—nothing of that kind took place—he did not ask what the

new initials were to be—I did not say I cannot tell until I have seen my customers—I never gave the name of Rows—it is not a fact that when I entered the shop Alfred said, "Are you ready with those initials?"—I did not say, "No, I have not been able to see my customer yet, but I will let you know in a day or two"—I did not ask him whether he bought old coins and stamps—I took stamps to him, and old copper coins on another occasion—he did not say, "I do buy coins, but not stamps, as I do not understand them"—he did not say, "I would not give you 10d. for them"—I do not think I asked him whether he knew anybody who would buy stamps—I might have asked south a thing—he did not say he believed he might sell them, but if he did he would want some commission—there was nothing said as to selling stamps on commission—I told him the value of the stamps were marked in pencil on the side, and I should want £10 for the stamp book, and that he might get what he liked—Baldwin's name was not mentioned till later, on the next visit, when I asked if he had got rid of the stamps, and he said they were all forgeries, but I said that could not be the case, because they had been through all the post offices in the world, and that one stamp was of the value of £6—he said that was a forgery, and that he could buy the same stamp for 6d.—he did give the name of Baldwin, but I cannot say that I remember the address he gave—I did not go and try to find Baldwin; I have heard that since I have been in Court—he is a respectable man—the discussion about the stamps being forgeries was on the second visit to the prisoners—I went there because I had received £1 for the stamps and things that I had taken before, and 1 wanted the remaining £9, as I had said I wanted £10 in the first instance—I did not sell the stamps—I received the deposit on them of 10s. and left them for the purpose of ascertaining their value, with the object of receiving a further sum in respect of them—I have not seen the envelope produced—I did not get another penny in respect of the stamps—I left the album because I had confidence in the prisoners, and thought that if it was of any value they would pay me—when they told me they were forgeries, as I had not money to repay what they had advanced upon them, I could not take the album away—I did not take any other article on the occasion I took the stamps—I went there with nothing, and came back the same—if I have been a successful burglar, at the same time I have had to borrow a shilling for my breakfast—I was in the next cell to Alfred at Hampstead when the conversation took place—no warder or police office was there to prevent our conversations—it is impossible to say how I commenced, or who started it—anyone could hear it in the next cell, or outside—I did not ask Alfred if he heard the lies the detective told, or anything of that sort—Alfred did not say it must be true, otherwise they would not say it—Alfred did not say, "Why did you not deny it?"—I did not answer, "I did not have a chance"—he did not say, "Why did not you tell the truth?" nor, "Why did not you say you told me that your name was Rows?"—I did not say, "All right, wait till the proper time comes, and I will"—I never had the opportunity of bringing the matter forward till now—he did not say, "Why did not you say the word in the dock?"—I was told to say that I sold the stuff to a

military-looking man over Blackfriars Bridge, but the name was never mentioned.

Re-examined. I do not know any military-looking man over Blackfriars Bridge—I never had any dealings with such a person—I never went to the prisoners to sell electric lamps—I have never had any in my possession—Bill Walters is a man doing imprisonment since the last North London Sessions for stealing sweets and cloth—I never suggested that the initials should be removed from the tankards—those were bought out and out for 10s.

PERCY BALDWIN . I live at 4a, Duncannon Street, Strand—on October 9th I remember a young man coming with an envelope containing stamps from Fenigstein Brothers, and a letter something to this effect: "Please find so many stamps. Make your best offer for same and oblige"—I examined the stamps and saw that they were chiefly foreign, apart from Colonial stamps, and I told the messenger that I could not do with them—I deal principally with Colonial stamps—I put them in a fresh envelope, and the messenger took them away—I do not think the messenger was one of the prisoners—there was no conversation about the genuineness of those stamps—I was not asked whether they were forgeries or genuine—the messenger did not show me one stamp at a high price—he did not ask me to sell the stamps on commission, nor say what I was to give for them—they were no use to me—I declined to make an offer for them.

Cross-examined. The album was never brought to me—these samples were submitted to me, for me to give a price for them—I did not give a price, because they were not British Colonial.

JANE POSENER . I am the wife of Angel Posener, of 36, Great Ormond Street—we have lived there four years the 9th of this month (November)—during that period no person of the name of C. Rows has resided at that address.

Alfred Fenigstein, in his defence on oath, said that the tankards, table forks, etc., were left to be repaired, and the initials removed; that the stamp album was left to sell on commission; that the electro-plated articles were purchased from a dealer named Graham for his own use; that the mackintosh was left by a lodger; and that he purchased nothing from Andrews, and had no suspicion that any of the goods were stolen.

Barnett Fenigstein, in his defence on oath, said that he assisted his brother in business, but was not a partner; that he had nothing to do with the buying; that he never saw Graham bring the things; and that he had no knowledge that any goods were dishonestly come by.

The prisoners received good characters as straightforward business men. GUILTY . it was stated that the shop, when in possession of the police the following day, was visited by known thieves with articles for sale, and that these persons were detained.

CONWAY— Twelve months' hard labour. ANDREWS, who has 1,000 days to serve— Three years' penal servitude. ALFRED FENIGSTEIN— Five years' penal servitude. BARNETT FENIGSTEIN— Eighteen months' hard labour.

THIRD COURT and

NEW COURT.—Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, November 16th 29th, 1905.

Before Mr. Common Serjeant.

Reference Number: t19051113-47

47. TALBOT BRIDGWATER (49), LIONEL GEORGE PEYTON HOLMES (35), WILLIAM EDWARD SHACKELL (49), and ELIZABETH FOSTER (67) , Feloniously forging and uttering an order for the payment of £819 with intent to defraud. (See Vol. cxlii., pages 386, 674 and 894.)

MR. MUIR, MR. BODKIN and MR. LEYCESTER Prosecuted; MR. WILDEY WRIGHT and MR. COPELAND Appeared for Bridgwater, MR. CORNISH for Holmes, and MR. WALSH for Foster.

(It was staled by Counsel that Bridgwater practised as a medical specialist at 59, Oxford Street.)

EDWIN MARSHALL FOX . I am a director of public companies in this country and have a good many business connections and interests in America—I have an office at 28, Victoria Street, on the second floor, consisting of two rooms, Nos. 15 and 16, each with a separate door opening into a corridor—my room was No. 15, and Miss Toovey's, my secretary's room, was No. 16, and next door to mine—coming down the corridor you first come to No. 15 and then to 16—the two rooms had a communicating door—Miss Toovey had been my secretary for eight or nine years—at the street door there is a hall porter's box, where the keys are kept—a porter is there on duty throughout the day, and letters are also put there for tenants—in my room there was a safe with large doors, and inside it two drawers, each with a separate lock—if the doors of the safe were unlocked and opened you would see a big space above and two drawers below—in the upper space I was in the habit of keeping my books of accounts, cheque books and pass books; also some old used cheque books—there were two keys to the door, which opened the safe; I kept one and Miss Toovey the other—the keys for the drawers in the safe were kept exclusively by myself—there were no duplicates of those keys—the safe had been there for two or three years before September, 1904—I kept the key of my door—my key would not open her door and her key would not open mine, they looked alike, but one would not open the other—so far as I know, these were the only two keys of the corridor doors—I have no recollection of leaving my door key with Bliss Toovey, but she would have access to it, because I sometimes deposited it with the hall porter below when I went out, and if she had wanted it she could have had it—she had authority to get it from him and he would give it to her—up to September of last year I had three banking accounts in London—the Chancery Lane Branch of the Union Bank of London was one—I have had an account there for twelve or thirteen years—in the summer months of last year that account was an open current account, but I operated on it very little—there was not a very large balance there; it was the smallest of all my accounts—I also had an account at the Joint Stock Bank, in Victoria Street, and at the Bank of British North

America, at 5, Gracechurch Street—the latter was also a current account up to September, 1904, and much larger than the Union account—it was an active account and sometimes it was large; I had £5,000, £6,000 or £8,000 there, and on one occasion I had a very much larger account there—the London Joint Stock Bank was within a few doors of my office—I have had an account there for twelve or thirteen years and it was he most active account which I had, and was very frequently operated upon when I was in London—in the summer of last year the balance there was rather low, only about £3,600 to £3,700—on many occasions it has been very much larger and has been higher than £6,000 sometimes—I do not think that my current accounts at all the banks at that time would be more than £10,000, but I think I had £4,000 or £5,000 in each bank on deposit in addition to the collective balance of about £10,000, but I am speaking entirely from memory and my transactions were quite large—in my safe I usually kept cheque books on each of the three accounts in the big part of the safe, but sometimes I kept my London Joint Stock cheque book in my pocket—when not in my pocket it was always in the safe—I kept all the pass books of the banks in my safe and when the cheque book on one of the accounts was exhausted it was the practice to get the cheques back from the bank and paste them on to the corresponding counterfoils—it was Miss Toovey's duty to do that, and in the safe I had several old cheque books made up in that way in June, July, August and September, 1904—in the drawers in the lower part of my safe there were some loose stones and some packets of diamonds—they were wrapped up in paper and not sealed—there were a few diamond pins and some diamond cuff buttons and a diamond watch chain, or rather a diamond set in a watch chain; they were in a packet of tissue paper—they did not all belong to me, but I was holding them for a friend—there was £600 or £700 worth of jewellery belonging to my wife in a packet kept separate from the others, both in the same drawer—there had been some correspondence about the jewellery which I was keeping for my American friend which I had dictated to Miss Toovey and which was copied into the letter book—there was no entry in the book with regard to my wife's jewellery, and I do not think it was known to Miss Toovey that it was there—my recollection is that all those jewels were there in the summer months of last year—my wife's jewels had been there for a few years and the rest for some months—this (Ex. 2, Produced) is my cheque book on the Union Bank, Chancery Lane—it was not an active account—this is the current cheque book, which I had at that time, and is the only cheque book I had on that bank at that time to my recollection, but it is an old book—the first cheque pasted in is an old cheque of 1895—I discontinued using that bank, but a few cheques had been used down to August, 1896—several cheques pasted into the cheque book have been passed through the bank—I see in this book the remainder of three counterfoils from which apparently have been torn the remaining portions of the adhering cheques—the last one remaining whole is 7504, then come some which are torn out and then 7508 and there are three tags left in—this book (Ex. 3, Produced) is my current cheque book on the London Joint Stock Bank, Victoria Street, in September

last year, and I see between cheque 95122 and the next one to it, 95125, that cheque forms have gone and that in the binding there are two little bits of paper which have just been left in, two unused cheques having been abstracted—I find that 95127 is also missing, and there is a similar little bit of paper left in the binding—it is torn up to the binding nearly as close as could be—this cheque (Ex. 4, Produced) purports to be drawn by me in favour of Walter Stone or order for £819, dated September 22nd, 1904—it bean the endorsement "Walter Stone" and also the mark of the bank showing that it has been paid—it is not signed by me—it was not drawn by my authority and is a forgery—the number is 95124 and is drawn from this book—last year I went abroad on August 1st and I was last at my office on that morning, but I closed the office on the Saturday previous and gave my clerk a holiday—I have no other clerk besides Miss Toovey in that office, but I was a director of a company which has offices close by, but in these two rooms there were only Miss Toovey and myself—she was in attendance on the Saturday and knew I was going away—I had intended going on the Saturday and she asked me if she could have a holiday on the Monday, as it was Bank Holiday, and on the Monday I went down to get my letters—this particular cheque book I obtained myself from the London Joint Stock Bank on Saturday morning, July 30th—it was new at that time, and I went up to my office and drew a few cheques for small amounts that were due, put it in my pocket and went away and did not come back for three weeks, as I was motoring on the Continent—I took the cheque book on the Continent with me—during the three weeks' absence I told Miss Toovey she could go away, but was to look after the cables and so on—she had not to go to the office regularly, but to call me if there were any cables—while I was away I still kept my safe drawer arid big door keys—I do not think I took with me my corridor door key—on my return to London I went to the office again and put the cheque book into the safe—from the date of my return until September 22nd the cheque book was sometimes in my pocket and sometimes in the safe—after my return there was no cheque drawn from this cheque book until August 27th; that is about the time I returned—the counterfoil is in Miss Toovey's writing—she frequently writes the counterfoils and the bodies of cheques if I am busy, leaving me to sign only—on September 22nd I looked at my pass book and found that I had about £3,600 on current account there—I did not go to the office on September 22nd; I had been playing golf, but I came to the office late in the afternoon, when they telephoned for me—I got there a little after 5, I think, and Miss Toovey then made a communication to me and I saw this cheque for £819—one of the bank officials was there—I pronounced the cheque to be a forgery—I saw Inspector Fuller there—this key, labelled 5, belongs to one of my office doors—I think it is my door, or it is very much like it, I cannot really tell—my recollection is that I only gave one key to Inspector Arrow—on September 26th this year I was at my office with Arrow and a locksmith, who took off the lock of the door of No. 15, and I saw the locksmith with a piece of a key in his hand and I saw the same piece (Produced) at Westminster Police

Court—it resembles the operating part of my key of door No. 15—I found the whole of my jewellery in the safe, and the keys of the drawers have never left ray possession.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. During the last four or four and a half years Miss Toovey occupied the position of shorthand writer and typist, and for five and a half years she has been my book-keeper and secretary—during the last four or five years I have had nobody else permanently in the office—during that time I have been abundantly satisfied with Miss Toovey and she has been a faithful clerk, and I have had absolute confidence in her integrity—she had the key of the safe, but never the keys of the drawers; I always kept them myself—to my knowledge I never saw Bridgwater until I saw him at the Police Court—when I left the office at night my custom was to leave my office key in the hall porter's office, and it was hung up on a nail or something of that sort with the number of the rooms attached—besides my key and Miss Toovey's there was doubtless a key kept by the people of the house for the purpose of entering and cleaning—I do not know where they were kept and I know nothing about them—it was with my knowledge and sanction that Miss Toovey took the office key home with her—there were no duplicates of the keys of the drawers in the safe—on August 23rd I arrived at Waterloo in the morning and went to the office—I cannot say if I went to the office every day between August 23rd and 27th, but I probably went two or three times—the cheque book which I obtained was never out of my possession from the time I got it until I went on my motoring tour—during my motoring tour I confided it to the charge of my valet—it was in my bag, which was unlocked, and he had the key—if he had so chosen he could have had access to the bag—he had then been in my service six or seven years—he is not in my service now, as I have dismissed him—I do not wish to throw any aspersions upon him, and I did not accuse him, but I was suspicious and thought I would make a change—my suspicions arose soon after the forgery took place, but I kept him a few months after that—I discharged him on January 1st—when I went away on July 30th I had a chauffeur in my service—I think he had been with e perhaps a year and a half—he is now with my family in America and still in my service—neither my valet nor chauffeur had any right to look at my cheque book—the valet had the right to open the bag, but the chauffeur had not—from August 23rd to September 22nd my current cheque book on the London Joint Stock Bank was either in the safe or in my pocket, or at the Hyde Park Hotel—when I dressed or undressed it was in a drawer at the hotel with my other papers, but was not locked up—after my return from abroad my valet stated to me that he was aware while we were away that three cheques were missing from the cheque book, and at that time I had no reason to doubt the statement, but it does not at all accord with what I heard at the Police Court—it was two or three days after the forgery that he said he had noticed whilst he was packing my bag in Paris that three cheques were missing from the interior of the book—he did not say counterfoils—I informed the bank of the fact—I regarded it as his bounden duty, as an honest man, to tell me at once when

he found that the cheques were missing, but he never said anything to me about it until after the fact of the forgery was common knowledge in my house—I first doubted his statement about the end of September or beginning of October—the bank manager first suggested it to me—I had not direct communication with the police; I do not think they credited the statement—I do not know where my valet is now—I also spoke to my chauffeur about the matter and he corroborated the valet's statement that the cheques were found to have been missing by the valet in Paris—the chauffeur said that when he entered my room in Paris the valet said, "There is a cheque missing from Mr. Fox's cheque book"; that he, the chauffeur, said, "Why don't you tell Mr. Fox?" and the valet said, "Oh, I suppose he took it himself; he often takes cheques."

Re-examined. I have never taken cheques out of the body of my cheque books; I sometimes, for convenience, tear out the next cheque when I am going away, but I would never take it from the middle of the book and I should not tear out the counterfoil—this (Produced) is my pass book at the London Joint Stock Bank—this page reads: "1904, amount £3,763 Is. 8d."—that is the credit, and on the opposite side: "1904, £1,222 1s. 9d."—it was two or three days after the discovery of the forgery that my valet spoke to me about the cheques being missing in Paris—he was not interviewed by the police before he made a statement to me, so far as I know—I know they interviewed him when this fact came out—I spoke to the bank manager within two hours of my valet making the statement to me, which was on September 24th, 1904.

CHARLES ROBERT FISHER . I am now undergoing a sentence of six months' hard labour at Wormwood Scrubbs—I was sentenced at this Court on July 26th last to that term for uttering counterfeit coin, and at the same time I was sentenced to ten years' penal servitude concurrently for office breaking in the City, and I had been sentenced in this country twice before that, the last time being a term of two years' hard labour for attempting to obtain the impression of keys from a postman at a pillar box—I have also been convicted in America for several offences, my sentence including one of ten years' penal servitude for forgery—when I was arrested upon the last occasion this box of wax was found in my possession—it has got upon it the impression of a key—it is what is called modelling wax, and there are grooves in the side of the box for the barrel of the key to sink into at the side—I have known Dr. Bridgwater about four years—I remember saying that, at the Westminster Police Court in this case, and he said he had never seen me in his life before—I came out of prison from the two years' imprisonment on the first Saturday of June last year and I called at Bridgwater's place on the Monday at the corner of Oxford Street and Soho Street—I called there to see him and to see other people whom I expected to meet there—when I saw Bridgwater I asked him where Wigram was—he is a man I used to see occasionally—he is the same as myself; I mean he mixes up with a lot of people who are not exactly straight; he is in Scotland now—his line of business was handling forged cheques or anything he could get any money at—we called him the "Moocher" or "Bill"—I asked after him by the

name of "Bill"—I knew Bridgwater well; I had been up in his place often—I asked if "Old Bill" was about, and Bridgwater said he was convicted in Scotland of the robbery of £4,000 or £5,000, I believe, in a bank—he was there with Jim Robertson, his partner—Robertson was the pen-man of the party—I asked Bridgwater if there was anything new—he said, yes, he had something to do—I told him I was broke and had no money and wanted some assistance financially—he said he did not have very much at the time, but would assist me a little and lend me a couple on pounds—I went upstairs that day to dinner with him; the dining room was at the top—we talked over everything—he told me of the Wigram and Robertson matter and told me the mistake Wigram had made in getting arrested, and then told me of this Victoria Street matter—he told me the man who had been working for him, before I went away (his name was Haynes) had gone away and that he had got a new man working downstairs in the drug room, of whom he was very careful, named Darby, and I was to say very little in his presence, and that he should see me as little as possible—I did not know Darby and did not trust him very much—I knew he was working for Bridgwater then, and the good people he had before had gone—Bridgwater then told me about Mr. Fox in Victoria Street, and said he was a very rich man, a millionaire or very nearly a millionaire, and had a very strong banking account and some diamonds and jewellery of his wife's in his safe, and if we could get a cancelled cheque and one or two out of his cheque book we could get considerable money, which would reach into thousands, and that his balance was from £20,000 to £40,000, and at least £20,000, and that he, Bridgwater, would have a man to open an account in the bank and push the cheque through the account instead of getting it over the counter, so as to clear it—he told me he wanted me to get an impression of a key; that Miss Toovey was Mr. Fox's private secretary; that she had been a patient of his and that he had previously had an impression from her and sent up to the office to get in, but they never did get in and he wanted me to go to the house where she lived and take furnished apartments—he told me he had got an impression from Miss Toovey as she bad been to him often as a patient; that she had left her bag in the consulting room while somebody pretended to call; that he went into the drug room and then said he had a particular case, would she step out for a moment; that she then left her bag behind and he took an impression of the safe key and door key—he told me that she had a house at Streatham and had put up a notice at the station that she had a room to be let—that he had kept company with her and had engaged himself to her and taken her to the theatre several times, and "palled her up," as we term it, and got very intimate and friendly with her—that he got the impression of the keys made and gave them to Billy Wigram and Robertson, and they were to get another man and go to Mr. Fox's office and open his safe and take the blank cheques out, which were necessary—he told me that he had found out about Mr. Fox through Miss Toovey; that she had said he was so wealthy and was her employer; that he was an American and connected with Carnegie in some business transactions; that she used to love to talk about Mr. Fox,

because she was so well treated by him and that he judged from her remarks that Mr. Fox had this amount of money on deposit at the bank—he told me that Wigram and Robertson had tried the key upstairs on the office door, but could not get in and must have gone to the wrong door on the landing, as there are three or four then—he suggested that I should go up and get the impression from Miss Toovey; that I was to go up in the morning or evening, when she would be in, and say that I had seen a notice of her room at the station at Streatham—it was not there at that moment, but it had been there a month previously; of course, I was not out at the time—I was to ask for a furnished room or two, if necessary, and Bridgwater said she would be only too anxious to let it to an American if she thought I was an American, because she thought they were very liberal with their money—I went up there and done as be directed—I was to get the impression from her safe key and door key, which he told me were in a little hand bag that she carried—when I went to her I gave her the name of Dean—at Bridgwater's I went in the name of Blair; that name was given me so that Bridgwater's helps should not know my real name—Bridgwater knew me as Blair and Fisher and every name that I took—I took Miss Toovey's lodgings about the latter part of June—I had the front parlour and bedroom—I paid my rent weekly, in advance; it was not a question of money—I had a couple of bags and a hat box there—having got into the house as a lodger, I waited to see if she left the bag on the dining room table—eventually I saw it there by the sewing machine—I went the first or second night to try the door leading into the dining room by the bath room, but it was locked—it is a flat threw—there was no other lodger besides me—I had my meals separately in the front room; this dining room was hers—the door on the first night was locked because her sister was there—after a few nights it was left unlocked, and I went in and found the keys in a little bag and took an impression of the door key and safe key and two little desk Keys, I believe they were—one was a Yale key, the key of the house where we lived, and I did not take that—I took the impression next morning to Bridgwater, and he said he would have the keys made by the next day or so, but the impressions were poor and I was to get more—he told me he had them made, and gave them to me, and I took them to the Victoria Street offices and tried them—I knew which were the offices—Bridgwater brought me up there and showed me, and I tried the door next to Mr. Fox's office—there are three doors there—the result was that I broke the tumblers off the key in the look—this (Produced) is the piece of the key I broke off—after that I hurried back to Bridgwater's place and told him about it, and said I was much worried about it, and feared that it would stop the look and be an obstruction in it—he said he was sorry and was afraid it would be a tumble, but told me to go home, and wait and see, and that I could tell by Miss Toovey's actions when she came in how it stood—I went back to Miss Toovey's house, and when she came in everything looked as sweet as it could be, and I thought it was all right—the next thing was another impression, which I obtained—I pulled up a plant in

the garden, and when she came in I met her and showed her the plant which I had pulled up, and said somebody had pulled it up—she had to go upstairs, and then came down to fix the plant and so gave me a chance of getting an impression—she looked at the plant, which had only been there a few days, and got a little trowel and ran downstairs and put it into the ground—while she was downstairs I went to the adjoining room and got the bag out, had the keys and took more impressions, which I took down and gave to Bridgwater—I got three more different keys from him, specimens of each lock; three duplicates of each key—the door key that I received opened the office door and a board room door beyond—when I got into Mr. Fox's office I ran round to see if the safe was there—I found it and shoved the key in and turned the lock, but I threw it back again, because I had not time, and I did not look into the safe—I went out—I next visited the premises about a week or ten days afterwards—I allowed that time to elapse because a man saw me at one of the doors—the next time I went there was a Monday—the cheque was put off at the bank on the Thursday in the same week, and the Monday would be September 19th—before I went in that time I was looking over some of Miss Toovey's things at her house, and got a letter of recommendation which the doctor (Bridgwater) said she had from Mr. Fox—it was to copy the handwriting—she kept it in a large book with other letters which she had in a book case, a large sort of portfolio—she showed it to me because I brought up the conversation about things which she kept in the portfolio, letters about herself, and she was only too proud to show me—there were two testimonials from Mr. Fox; one was a large one of three or four pages, and the other, I think, was only a single page—I took the larger one, of course—I had seen it on the Sunday, and I took it on the Monday after I had been to the safe, but the same day—I went to the safe about 10 a.m. on Monday—Bridgwater went with me to the building, but not into it—it was arranged that he was to wait for Miss Toovey coming along in order to hold her until I got out—she would come to the office across Westminster Bridge and up Victoria Street—when I got to the safe and saw the inside of it I looked round for the cancelled book or the book which had cancelled cheques in it—after some rummaging over the papers, I saw one—it was four or five years old—I tore three pieces out—by pieces I mean cheques, and I pulled them out of the stub—this (Produced) is the cheque book.

Friday, November 7th.

THOMAS PROUD . I am second clerk at the Westminster Police Court—on September 30th I took the depositions of Charles Robert Fisher when he was giving evidence against the prisoners—that was the first date on which he gave evidence—in the course of his evidence Bridgwater made an interruption which I took a note of—Fisher said, "I have known Bridgwater about four years, whereupon Bridgwater said, "May I say I have never seen that man before in my life.' "

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. That took place not very long after Fisher had entered the box—I should say about five minutes; I had taken about three folios of evidence.

Re-examined. The case had been opened in Bridgwater's presence before Fisher was called, and it had been stated in his presence as an opening that he had had all these dealings with Fisher.

By the COURT. My recollection is that in the opening Fisher was spoken of as Fisher and Blair.

C. R. FISHER (Examination continued). After I had torn out the used cheques I looked for a cheque book which was not used—I found one and tore three cheques out, two in succession and one further on; I only left a small margin—this (Produced) is the book—there was also what looked like a small tin cash box in the safe, which I picked up and shook to see what was in it—I put it back again—there were a lot of papers in the safe, but I did not look at them or examine anything else except this pass book (Produced), as I wanted to see how much balance there was, and I found that it was about £3,500—besides the cheques and the balance I was looking for Mrs. Fox's diamonds, which were supposed to be in a jewel case, but I did not see it there—having got the used and the unused cheques I brought them out and gave them to Bridgwater, who was outside near the corner—I gave them to him at a public-house, the first one as you cross from Westminster Bridge coming over the bridge—he asked me if I had seen the diamonds and I told him I had not seen the jewel case—he said it was very funny and looked at me very suspicious as if I had them—I put my hands into my pockets and said, "They are not there," patting them—he asked me how much balance there was and I said I did not think it would stand for more than £3,500—he asked me if there were any more, and I said I did not think he had any more than that—he said, "All right, I will put in the first piece for a little to get some 'ready'"—that was ready money, as we were broke; he meant a small cheque—we had a drink and talked for three or four moments and then left and went to his office, where we arrived about 11, when he took the pieces or cheques up to his room and put them between a book to keep them smooth and told me I should go over and get the handwriting of Mr. Fox in the recommendation or testimonial, which I did—I had mentioned the recommendation to him which I had seen there on the Sunday—I was acquainted with Miss Toovey's hours at her house—she generally went out about 10 a.m., sometimes a little before, and sometimes she would be back about 6, and sometimes a little later—I had a latchkey and there was no one in the house when she and I were absent—the place where the scrap book was kept was not locked—I got back to Bridgwater's premises with the testimonial, I think, after 1 o'clock—I gave it to him and he handed it to Shackell, who came there between 1 and 2—he had been there when I got back from Miss Toovey's, and I was only in there a short time when he came in again; he used to run in and out—I had seen him before on that day—when he came in again he took the letter and wanted to sit down and practise there—Bridgwater was there all the time; it was in his sitting room upstairs—Shackell was a bit nervous that day and Bridgwater told

him to go home and take a tonic—he practised some characters of Mr. Fox's writing sitting down at the table with a pen and ink, and I stepped out of the room—Bridgwater came out and left him, as he wanted to be alone, but he was not able to do it that day, but he tried to do a "piece"—I saw it on the landing with Bridgwater and Shackell—no one else saw it then that I know of; it was one of the cheques—Bridgwater said it had not been done well enough to go in—I looked at it, but did not see much the matter with it—the doctor had a little double glass that he put up to see if the were shaky—the amount was £600 odd—the doctor said Shackell was to straighten out and go home and take a tonic and come back again—that is all that was done about the matter on that day, and I went back to Miss Toovey's—next day I came down to Bridgwater's office and met Shackell—it was between 12 and 1 o'clock—I saw Holmes there every day I went there, in the drug room or dispensary or all over the house as he had the run of it, and he was there when I went there between 12 and 1 on the Tuesday—it was arranged that Shackell was to try to do the thing again on the Tuesday, but he could not make a success of it—he did not try on a cheque form, but on a piece of paper—as he was unsuccessful the doctor said he was to go home and come down next Wednesday—on the Tuesday Holmes, Bridgwater and myself were all together, sitting in the consulting room, which we often used to do when no one else was there—the subject of the conversation was that Holmes was to put the piece in when it was ready, butfnot to get cash; he was to put it through an account—this was on the Tuesday and Wednesday—when Shackell sat down and practised he was in the dining room above the drug room—Holmes was present when we were talking about it, but he had to be downstairs in case anyone should call, because the place was open—on the Monday or Tuesday Bridgwater said to me that Holmes was to take the cheque and get the money for it—I think he said that on the Monday—on the Tuesday it was talked of in Holmes' presence when Shackell was there—on the Tuesday night I went back to Miss Toovey again and on the Wednesday Shackell came to the office when I was there with Bridgwater and Holmes—after talking and having several drinks Shackell went upstairs again to try it, but could not make a success of it—he sat down to practise from the recommendation from Mr. Fox to Miss Toovey—the cheque was put off on the Thursday, and I believe it was actually written on that day—I was then on the top floor, but not in the room—Shackell was in the dining room; I judged it was then between 12 and 1—I was sometimes in the next room, which is the doctor's sleeping room—the kitchen was also on that floor—Shackell was by himself when he did it—Bridgwater was up there with me; he went in and then left Shackell in the room—Holmes was in the drug room—I saw the result—I was at the door when I examined it—when Shackell opened the door of the room, I knew it was finished and he showed me the two pieces or cheques filled up—Bridgwater was there and examined them and then showed them tome—Bridg-water had a small glass to examine them with and said the work was not A1 work, he thought it would go through, but he thought he ought to have done

better—Holmes saw them up there about ten minutes afterwards—I do not remember if he expressed any opinion—the cheques were then put into a book to keep smooth—I stopped around there mostly all that day and had Mr. Fox's letter given to me, which I put in my pocket—I stayed there until the cheque was cashed—I may have gone out for a short time, but I did not go home—I think I put back the testimonial in the evening so that Miss Toovey would not miss it—that day Holmes and Bridgwater went out to get one of the cheques cashed—one was for £819 and the other for £600 and some odd—before they started the doctor said in Holmes' hearing the £600 one would be put down—Shackell was upstairs then with us and present at the conversation—as near as I can tell, they went out to put down the cheque about 3 o'clock—Holmes was dressed in a long Prince Albert coat and a top hat—I call a Prince Albert coat a frock coat—he had a light overcoat on his arm—I judged that they returned about 6 p.m.; it might be a little before—I saw Holmes and Bridgwater—nobody else was present besides we three—Bridgwater said, "It has come off and there is nice clean money," showing me some £50 notes—I was given to understand by Bridgwater that it was the £600 cheque which had been put down—it was arranged that I should get one-third, which would be £200 odd, but Bridgwater said that after deducting expenses, my corner, as he called it, would come to about £115, but I did not get £115—he said there was the expense for office hire and money he had spent on taking Miss Toovey to dinner and theatres in order to sweeten her up on the first start—Bridgwater gave me £10 in gold and he wanted to give me English notes, but I would not take them—I took the £10 in gold, as I wanted to use it—I wanted the banknotes exchanged, as I did not care about taking them, and he said he would get them changed with his money to French money and would send them away that night to France by his wife—I understood him to mean by his wife, Mrs. Foster—I had seen her before, and he had introduced me to her as his wife—I knew from Bridg-water that she lived at Seaford—he said he had sent for her; I think he said he had wired—I saw her that night at the doctor's about 7, but I did not speak to her—I saw her going upstairs to the upper floor and she went out with the doctor to the station—the doctor told me they were going down by Holborn Viaduct and he was to leave her on the train for Paris—I saw them go out about 7.30, and that is the last I saw of her that night—the doctor said he was to change a couple of notes at Cook's—he did not say who was to do it, but he went down there with Holmes to change them—that was said on the Thursday night before Mrs. Foster arrived—I went back to Miss Toovey's on the Thursday night and saw her and noticed that she acted rather strange and a bit excited, and she looked queer—next day I saw Bridgwater at his office and told him that I thought it must have been a tumble by the way Miss Toovey acted; I meant that she must have discovered that there was something wrong with the cheque, and it might have been found out in some way—Bridgwater said he did not think so and I was to go back that night—he had said that the second cheque was to go in on the Saturday—on the Friday I saw Holmes in the evening across the way from the doctor's place, standing

at the corner of the street, watching the office, waiting to see the doctor—he had been into the office on that day, but there was not much doing—when I saw him in the evening opposite he told me he wanted to see the doctor in order to get something, I suppose money—he said he wanted to get the rest of his corner—he told me his share in this matter was to be 25 percent.—I told him that the doctor would be round in a moment, but before that I said, "This ain't no place for you; you had better keep away from here on account of Miss Toovey"—I said Miss Toovey was likely to come round there and it was not a place for him or me either—that is all I said about Miss Toovey, and I went home that night and saw her and had a conversation with her—I noticed her appearance before I spoke to her—she looked very much troubled—I saw Bridgwater afterwards and told him what I had said to Miss Toovey—next morning I formed an opinion as to whether she had found out anything, and in consequence I packed my bag ready to go that morning, and I paid Miss Toovey in advance for my lodging—I think I gave her about £4, which would keep the rooms open for me for three or four weeks—I judge I came away about 6 o'clock in the morning (September 24th)—I left my bag at the luggage office, first at Black-friars, then I went to the doctor's and rang the bell; he slept upstairs—it was his dwelling house as well as his business premises—I got there about 7 a.m., and saw him and told him I was certain now from what Miss Toovey had told me that the piece or cheque could not go in because they knew of the one already cashed—he said he was glad I had come down and told him, as it would save a man—he asked me if I had my things, and I told him I had taken all away and cleared off—I took my luggage to Addison Road station from Blackfriars—I had previously had another trunk there which I had taken from Victoria—I left the whole of the luggage in the cloak room at Addison Road—later on that day I saw Shackell at the office—he told me he had only got £50 for his corner altogether; that he had had £70 given him, but he had given £20 to a man whom the doctor had introduced to him to change for him and he had run away with it—he said his name was Bill the Barman—it was on this occasion that Shackell told me they had cashed the £800 piece instead of the smaller one—he said he knew that because Holmes had told him how much he had put it down for—he told me that the doctor had told him that he had sent the money over to Paris, and he, the doctor, had lost it, as hey had stuck to it over there—I think it was about a week after it was put off that Shackell told me that—I saw him mostly every time I went to the doctor's office—the doctor's excuse for not giving Shackell his full I money was because he had lost the money in Paris, and Shackell said he was going to stick around off and on, until he got his full part—I saw Shackell often after that date at the doctor's house, and sometimes I met him outside in Argyle Street—I did not see Holmes on that Saturday—when I saw him on the Friday outside the doctor's house he had a soft hat and a very light coloured overcoat—I had never seen him dressed like that before—he usually had a tall hat and a long black coat—on the Saturday night I was at the doctor's until about 9 p.m.—I saw Foster

and the doctor there about 9 o'clock—I had no conversation with her, she came into the consulting room and then went upstairs to the doctor's—I saw her several times that night—that evening I got the rest of the money to make up £115—I got it shortly after the doctor came down-stairs from leaving Mrs. Foster—it was in French money, some paper and some coin—that night I slept at the doctor's in Oxford Street—on the Sunday I went down to Seaford with Mrs. Foster and the doctor, and went with the doctor to Mrs. Foster's house, which is named "Iron clyde" or "Ironside," or something similar to that—it faces the see and is about three or four minutes from the station—it is a corner house—when you come out of the station you turn to the left and it is right opposite the sea and the railway track—I was in one of the upper bedrooms there—I think there are only two floors; I mean the ground floor and one above it—it is a peculiarly built house—I was also in the dining-room and kitchen, which is at the back of the house towards the yard—there are windows only on the left side of the entrance door as you go in—there is a garden at the side of the street on the door side of the house, and there were some very nice pears growing on the wall—I do not know their name—while I was there we had dinner—Mrs. Foster was there, but no servant—no one else was there but we three—at dinner Bridgwater handed Mrs. Foster three fivers or £5 notes and said, "This is towards the expenses of going over to Paris"—she took the fivers and said, "All right"—that day we went to a couple of public-houses and had some drink, and from there crossed the downs to the coastguard station, where the doctor got a basket of mushrooms and a few fresh eggs from the coastguardmen—he told me he always went down there and liked to show himself around—I spoke to the coastguardsmen in Bridgwater's presence, but I do not remember exactly what I said—next morning, Monday, Bridgwater and I left Seaford and came up on the same train—I paid four or five other visits to Seaford after that—that was the first one I had paid—I always went down on Saturday nights or Sunday mornings with one exception—one day we made another trip to the coastguards, when we took a carriage and drove to Alfriston—Mrs. Foster did not go, only Bridgwater and myself—he was there all the other times; I always went down with him—we spent the rest of our time going round to public-houses when they were open; there were only two, but that took up pretty near all the afternoon—I was generally with Bridgwater but I went oncer twice alone to one of the houses, but the long expeditions I always went with Bridgwater—while I was staying with Miss Toovey I saw some photographs in her possession—I took one of them and brought it home to a room I then had at Shepherd's Bush—that was after I was staying at Miss Toovey's—I did not take the photo from Miss Toovey's until the day I left—I kept it in my possession up to the time of my arrest—it was in my trunk at 5, Portland Road, Holland Park, which is very near Shepherd's Bush—after my arrest it remained there, as far as I know, until I saw it at the Police Court—this (Produced) is it; it is a photograph of Miss Toovey sitting up in bed (Ex. 1)—she told me her brother took it—while I was visiting Bridgwater's, and after the forgery,

I had something done to my teeth—I forget the dentist's name; he was around in Charing Cross Road—the doctor gave me a letter of introduction to him—he crowned three teeth and made a few false upper teeth—to the best of my recollection I paid him twelve guineas—while I was visiting Bridgwater's there was a man named Darby employed there; he was drug clerk before Holmes went there—when I first visited Bridgwater's I was supposed to be a patient of his, so far as Darby was to know—there was a call book there kept by Darby—I often saw my name written down in it—some days while Darby was keeping the book I called three or four times and my name was written down three or four times on one day—I had a conversation with Bridgwater about the book and told him that Darby was entering my name so often in the book and that it would look bad if my name was connected with him—I was going in the name of Blair—that is Darby (Pointing to a man)—Bridgwater said he would tear my name out when the thing was over and when he had got rid of Darby—Darby left, to the best of ray knowledge, three or four weeks before the forgery—this (Produced) is the call book in which my name was entered; there are now pages missing from it—there was a man called Everett employed at Bridgwater's—when he first came he was in charge of the reception room and would take the names into the consulting room to the doctor—th patients had to put their names on a slip of paper, and if the doctor was not there Everett would probably go into the drug room—Everett would put the names or the paper—he was there until I stopped going in January last—he war not there when I first went there on June 6th; I should think he came in July or August—I ceased to go to the doctor's the first or second Monday in January—I did so on account of Holmes getting into trouble—I went to America in December of last year—I only stayed a few days—I was over there for Christmas—I sailed from New York the last day in December—Holmes was arrested while I was in America or on the way—I visited Bridgwater's place one day after I came back from America—I saw Bridgwater and he told me about Holmes being in trouble and asked me for some money towards the defence—I did not contribute anything then—that was a couple of days after I landed; I believe it was on a Monday—I never went back to Bridgwater's after he told me to keep away—I know those two men (Pointing to Berry and Eastwrick)—they are the two coastguardmen—on one occasion when we visited the coastguard station there was a little girl there, I think—I gave her a coin or it may have been a few coppers—both the coastguardmen were then a short distance away—I think the little girl belonged to the man with the beard (Berry)—I remember the mother looking out of the window and calling her, and the one with the beard attended to her—one of the public-houses that I went to with Bridgwater at Seaford was the Terminus, and the other the Wellington—the Wellington was a short distance from the Terminus—I know that man (Pointing to Hadlow)—he is the landlord of the Wellington—after the forgery Bridgwater told me that Miss Toovey had called on him and told him that she was up and down Holborn Viaduct to Chancery Lane looking for my office, as I had told her that

I had an office in the district, but I did not have any—she thought I had an office in that district and wanted to find it—Bridgwater said I had better keep away from that district—he told me that Miss Toovey had told him that the Scotland Yard men were down at Fox's office and that three or four photos were shown to her, and that one looked very much like her lodger, but she was in doubts and would not recognise it, but thought it looked like him; that is what the doctor told me she said, and also that she said she would like to find me to show me to the detectives, as she was quite satisfied her lodger had not done it—Bridgwater discussed with me the probability of arrests being made after Miss Toovey had called and before I went to America—he said if there was any trouble he was fixing up an alibi for himself, and of course he would look after the interests of Holmes—he told me he had palled up someone at Seaford—I do not know who he was, but someone connected with the railroad—he said he was strong enough to see it through, as he was £500 or £600 strong—he had a watch and chain and a large pearl locket, or it looked like a pearl in a horseshoe, and also a diamond ring—he said he had pawned them in order to prove he had no money at the time the forgery was committed—that is what he told me, and I know he pawned the ring, because I saw she ticket—I do not know where he pawned it—it was a little time after the forgery—he said he meant to pay the quarter's rent and some drug bills with the money he got for pawning the ring—I know a man called Flack-man or Flatman—I have seen him at the doctor's office—he was the manager, I believe, of an hotel at Southend, and the doctor said he could always have Flatman in case he wanted him to prove an alibi—this (Produced) is my note book which was found upon me when I was arrested—this entry at the bottom I made at the time I went to Seaford, and after looking at it I now remember that the name of Mrs. Foster's house was "Ingleside"—I know where Shackell lived, but I cannot remember the address—I had it in my book—he lived over Clapham way—I made this other entry in my book at the time I saw Shackell, just before the forgery began—I went to his house once about a week or two after the forgery—the address is 2, Beauchamp Road, Lavender Hill, W.—that gentleman (Pointing to F. Bollard) is the dentist who did my teeth—when I last saw Holmes on the Friday about the time of the forgery he told me he intended to leave the doctor's and go off in the public-house line looking after fixtures or something like that—he said where he intended to do that, but I did not pay much attention to it—it was out of town, and as long as he went away I did not much bother about it.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I hope I am a truthful man; I am a truthful man in all this matter—I have no doubt that, apart from this matter, I have told fibs—I never told one unless it was absolutely necessary for my own safety—I would tell a lie for my own safety, but I would not do so on my oath—I do not know that Inspector Arrow has said he would not believe me on my oath unless I were corroborated—if he has said so I do not agree with him—I was born in 1854—my first conviction was not in 1866—I say that at the age of twelve I was not convicted for robbing my grandfather—I have a fair memory, which goes back probably twenty

years—I swore that it would not go back more than five or six years, but at the moment I did so it probably would not go back five or six years—that was when you were cross-examining me—to the best of my recollection I was first convicted in America in 1883 or 1884—I have worked at several businesses—I have been in the jewellery line honestly for an Englishman and for a Londoner—I do not saw I have not been dishonest, but I do not remember it—I have been in the grain weighing business, the tinning business and gold business—it would not be true to say of me that I made no secret of the fact that I was a thief and a forger by profession and an expert in all the arts of professional thieves in England, America, and on the Continent—I do not remember anybody giving any description like that—I do not remember Arrow saying so, and if it is in the newspaper, with all due respect to the newspaper people, I think they invented it—Arrow may have said that I was a German and that one of my chief methods was to carry a box of wax, by means of which I took an impression of any keys I came across, but it is not true, as I did not always carry wax; but part of it is true—I do not believe he said that I was one of the moat notorious and desperate criminals that he ever had in his ken—I have been convicted two or three times in America; my sentences were ten years, three and a half years, and six months—I came here in 1892 or 1893; I think it was 1893—I remember Cincinatti gaol; I escaped from there—I said before that I did not escape, but quietly walked away—six or seven others were with me—an impression was not taken of the keys of the gaol and false keys made, but the gaoler left the keys in his room while he went to breakfast—it was usual for him to do so; it is laughable, but it is a fact—nobody was left in charge, and half a dozen prisoners were walking about, so any of them could get the key, and walk downstairs, which they did—that is not a fair sample of the prison system in America—I did not serve the whole of my three and half years—I served probably about eighteen months—that was several years after I escaped from prison, but it was on the same charge—I got a parole; it is the parole system there—it is not the same as the ticket-of-leave, as you can get a parole nine months after you are sentenced, for good behaviour, and if you have anybody who will give you employment—I got my parole on account of good conduct—my good conduct did not consist in giving information to the authorities of three or four persons who I said had been connected with me in my crimes—I will swear that—in several States in America, and especially in Ohio, it is usual for anybody to get a remission of eighteen months or two years out of a sentence of three and a half years—a life man can get out after serving two or three years—I had a couple of thousand dollars in my pocket in 1893 and I thought I would take a run over here and see what I could do—I may have stayed here about eighteen months—during that time I bought and sold articles of jewellery and knocked about race tracks—I dealt in jewellery honestly—during the whole of the time, I was getting my living honestly and took some jewellery over to America with me—I remember a robbery at a fine Art depot in Bloomsbury; that was later, I think in 1897 or 1898—I went to the fine art shop and asked the price of a valuable picture, but did not buy it—I then complained of my feet being very bad and

asked for something to knock a nail down in my shoe—I believe they gave me a hammer, but I objected to it because I wanted to get the impression of a key—there was nothing the matter with my foot and no nail in my shoe—having taken back the hammer I believe the people gave me a key to knock down the nail, and while they were there I pulled out my wax and took an impression without anyone seeing—there was not a robbery at that shop a few nights afterwards, but a few mornings after I went in there and came out again—I did not commit a robbery—I was not disturbed; I went in to see if the key would fit and to see if the place was as represented to me—I served six months for that—when I came to England the last time I opened a banking account here—I did not open it in 1892 or 1893; I opened it in 1900, when I came over with my wife—I opened a small account at the Birkbeck Bank—it was not opened for financing forgeries and robberies in this country; I would not open an account for that purpose—I do not say I have not done anything dishonest, but I would not open a banking account for a dishonest purpose; it is very easy to find money—in all my life I can only remember once turning upon people whom I had alleged were my partners in my crimes; I think that was in 1881 or 1882 in America—I was not convicted then; I got off by turning upon my companions—they were convicted—I have never turned on my accomplices on any other occasion—at the Police Court you ran me up so and I was a little puzzled, and I may have said that I would not swear that I had not done it four times—I said I was nervous, and you can see that that is true—I use the name of Fisher, Dean, and Blair; Roberts was another and Keeping another—I cannot think of any other names—now I recollect Conrad and Simpson—I was convicted on July 26th this year, when I got the six months and ten years concurrently—I was arrested, I believe, on July 1st, and I sent for Arrow between that day and July 26th; it may have been on the 8th or the middle of July—I spoke to him first, I believe—it was in reference to the present case, and eventually I made a statement to him in respect of the prisoners—I did so because I wanted to throw off everything in connection with my previous life, and I wanted to make it without any connection with my previous life; I am repentant of my crimes—I have been repentant many times, but have gone back to my previous life—I was sick and tired of going about doing wrong, and am now—I was pretty well tired of it before I got the ten years—the treatment I received was enough to make me repentant and tired; I mean the treatment by all who I have been connected with—it did not occur to me in making my statement it would help me in freeing myself from the charges against me, and after I was convicted I did not think that my statement would help me in getting a remission of my sentence—I did not think about it at all—I said before that giving this information was an effort on my part to change my character, and I hope it is so—it is a certainty I am done with all those classes of people now, and have a desire to lead a new life—that desire seized me before I was arrested, because I was going to leave the country the following Wednesday, and I had partly negotiated for my tickets—I think I wrote to Arrow before

he spoke to me—I cannot give the exact date, but it was in July MR. WRIGHT called upon the Prosecution to produce the correspondence between the witness and Inspector Arrow. MR. MUIR said that without making any precedent at all with regard to other cases, he was prepared to produce all the documents called for. The COMMON SERJEANT said that the general rule was that information given to the police for the purpose of their acting was not enquired into, and was not produced, but there was no reason why, if the Prosecution chose, they might not produce the letters. MR. MUIR then produced the letters. He said that some of the documents related to other matters which it would be most inexpedient to go into—I may have had a few words with Arrow on July 6th, but I do not recollect what passed—on the day I was arrested a detective followed me and I stopped at a house in Torrington Square, I think, and Arrow spoke of that and I said, "Oh, I only stopped there for some furnished apartments, "which I did, and he said, "Oh you probably went there to do the same as you did in the Victoria Street affair"—I knew what he meant by the Victoria Street affair—after I had been in prison about a week Arrow came to me and said he would like to clear up the matter in Victoria Street—I asked him what the Victoria Street matter was and he said the forgery at Mr. Fox's, and upon that I sat down and gave him the information practically as I have now, but in less detail—I have had about three interviews with Arrow about this matter and not nine or ten—I do not know if I wrote a letter on July 7th to Arrow saying that I wanted a lot of underclothing and other things, and that if he would give them to me I would give him the fullest information appertaining to this crime—before I said anything to Arrow he told me he wanted to clear up the Victoria Street matter, but I think he had hinted about it when we spoke of the house in Torrington Square—I may have had five interviews with Arrow; the last took about fifteen minutes and the others some hours each—that was after my conviction at this Court—the information I gave was at Arrow's request—my information may benefit me with regard to a remission of my sentence, but it is not a certainty; I hardly take it into consideration—I was pretty well muddled up until I went to the Police Court, and when I gave my information I was rather dense—I am all right now, but I could be much clearer—Arrow took my information in writing—when the case was adjourned at the Police Court for a week, I think Arrow called at the prison and had an interview with me in the visiting room for about fifteen minutes—I did not have a conversation with him in the cell—I have had no interview with anybody on behalf of the Prosecution since October 3rd—I first went to Miss Toovey about the latter end of June, 1904—about that time I was with certain people, they may have been well known forgers and thieves; they were not Sunday School teachers, neither was I—I did not keep a book in which the names and addresses of persons who are wealthy and had large balances at their banks were entered—my own book has got different addresses in it, and there may be one address of a person who might be operated upon, but I never consulted anybody as to those matters after I went to Miss Toovey's—I did not make inquiries At Streatham of people who let lodgings; I only went to Miss Toovey's,

according to Bridgwater's directions—while I was at Miss Toovey's I had a latchkey; I was the only lodger there—I did not know if every cupboard and every drawer in the house was left unlocked, but I know the doors were—I did not go through her drawers and cupboards, because I had no reason to—I first went to Bridgwater's about four years ago, but I would not go to him as a patient; I have got my doctor now and have had him for years—I was represented to Bridgwater's people as a patient—there may have been five or six rooms in Miss Toovey's house; I can only count four now—I was not constantly in and out of her house during the day, because it was a long way from the City, but I could have gone if I had wanted—the conversation between Miss Toovey and myself about the photographs and testimonials in the scrap book was on the Sunday before the forgery—Bridgwater told me that she had a reference, and I only knew it from what he told me, and I brought the matter up so that she could bring out the things—I believe she is an absolutely truthful woman—when she went down into the garden to attend to the plant she was away three or four minutes—when she went out the keys were where she always kept them: in her small reticule bag, upstairs—Miss Toovey only had one floor—I think it was a flat; downstairs is called one house and hers another—when I want to take an impression I do not have to melt my wax—sometimes you can take an impression in a second; it all depends on the nerves of the person doing it—on this occasion I took an impression of the door key and the safe key—there were other keys, but none like them—I think there were only three small drawer keys outside the two large ones—that occurred in the evening after she was through her business, about 6 or 7 p.m.; it was not on a Sunday, but I cannot tell the date—Bridgwater was in Victoria Street with me on two occasions—the last time was on a Monday morning when the safe was opened by me and the things taken out, and the other occasion was some weeks previous, when he came up to show me the right door—I do not think anybody saw the doctor on either of those occasions; we were very careful they should not see us together to make the connection—I saw the doctor and Mrs. Foster together six or seven times—on September 22nd I saw her in the evening; I will not swear the exact time, but it was between 7.30 and 8—I next saw them together on Saturday, the 24th; I think it must have been between 8 and 9 p.m.—I know it was before 9, because the doctor closed his place at 9 and it was not closed then—I did not go to Seaford that night, not until next day—I said in my depositions that I went down on Sunday morning—I went down once without the doctor, because he told me to, but I never went there on my own account—that was about a week or two after the forgery—I did not go to Mrs. Foster; I went down to look at the Wellington Hotel safe, which the doctor said was a difficult one—the Wellington is a goodish-sized hotel—I never knew there was such a place as Seaford until the doctor sent me there, and I was never there until after September 22nd—I made four subsequent visits; I think the last would be in the latter part of October or the first of November—on all those visits the doctor was with me except on one occasion—I slept at

Mrs. Foster's about three times—I slept there every time I went but once, and that time I did not stay there the night—I went to the hotel once to get a room, but Bridgwater would not allow me to sleep there; he wanted me to sleep at his own place—I cannot remember the exact date when the key was broken in the Victoria Street door; it was after the plant was pulled up—it was probably three or four weeks before the safe was opened—my occupation in gaol now is sewing mail bags—I have been at a machine for cutting tin, moving it with my feet—that was before I came out in June.

Cross-examined by MR. CORNISH. My chief occupation in life has not been forgery and office breaking—I have done a little of almost everything—it seems every time I have done anything I have got into trouble about it—forging and office breaking require a great deal of audacity and skilfulness—I do not know that I can plan a dishonest operation—I was well trained by Bridgwater to ingratiate myself with Miss Toovey and to get the testimonials, or I should not have been able to do it—I could not have done it if I had not been led away by him—I knew that Holmes was tried in February and March, but I was on the Continent at the time—I did not know more of that case than what I read and what Bridgwater told me—I read one or two papers in Paris—since my return from Paris I have taken no interest in Holmes' case except this present case—I did not read of his trial at this Court at all; it was in the Police Court when I read it in Paris—I think I was in Paris; it was after Bridgwater told me he was arrested, and I went over there; it might have been the trial, but I do not think so—it was only a little article—I did not take much interest in it, I only wished it was over very quickly—when I first went to Oxford Street in June, 1904, Darby was in the drug room—I cannot say if it was late in August that Holmes came; it was when Darby left—I think it was the latter part of July—it may have been August—before he came I was posing as the patient Blair, but Holmes knew my proper name because the doctor introduced me to him in my proper name of Fisher—I was put down as Blair, and the other helper thought I was Blair—Holmes came every morning, nearly always dressed in a tall hat and frock coat; I never saw him dressed otherwise—he did not change his dress in the day—he had the run of the house—I will swear that Holmes spoke about the cheques when they were discussed—when I gave the doctor the returned cheques on the Monday I said, "Well, we have got it"—Holmes was there then; he was in the drug room and I had to pass the door, which was open—part of the conversation took place upstairs and part in the drug room—what attracted us to the drug room was the whiskey.

By MR. WRIGHT. I could never have said at the Police Court that I went down to Seaford with the doctor and Mrs. Foster on the Saturday night—we always went on Sundays, I should judge about 10 a.m., from London.

Cross-examined by Shackwell. I have known you for about twelve or fifteen months—Bridgwater introduced me to you—I certainly spoke to you before the forgery—I said before the Magistrate that I gave the cheques to Bridgwater in your presence upon his premises—I gave them to him

in a public-house and not before you, but we all had a look at them in the doctor's place—on September 19th I was at the office about 11 and you came in about 1—I knew you had been there before that day, because I would be told so, and you would know if I was there—I have seen you there often before the 19th—I believe I mentioned before the Magistrate that you had been practising handwriting—I do not maintain that you were intoxicated on September 19th, because I thought you could stand more, but you had had plenty to make you nervous and you were nervous from liquor—on September 20th you had had too much to drink and were nervous—I do not say you were drunk—I do not ever remember seeing you drunk—you were nervous from drinking on the 21st—you know you took a bottle of whiskey home and you got nervous by the time you came down—you were not drunk—I swear you were on the premises at the time I stated—I say you were on the premises on September 22nd and forged the cheques for £819 and £600 odd—while you were forging them I was in and out of the building upstairs and down—I do not remember swearing before the Magistrate that I was standing outside the street door all the time—I may have been at the street door—I did not actually see you forge the two cheques—on September 22nd; after the forgery, I had a conversation with the doctor with regard to my share of the proceeds; I was to have one-third—the arrangements were made before that time—the doctor said he would only give 25 per cent, to the men who put down the cheque and 25 per cent, to you, or probably less, and he was to keep the rest, but I was to have one-third—I had showed my face to Miss Toovey and stood a chance of being arrested—I know Wigram, and so do you—I said before the Magistrate that he had been to Mr. Fox's premises prior to my going there; the doctor told me he had been there and had broken a key in a lock or had some trouble with one, but I was "inside" at that time—I do not know if it was the same door that I went to—I now the piece of key I saw to-day which was found in the lock—I blacked my key, but perhaps Wigram blacked his—I do not believe he broke his in the same lock as mine—I will swear that I went to the door with a key—I swear I did not get the information for the robbery from Wigram—I have never done any mechanical work—I was in Pentonville prison about eighteen months ago, but while I was there I was not doing practical tinsmith's work—I was at the tin machine to work the treadle; they have boys to do it outside—I am not clever at making things—I may buy blanks—if I am asked to get an impression I am asked for a blank and I go and buy one—on my arrest a few files were found at my premises and they were produced in the other case, but they had only been in my possession a few hours and did not belong to me (Produced)—I did not say I could not make keys, because I had got corns on my hands—I said I had an injured hand and could not move my fingers, and also it takes a good mechanic to make a key—no corns were ever mentioned at the Police Court—I am not the forger of this cheque—I have been convicted in connection with forgeries, but not the actual forgery—I could not commit a forgery; I have not the power to do so—an ordinary man could not do it; it requires an exceptional man—it is a serious thing for me if I have the

whole of my sentence to do or only a part of it, but I have not given it a thought, and I do not understand the laws over here about that—I had no hope of a remission when I spoke to Arrow—I do not think I am a professional informer, or that it comes naturally to me—I am sick of my past life; I do not know if I am sick of my present life—I could do better and should like to—it is my duty to come here—I have not committed perjury to-day—I learnt a great many things from Miss Toovey—the police did not give me any information about this forgery case besides what I learned from Miss Toovey and what I learned from the account in the paper—I could not have built up my story from that information; it is not sufficient—I swear that I saw the doctor hand the testimonials to you after I had handed them to him—I cannot exactly say the length of time occupied in the attempt to forge the £600 cheque, but I should judge it was about thirty minutes—a man who has got the ability could do it in much less time—I swear that you informed me that it was the £800 cheque which was passed—Bill the Barman is a friend of the doctor's—I have met him two or three times, which you know, at the doctor's—I do not know any more about him except that he has committed suicide—you did not say you had given him a cheque, but a £20 note, and that he ran away with it—I only heard that he had committed suicide after I was convicted; he was all right and outside on July 26th—you gave me your address at Clapham a few days before September 22nd—you were in bed when I called there about a month after September 22nd on your invitation—I pulled the bell and the woman you were living with let me in—you were upstairs in the front bedroom and I went up and saw you—I have met you several times in Argyle Street after the forgery and went to the Argyle Street public-house—you took me up to Bond Street when I met you in Argyle Street after the forgery.

Cross-examined by MR. WALSH. When I went to Seaford with the doctor and Mrs. Foster we went from Victoria—I cannot tell you if it was a fast or slow train—I do not think we changed; I think we made a few stops—it might have been an excursion train; I did not buy the tickets—I am now desirous of telling the whole truth—if I said we went down on Saturday night, it must be a mistake—since I gave evidence at the Police Court nobody has talked to me about this case—I never went down on a Saturday; it was always Sunday.

Saturday, November 18th.

GEORGE FREDERICK HURD SMITH . I am a clerk in the employ of Messrs. Cook & Sons, tourist agents and bankers, and in September, 1904, I was employed at their Ludgate Circus office—on the afternoon of September 22nd I remember a man coming into the office to change these two £50 notes (Produced) into French money—they have now got my writing on the back, which I wrote at the time; they are dated January 12th, 1905, Nos. 58307 and 8—I think he came in about 4.30 p.m.—he asked for £100 worth of money—I said, "I have not got £100 in French gold; I can give you 1,000 francs in gold and the rest in notes—he seemed to hesitate and to

want gold—I said, "If you like to wait a few minutes I can got it from the head cashier"—he said, "Oh, no, give me the notes; that is all right"—I counted out the French gold and gave it to him, then I counted out the notes—he took the gold and rushed away, leaving the notes on the counter—I called him back—he came back smiling and muttered or said something, and took the notes up and rushed out again—it seemed to me a little funny leaving £60 on the counter—before I cashed the notes I looked at the list of stolen notes, and, finding they were not there I paid out—after the man had behaved as I described I made a remark to the other cashier and looked again at the list of stolen notes—three or four days or a week afterwards I saw a police officer in connection with the matter—in January last I was in the South of Prance on my employers' business and did not give evidence in Holmes' hearing before the Magistrate—on February 9th I came to this Court from the South of France on purpose to give evidence in the case against Holmes—I was shown about eight men in the precincts of this Court and asked to pick out, if I could, the man who had cashed the two £50 notes on September 22nd—I walked up and down once or twice and then stopped in front of Holmes, I think for about two minutes, then I walked down again—there was another man there like him, about the same build, features and height, and I could not tell which was the right one—I said to Detective Fuller, "There are two men here; I am not quite sure of the right one"—he said, "Look again"—I looked again and picked out the man who was not Holmes—the detective then said to me, "You said there was a second man"—I said, "Yes"—he said, "Pick him out," and I picked out Holmes, on which Holmes stepped out and protested against my picking him out as the second man—I attended at Holmes' trial and gave evidence, and also at the subsequent trial in March—I have also seen him in this case, and I now say to the best of my belief that he is the man who cashed those two £50 notes.

Cross-examined by MR. CORNISH. I will not swear to him, but I am practically certain—lots of people come into Cook's and change notes for French money every day—it is my practice to always look at the list of stolen notes—I did not take particular notice of the man, simply with regard to his leaving the notes on the counter—people do often rush into our office in a hurry—a few days afterwards Fuller came and saw me and told me about this forgery—he did not give me a description of the man—he mentioned no one—he asked me for a description—he did not ask me if it was a dark man or a big man, or a man in a top coat—it was four months afterwards that I saw Holmes among a lot of men—I went up to another man who was not Holmes, after some hesitation, and I may have touched him—I cannot remember if I said, "That is the man"—the other man was wearing a, light grey coat—nobody had said anything to me about a grey coat—it was only when I looked again that I went up to Holmes.

By the COURT. When the man came in on September 22nd I think he was dressed in a frock coat and silk hat.

C. R. FISHER (Further cross-examined by MR. WALSH). I do not know

if it was very long before September, 1904, that I was first introduced to Mrs. Foster—I think it was about August—I had not met her before June, when I came out of gaol—between 1900 and 1902 I had been occasionally to 59, Oxford Street, but I never saw Mrs. Foster until about August, 1904—when I refused to take the English banknotes I believe that Bridgwater had already arranged to send the money over to Paris by Mrs. Foster—on September 22nd Holmes, Bridgwater and I were at 59, Oxford Street, between 12 and 1, and after Holmes and Bridgwater went out at 3 o'clock I did not see Bridgwater until 6—when would not take the notes which he offered me he said he would put mine with his and send them over to Paris, and that he was going to send his anyhow—I do not know if it was then that he sent a telegram—it is not possible that I have made a mistake, and that I did not see Mrs. Foster till Friday night—I am quite sure that I saw her on Thursday, some time before 9—before the Magistrate I said that she had a sealskin jacket or cape with a flowery lining—I do not say it was embroidered, but there can be a lining with a print on it—I cannot say if her hat was trimmed with white poppies—I cannot say how it was trimmed; I never notice ladies' hate—I do not know its colour; it was the cape which took my attention particularly—she had no luggage with her when I saw her—in that condition, without any luggage, she went off in a cab with Bridg-water to catch the 7.30 train at Holborn Viaduct—I do not exactly know what time the train was—Bridgwater said they were going to catch the evening train—I did not say before the Magistrate that they were going to a hotel—I know there is Spiers and Pond's hotel at Holborn Viaduct, but I did not know if they were going there; why should they?—on the Saturday Mrs. Foster slept at Oxford Street—the hall door there was shut at 9 p.m.—when Mrs. Foster returned on the Saturday night I believe she was dressed in the sealskin cape in which she had left on Thursday evening—I have sworn that she was, and it is a fact—I cannot tell you if she was wearing the same hat—I do not know that I should notice if there had been a change of hat when I went down to Seaford on the Sunday morning with the doctor and Mrs. Foster—the doctor and I walked slowly to the house—a couple of hours after we got there we had a meal—I should judge it was about 2 o'clock; that is what I refer to when I said before that we had dinner—I believe there was some bread for dinner and we had some meat; it seemed to be cold fowl and £some potatoes—we had tea there in the afternoon—I am a tea drinker and take milk in my tea; I had some in my tea that afternoon—I do not know if I have done any petty larceny—I might take a little silver here and there—I did not rob my grandfather; I love my people too well—I would not rob respectable people if I were staying in their house—I did not find any spoons at "Ingleside"; I am above that—I did not take a note of the contents of the rooms which might be worth putting in my pockets—the dining room is the front room on the first floor—I believe there are two front rooms; one has a doctor's chair is it—as you enter the front door you turn to the left, after going along the passage, to get to the dining room—it is on the ground floor and faces the sea—

a dog was kept there—the hall clock was a striking one and strikes every fifteen minutes, and I think it had an advertising arrangement—it had a small dial and pictures round it.

By MR. WRIGHT. I was never entrusted with any of the keys of 59, Oxford Street, that I know of—I had no occasion—the door was always open—it never occurred to me to take an impression of the door keys there—I was not loafing about at the corner of Soho Street and Oxford Street on one of the first Sundays after the forgery—I was shown a Miss Bird at the Police Court—I do not know if she happened to open one of the windows in Bridgwater's house that day—I have been there on several Sundays to see Bridgwater, and have rung the bell and he has It me in—I was there the first Sunday after the forgery—I went there every Sunday morning to see Bridgwater—I generally got there about 9.30—I did not stay there till middle day—I did not see Miss Bird come downstairs and go out of the front door—I never saw her until in the court, when I heard her name—if I saw her I never noticed her—she may have passed me on the stairs, but I do not think so—I heard her name from Bridgwater's clerk—I was not loitering at the corner of Tottenham Court Road and Oxford Street on a Sunday after 11, when Miss Bird came to the tube station—I never was there—I did not retreat westward, and I did not within ten minutes effect an entrance into Bridgwater's house—I have never opened the door with a key—I have never been there on Sunday after train time; that is 10 o'clock, when the excursion train goes to Seaford—I did not go in and leave the door ajar—I stayed there till 10 o'clock, when Bridgwater was bidding good-bye to Miss Bird—I was going to Seaford with him—an officer came and found the door open—it was 10.30 on Sunday morning—if Miss Bird returned to the house accidentally afterwards she did not find me on the second floor—she did not say to me, "Who are you; what are you doing here?"—I did not say, "I came to see the doctor. I am sick, and I want to see if he can make me a well man"—I did not then rush downstairs and get out of the house as quickly as I could.

Re-examined. I have known some well-known forgers and criminals—I met them at Bridgwater's—the part I took in the forgeries with which I was connected was generally taking the paper from one to another or getting it from the office and carrying it to the man who did it—I never took the part of the penman—I have not got the capacity or skill to do it—I have not studied the details of Holmes' previous trials—I have not had access to any documents or reports of those trials, except those I saw in Paris—nobody has ever told me the details of either of Holmes' trials—when I got back from Mr. Fox's office to Bridgwater's on September 19th I spoke to Holmes upstairs—I said, "It is all right; we have got it"—I was arrested on September 13th, 1902, in respect of the offence for which I underwent two years' imprisonment—I came out in June—I was tried here in October and kept in prison from the time I was arrested, so from September, 1902, until June 4th, 1904, I was in prison—when I came out in June, 1904, Bridgwater told me that Wigram's arrest in Glasgow occurred shortly after my conviction—I never saw Wigram after

I came out on June 4th—he is in prison still in Scotland—these files and things belong to a man named Armstrong—they did not belong tome and I never used them—he could not keep them in his house and left them with me—I heard in Wormwood Scrubbs that Bill the Barman had committed suicide—he did so in one of the cells at that prison—Shackell gave me his address when we were coming out of the doctor's—he waited and met me and we went and had a drink together, 1 think, at the Irish House—it was before the forgery that he gave me his address, and before I went to Seaford—the name "Ingleside" appears a long while after in my book—I put this Anderson's address a long while after the forgery and it is the next entry to Shackell's—I do not know the name of the woman he was living with, but I saw her the morning I called—to the best of my belief Mrs. Foster had a sealskin jacket on underneath her cape when she went to Paris—it was a tight-fitting black hairy jacket; the cape was loose—I do not remember exactly the dog which was at her house; I am very shy of dogs—it was not a toy dog—they kept it in the yard a great deal; it was a fair-sized dog—I cannot say the colour—I remember going out into the yard with the doctor and having to avoid the dog, and he had to put him away in his box in the yard—King William was the name of the pears I wanted to think of yesterday.

By Mr. WALSH. This book of mine is not a memorandum of places I intended to keep my eye upon for business—I do not think I made a note t the hotel at Seaford which had a safe—I do not know any hotel called the Dolphin at Hanley—there is an hotel in the book where a friend of mine stopped—I do not think that any of the addresses here are those of places I intended to break into—I did not note "Ingleside" as a possible place of that sort for some future time.

By Shackell. It was about 9 a.m. on a foggy morning after the forgery that I visited 2, Beauchamp Road, but it is almost impossible to fix the date—I do not think it was in September; I think it was October, two or three weeks after the forgery.

By the COURT. This book of mine has been in use probably fifteen or sixteen years—I bought new leaves for it—some of the entries go back a long way.

MARY ELEANOR TOOVEY . I live at 48, Salford Road, Streatham—the whole house is my own property—I had it built so that it could be used as separate flats with separate entrances—I have been there two years last month, and for nine years I have been in the employ of Mr. Marshall Fox at bis business addresses, wherever they might be, and lastly at 28, Victoria Street—I went there as shorthand writer and typist and afterwards became his private secretary and confidential clerk, and had his entire confidence—he was connected in business with several companies, one of them being known as the Harvey Steel Company, and another the Non-Flammable Wood and Fabric Company—there were letters connected with both those companies at Mr. Fox's office at 28, Victoria Street—his office was comprised of two rooms—mine was the further one down the corridor—my duties began at 11 a.m., and I could go as soon as my work was done, or about 5 o'clock, but I generally did not

go until 6 or 7—it depended on the amount of work, which consisted of attending to Mr. Fox's correspondence, both taking dictation and writing letters myself—a press copy letter book was kept, a bank pass book, and cheque books—attended to them all—when the paid cheques were returned from the bank I stuck them into the corresponding counterfoil books—I had a key of my own door into the corridor—that was the only door key I kept in my possession, but I very rarely used it until after the forgery, because the key of Mr. Fox's door was as a rule left in the building overnight in the porter's box—there were hooks on a key board, but their numbers did not correspond with the numbers of the doors—my door was 15 and the hook 49—you could not get into room 16 with the key on hook 16—occasionally Mr. Fox would forget his key and walk out with it in his pocket and then I used my own key next morning—I also had the safe door key and a big bunch of my own keys—I had no other office key—all the keys were kept on one bunch, and when going away in the afternoon or evening I carried them in my pocket or in a small bag, in which was my purse and pocket handkerchief—at night, it was my duty to put away the account books and things—Mr. Fox never did that, because he never handled the books unless I was there, and then I did it—in the safe in June, July, August, and September, 1904, there were kept account books, pass books, used cheque books and current cheque books—I do not think there were used cheque books kept of all the banking accounts, but there were of some—the used cheque books I put away as soon as the annual audit was done—I did not have keys of the drawers in the safe—I knew there were some, securities there, papers and documents, and I knew that Mr. Fox had two or three diamonds there belonging to a gentleman; I do not know exactly the number—they were not of great value, I believe—I have not seen them, but there had been correspondence about them—I had not the slightest idea that Mr. Fox kept Mrs. Fox's jewels there—I have only ascertained his bank balance when he has asked me—he would only ask once in a while; only when he was going to draw a very very big cheque—I attended to drawing the bodies of the cheques and paid in cheques which were paid to him—I went through the pass book from time to time and checked every item—in that way I was fully acquainted with his credit at the various banks, but I never bothered my head about it unless he asked me, when I found out and told him—when I paid cheques in I saw the pages of the pass book, but I did not check them—I left that for the auditor—I should call it a big cheque when it runs into four figures, and if Mr. Fox was going to draw a big cheque I would ascertain if there was enough in the bank, and in that way I ascertained that his balance ran into thousands—his business was on a large scale—he only dealt with large sums of money, nothing small—I cannot say if his balance ran into more than four figures—in June, July, August, and September, 1904, this cheque book (Ex. 2) on the Union Bank, Chancery Lane, was in the safe; that was not an active account, and this book has used cheques pasted into it—there is a more recent one than this—I got it before this one was finished—we often had two cheque books, both kept in the safe—I should

fancy that there were some used cheques pasted into the other book as well as into this one, but I am not quite certain—I should think there would be some cheques in the other book drawn in 1902 or 1903—I think the two books were going together—there was also a cheque book on the London Joint Stock Bank kept in the safe—the date of the first cheque drawn in this book (Produced) is July 30th, 1904—that was the first date the book came to us—it was drawn by Mr. Fox—I know on that day that Mr. Fox was contemplating a holiday, and I did not see him again until August 23rd—for the first week during that period I went to the office every day and after that about two or three times a week—I attended to any letters—I never saw this cheque book until August 27th—after that it was not always in the safe; it was backwards and forward between the office and the hotel where Mr. Fox lived—it was in the office, and during the night it was kept in the safe—I was at the office from a day or two before August 23rd until September 22nd—on that day I drew this cheque out of this book—from the time of Mr. Fox's departure up to September 22nd the safe key was in my possession all the time, and the door key was on the same bunch—about 4.30 on September 22nd I got a communication from a clerk from the London Joint Stock Bank, and one or two other clerks from the bank saw me—after I had had some communication from them I telephoned to Mr. Fox—he arrived at the office about 5—I saw the forged cheque before his arrival—this is it (Produced)—I do not think Inspector Fuller was present when the cheque was shown to me, but he came later and was in the office when Mr. Fox arrived—I got out the current Joint Stock cheque book and Fuller and I looked through it together in the presence of the two clerks—I noticed that two cheques had gone—that was the first time I had noticed it—on that day I think I showed Fuller some old cheque books in which used cheques had been pasted, but I am not quite certain—the Union cheque book was not among them, only the Joint Stock cheque books—I did not know of the three cheques having been taken from the Union book until I was at the Westminster Police Court in this present trial—I was examined there on September 23rd—I know Bridgwater—I first met him, I think, in the early part of 1903—I got to know him first through seeing an advertisement in a paper—I had then a trifling ailment and I consulted him in reference to it and went to the premises at the corner of Soho Street—I cannot tell you how many times I went there as a patient; about five or six in about a month or two—I got on friendly terms with him and after he ceased to attend me as a patient I continued to visit there—a mutual friendship sprang up between us and he told me that I need not keep away, but to come again if I thought I was not quite well—I got on affectionate terms with him, but I do not know about his feelings—I understood him to be single—he spoke about my capabilities and said I had a good business capacity and said he thought we could work well together, and said he would like to go abroad again, and mentioned crossing Asia into Australia and India—we were to work in the medical line—I know something about medicine—I went to the Hippodrome with him, to Frascati's, in Oxford Street, and to the

Tudor Hotel on the same side of the way as his house in Oxford Street—I have heard of the name of Flatman—I first heard it at the last of Holmes' trials—I went to Odoni's restaurant in Victoria Street with Bridgwater—I only went there once with him—I think I had an appointment to meet him there another time, but he did not keep the appointment—I remember on one occasion being at Odoni's with him when Mr. Fox walked in—he did not come to find me—I do not think he saw me—he did not take any notice of Bridgwater—I did not mention it to Bridgwater—I do not think I gave Mr. Fox's name as being my employee—I have no recollection of telling Bridgwater what my employer was, but I may have done—I did not tell him what Mr. Fox's business was, but I may have told him what my occupation was—I do not believe I talked with Bridgwater about business matters, but I may have mentioned my own business—I had plenty of business experience before I went to Mr. Fox's, and for the last nine years I may have had odd jobs besides Mr. Fox's business—I can never speak a couple of words but people tell me I have a good business capacity; it does not matter what it is—I did not speak of any particular matter in Mr. Fox's business—I only spoke of it generally—I have no recollection of saying what I was employed as—I should have no object in keeping my business address from Bridgwater, but I do not remember telling it to him—I was not ashamed of my employment—when I visited Bridgwater at his place the meetings took place in the consulting room—my name was put down on a little slip of paper—I did not give my address; I simply said "Toovey"—I have been in Bridgwater's smoking-room upstairs—the visits would sometimes be for an hour or two, sometimes a few minutes—meetings there took place during business hours when I was in that neighbourhood, and I have sometimes seen him in the evening—it might be from 10 a.m. to 10 p.m.—if I was in that neighbourhood on any other business I might drop in for a few minutes—when I went there my little bag was always with me, in which I carried my keys—I had various kinds of bags; I wore one out about every month—when I was in the consulting room sometimes a patient was announced, and I used to offer to go away or go into the dispensing room and wait until the patient had gone—when going out of the consulting room to make room for a patient I always took my bag—I may on some occasions have left it behind me, but I do not remember it—if you were in the dispensing room you might hear a very loud voice in the consulting room, but I do not think you could hear what was being said—if it was a conversation in ordinary tones you could not hear it unless you actually listened—I knew that there were two ways out of the consulting room, which was on the first floor—one way was from the landing, and one from the waiting room—if you were in the dispensary with the door closed a person could come in and out of the consulting room without your seeing them—the consulting room and dispensary were evidently one room at one time, and is a little square box built out of it with a partition right up to the ceiling—the only way into the dispensary is from the consulting room—during my visit to the doctor I never saw Holmes, Shackell or Mrs. Foster—the first time I saw Holmes

was at the Westminster Police Court, and the other two with him in the dock quite recently—towards the end of 1903 the terms the doctor and I were on increased in affection and got cool again in 1904—I only saw him about six times in 1904—I do not think I saw him in May, June, July to August—I may have gone up once, but I do not think I did—my house at Streatham is used as two separate flats—in June, July, August and September this year there was a separate family on the ground floor who had been there for two years—my rooms were on the first floor—there is no third floor—I had five rooms in my part, two sitting rooms, two bedrooms and a bath room—one sitting room was mine, where I had my meals, and the other was the one Dean (Fisher) used—I had no servant living in the house; I had a charwoman—when I first went there the number of the house was 27, but on July 16th, 1904, the numbers in the street were altered—I got a notice from the authorities saying that the street was to be re-numbered, and I caused a new number to be put up—I received the notice on the 12th and had the number up by the 16th—my new number was 48—soon after I had some inconvenience, because the postmen were always taking the letters wrong, so I had a little ticket put by the side of the new number and afterwards a brass plate with "Late 27" on it—the confusion was caused by my changing my number and the other people not doing so—it may have been a week or a fortnight after the 16th that I had the ticket and then the brass plate—I thought I would like to let a couple of my rooms, as they were of no use to me, and I caused a notice to be put up at Streatham railway station—I put it up towards the end of 1902—I had it up twice; it may have been more—I paid half-a-crown a month in advance for putting it up—in the summer of 1904 I got several applications from lodgers, and amongst them one from Dean—I said in my last evidence that it was to the best of my belief, and speaking from memory, the end of June or beginning of July, but I have looked it up since and I think it was after July 18th—I think it was after that date, because of a little incident in household affairs—I had a diary, but it has disappeared, but on July 18th I purchased a certain article which I know was not in the house when Dean came, so he must have come after that—I have found the bill, but I have not it with me; it has the date on it—I do not remember what day of the week Dean came—I first saw him at the front door before I left in the morning—Fisher looks like my lodger as far as I can say—he left in the week after the forgery, having stayed a couple of months—I saw him in the afternoons when I got home—I saw him enough to know him, and Fisher is the man—he asked me if I had got apartments to let—I had no bill up at the house, only at the bookstall—I had almost made up my mind then not to let, so I did not say yes or no, because I was undecided, but I took him upstairs and showed him the rooms—he gave me his name as Dean—he did not say what he was—he gave me to understand he was a widower—I agreed on that day before I left for town to let him have the apartments, and he paid a week in advance—he was to have a bedroom and the sitting room, which was not used as my dining room, and to pay 16s. a week, without attendance, for meals, but it included the attendance to his rooms—I said I could not have anybody who had meals regularly in

the house, and he said he did not want meals—I told him he could come in when he liked after the first night—I said he could not go in the first night as I had somebody in the house, and I could not get ready—he did not come for a day or two—he brought a large trunk, a dressing case and a hat box—I think he was dressed in a black coat and tall hat—his luggage arrived without him, but he arrived in the evening—he had a latchkey, so could let himself in at any time he pleased—from that date, whenever it was, up to the week after the forgery he was my regular lodger, and was there every day with the exception, I think, of one—my times of going out and coming in were the same during the time he was the lodger as they were before, and he went out about 7 a.m., almost always dressed in a frock coat and top hat, and sometimes he had on a tweed suit—I never took particular stock, but I think he had on a frock coat more than anything else—I do not know what time he returned—he was always in before 10, sometimes from 6 to 10, more often about 8—he did not have breakfast before going out, except once or twice, and never anything in the evening—I did not generally get in until 9 p.m.—sometimes he would be there then, sometimes not—I have talked with him once or twice—I have not had many chats with him—he never actually told me in what line of business he was, but I gathered from his conversations that he had something to do with the jewellery trade, and I was under the impression that it was in the neighbourhood of Holborn—he spoke about America once and again—he was an exceptionally quiet lodger and his payments were always regular, and I never had to ask him for them—on Sundays he would be in part of the day—he would not go out so early, and generally had his breakfast in on Sundays—I took it to his own sitting room and left it—I did not have breakfast with him—Bridgwater has been to my house at one of my places, but I do not know if it was at Streatham or not—my other place was at Battersea Park—after leaving there I went to Streatham—I left in September, 1902—I asked Bridgwater to come to my place dozens of times; to come and spend the evening with me—I wanted to have a quiet tete-a-tete, and I could not get it at his place—none of my private affairs have anything to do with the forgery—I was on very confidential terms with him—when I asked him to come he said he would, but he always made some excuse; some patient had called him away or something like that—I think he came only once, but that was not while Fisher was a lodger; it was in 1903—I do not know if it was in the summer or winter; it was in the evening, I should think, in the summer—my Battersea address was 63, Silverthorne Road, and I went straight from there to Streatham—I have got the title for my new house, but it would not show the date I went there—I had some furniture to move, but I have not got the bills for that, as I paid cash—I think I have a record in my diary at home of the day I went in—the 1904 diary is lost—I think it would be October 20th, 1903—I have met Fisher two or three times in Brixton, near my house, on my way from the station, and once in Victoria Street when I made an appointment with him to go to the Army and Navy Stores to get me something, and I met him there—I had a meal with him that day at Lombardi's restaurant, nearly opposite the stores—I did not

get on friendly terms with him—he was only a lodger—I did not have any long chats with him, but I had a few chats—all the time he was them he was saying he was going to America—he would say, "Miss Toovey, I think I shall leave by the Wednesday steamer"; when the Wednesday came he did not go, and then said he would go by Saturday, and then he did not go, and it went on week by week—I saw him once nearly every day, and sometimes more—when I went home in the evenings I took my bag with me with the keys and other things inside, and when I got home I put it on the little table in my dining room and it would be there all night—the dining room is not locked at night—I kept up that habit while Dean was there—in the summer I used to do a little gardening some evenings after going home—Dean never helped me—on one occasion he told me that a plant had been pulled up in the garden and I went down to attend to it and planted it with a trowel—in my dining room I have a bookcase where I keep scrap books containing some papers, scraps, letters and photographs, and also some certificates and papers about myself—I showed Dean the scrap book one Sunday, or rather I went to the scrap book to show him something—in it I kept these two testimonials from Mr. Fox (Produced), dated April, 1902—just about that time Mr. Fox was intending to go out of business and he gave them to me—in the scrap book there were some photographs—I did not know this one (Ex. 1) was there—as it has been mentioned so much, I wish to say it was taken seven or eight years ago in another house by my little brother after an illness, and I never showed it or gave it to Dean—there are a lot of them about like this—my brother was an amateur and practising to make his living by photography—I had letters from my business address at my house—I did not keep my papers or scrap book locked up, but they were in my bookcase where nobody was supposed to have access—on September 22nd, when the forgery was brought to my notice, I was very much upset about it—I remember seeing Fisher that evening and showed him I was upset by my off-hand manner—he asked me what was the matter with me—I said, "I am upset; something has occurred in my business, to upset me," and he asked me if he could do anything for me—I said, "No, I do not want anything; leave me alone"—I did not tell him about the forgery—I have been upset about it ever since—I had some talk with Dean, next day and was oil-hand with him then—he said he could see perfectly well there was something wrong—he followed his usual habit that day of going out early—I think he left me early the following week, beginning September 26th—he paid me three weeks' rent in advance, as he said he knew he would be three weeks away and it might be more—he asked me to keep the rooms open for him—he said he was going to America—I saw Fuller on September 22nd, and I think he called at the office each day for two or three days afterwards, and afterwards he asked me to go to Scotland Yard, which I did—I was shown some photographs in a book there, but I saw nobody in it with the slightest resemblance to anybody I knew—Fuller asked me a lot of questions, which he put into a statement and which I think I signed—I heard a description of the man who had passed the cheque on the first day the bank clerks gave their description—

about a week or ten days after the forgery I called on Bridgwater and saw him in his consulting room, and I told him all I knew about the forgery—I cannot recollect what I told him, but I told him about it having occurred—I do not think I went into the minor details, but I told him the gist of the whole thing—I must have told him it was a cheque—I do not remember if I told him whose cheque it was, but I suppose I must have told him it was Mr. Fox's—it was in the papers—I did not go up till it was in the papers—I believe I mentioned about the bank clerk's coming to me—I do not think I mentioned anything about the signature of the forged cheque—I only went up to unburden myself, as I wanted to tell somebody and I had not told anybody—I mentioned about Fuller having put questions to me, and that I had been asked to go to Scotland Yard—I do not think I mentioned Fuller's name; I do not think I knew it then—I do not think I mentioned that a cheque had gone out of the Joint Stock cheque book—I did not tell him about the cheque form and where it had been got from—Bridgwater said he was sorry, until I mentioned about a doctor—at Scotland Yard the inspector had put some questions to me, which I answered, and I repeated to Bridgwater the substance of what I had been asked and how I had answered—I told Bridgwater that the inspector had asked me a lot of questions about my private affairs and wanted to know what people I had about me, and that I had spoken the truth and said I knew a doctor—the question was, "Have you got a sweetheart?" and I said, "Yes, a doctor"—Bridgwater said, "I do not know what you want to go talking about me for"—I said, "I did not talk about you; they asked me if I had a sweetheart and I said, 'Yes, a doctor'"—I gave him the description the bank clerk had given me of the man who had cashed the cheque—in the conversation he said, "Where is your lodger?" or, "How is your lodger?" and I said, "He has gone to America"—I may have told him that I had a lodger—I probably saw Bridgwater in July, August, and September, but I have no absolute recollection—when I told Bridgwater that my lodger had gone to America he said, "Do not you think it I funny, his going?"—I said, "No, I have known he has been going for weeks and weeks"—after I told him that I had said I had a sweetheart he was vexed and nasty over it—he said, "I do not know what you want to mention it for," but anybody would be vexed by being pulled into a matter like that, and I was sorry about it, as I did not want him annoyed—I had not mentioned his name to the police—I simply said he was a doctor—nothing was said about my lodger in connection with the forgery—Bridgwater and I had a few unpleasant words about the matter and I left—he was annoyed because I had spoken about the doctor, and I was annoyed about what he said of the lodger.

New Court, Monday, November 20th.

THOMAS EVERETT . I live at 1, Kirby Street, Hatton Garden, and am now a tailor's salesman—I was employed by Bridgwater for about eighteen months—I left his employment about August last—I was his inspector and bill folder for the men—by bill folder I mean I folded up bills

of advertisements, and by inspector I mean I inspected the distribution of the bills in the streets—I went to the Soho Street premises several times every day as well as the mornings—I saw a man named Blair there at the beginning of this year, who is the man who gave his evidence as Fisher—I saw him there last year also—he was there frequently—when he first came, as far as I know he came as a patient to see the doctor—when persons came as patients I used to take their names down on a slip of paper, and then go to the dispensary door and let the doctor or anyone else who was there know who had called—the doctor would be in the consulting room or the dispensary—that practice was at first pursued with Blair, but afterwards his name was not always written down, and he used to knock at the dispensary door and walk in—he seemed to be on friendly terms with Bridgwater as a patient—I have seen him there two or three or four times a day, sometimes in the morning and sometimes in the afternoon, for some months, but I cannot say what months—as far as I know, he was there all the time as a patient—he used to tell me he had a bad leg when he first came and also when I last saw him—I recognise Holmes—he was the dispenser there and was there every day from 10.30 a.m. till 9 p.m.—he was there while Fisher was calling there—he generally stayed in the dispensary or drug room—I left in August and he did not leave until after I did—he was there all the time I was there—I recognise Shackell; he was inspector there before I was, and when I was bill folding—when I became inspector he had left—I cannot say when he left or when I became inspector; my memory is very bad—my wages were just the same when I was inspector as when I was bill folder—when I became inspector I was inside and outside the office—when I was bill folder I was inside and only went out on little errands—I think it was the summer of last year when I first took to the out-of-door work—I do not recognise Mrs. Foster—I never saw Miss Toovey at Bridgwater's.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. At times patients called and saw the doctor and returned in an hour or two for medicine, but not many—I may have said before, "Blair called twice a day," and I think I said, "More than twice a day"—sometimes patients other than Blair used to knock at the dispensary door and walk in—the doctor was very punctilious about my bringing in proper names, and for that reason made me write down the names—he was a very free and generous man both to his friends and employees, and at times would give patients whiskeys and sodas when they called—I think I had two interviews with Inspector Kane, one at my place, and once I met him in Oxford Street—when he called on me he asked me if I knew anyone named Blair and if I could recognise him, and said he had called on me respecting an affair of Dr. Bridgwater's, a forgery—I won't say that he told me about Mr. Fox, whose offices were at 28, Victoria Street, and I won't say that he did not—I do not remember giving Blair medicines or lotions which had been made up previously when he called a second time in a day—it was not within my province to deliver medicine.

Cross-examined by MR. CORNISH. I cannot say if Blair was there before Holmes—I cannot say the time Blair commenced attending or when Holmes came, but it was either just before or just after I went there—

there was another man there before Holmes for a few days, but he was not a dispenser—Holmes' duties were entirely in the drug room—occasionally he chatted with the patients—I noticed no familiarity between him and Blair—I should describe the relations between Bridgwater and Holmes as those of master and servant—I never heard any quarrelling—I have never been to lunch with Holmes.

Cross-examined by Shackell. I cannot remember when you were first employed by the doctor—I will not say if you were there when I first went—you came between 9 and 9.30 in the mornings, and you then first served out the bills to the men, then inspected them and sent them on their duties; then you went out about 9.30 and inspected them and returned, I should say, between 7 and 8 p.m.—between those times you were away most of the time—you may have come in, but it would be very rare—while I was bill folder I asked the patients to sit down, as I was overlooking the waiting room—from where I sat I did not see every-body who came up the stairs from the street, but I could see them if I had heard them—I invariably did see who came up, and I could see most of those who went upstairs to the upper portion of the premises, but there were very few—I never saw you speak to Blair, to my recollection, or seen you in his company; I will not be certain about that, but I do not think I have—if you had been continuously in Blair's society at the doctor's I must have known of it.

Re-examined. I may have seen Shackell on the doctor's premises between the time he went out in the morning and when he returned in the evening, but very rarely—I have never seen him or Blair go up to the doctor's part of the premises—I may have inspected the men before I succeeded Shackell, but very seldom—I should do it after 11 a.m.—that was at the time I was a folder, but not while Shackell was in the employment—I did the folding then and he took the inspecting on—when I became inspector I still kept the folding on—I was sent on errands by the doctor, fetching provisions in and that sort of thing; that was mostly in the evening or perhaps in the morning, first thing—my dinner hour was from 1 to 2, and I had from 6 to 6.30 for tea—I went out to my meals.

M. E. TOOVEY (Examination continued). I gave Bridgwater a description, which the police had given me, of the man who had passed the cheque—I said he was a man about six feet high, of military appearance—I heard that description from the police on the first day and I told Bridg-water about a week or ten days afterwards, and it was then fresh in my memory—I do not remember telling Bridgwater anything else—I told him that my lodger had gone away and I was annoyed at the way he had mentioned him, as I had no suspicions, and I told Bridgwater so and said I did not think it funny, his going away—I do not think I mentioned the name of Dean to him; I may have when I told him I had a lodger—I do not think I gave him any description of Dean and he never asked me for any—I think I saw Bridgwater a week or so after that conversation, but I do not know the dates; it was the same year—I saw him at his consulting room—he was very busy and I did not

refer to the forgery then—I think I saw him again a week or two after the second visit, some time in November—nothing took place—it was just a call at his premises, in and out again as I was passing—Dean did not tell me in so many words that he had some business in Holborn or that district, but I gathered from his conversation that he did work in that district—after the last trial of Holmes, in which there was something which made me do it, I went to look for Dean—I thought I might run into him, so I walked from the bottom of Chancery Lane, up through Holborn, up the right-hand side of Gray's Inn Road, down the left side, and then along Holborn as far as Kingsway—I only did that once—I may have been there many times when I had other business, but I did not then especially keep my eyes open—when I went to look for him I lost my way and found myself in Drury Lane—at Holmes' first trial here I saw Bridg-water and had a word or two with him—at that trial he mentioned something about my lodger, which he emphasised at the second trial, which made me go and look for him—I thought I would try and find him and, if there was a third trial, get him to show himself—up to the time of the second trial I did not believe that my lodger was in any way connected with the matter—I had not the slightest suspicion until I was told of these stories—at the trial Bridgwater said that I said that my lodger resembled the description of the man who had passed the cheque, and I never said such a thing—what I did say was that I gave a description of the man who cashed the cheque, but I never connected Dean with him—I do not know what I said to Bridgwater here at the first trial—I saw him two or three times and once I said, "I think it was foolish of your counsel not to have the valet put in the witness box when he was asked"—by that I meant Mr. Overend, Holmes' counsel—at the second trial I was again a witness, but I do not think I had anything to say to Bridgwater then, but I cannot say now—I think I saw him here; I was annoyed with him—I was never at his place between the two trials; I never saw him except in Court—I did not know where my lodger's business was, and I did not tell Bridgwater of my lodger having some connection with the jewellery business—when he was making suggesttions about my lodger I only resented the aspersions on his character—I never told anybody I was going to look for Fisher; in fact, I did it on the spur of the moment—if Fisher says he heard from Bridgwater that I was looking about for him he is telling a lie or he must have seen me and watched me—I was rather surprised I did not run into him, because I was going about at the time and I understood he was about there—I did not see him, but of course he may have seen me—I made a lot of enquiries and went into several places and enquired of postmen—Bridgwater made me one or two presents—he sent a case of whiskey and some port to my house and I expect I wrote, thanking him for it—I wrote one letter commencing, "Many, many happy returns of the day," and I also sent him my photograph—I also sent him this letter, dated March 4th, 1904, from Victoria Street, and I also sent him this letter headed, "The Harvey united Steel Co., Limited, 28, Victoria Street, Westminster"—that is the company I referred to on Saturday,

with which Mr. Fox is connected—the letter refers to a contemplated day's outing and how it was spoilt, and then goes on, "It might have been more than my place was worth to have disregarded that note, especially in the mood he was in (although I knew as I felt it in my bones) as he knew when he wrote the note he had no intention of coming back; he had been upset and vented his annoyance on my head, because he could not do it elsewhere. He knew I had arranged to go off on Saturday, as he told me I could go off Friday night if I wished, but would like me just to call in Saturday if it made no difference, "the" he "refers to Mr. Fox—this is a fourth letter headed, "The London Non-Fammable Wood co., Limited"—that is another company connected with Mr. Fox—it is written from 65, Silverthorne Road, and Regent House, Regent Street, is scored through—there is a letter of mine dated in 1904, but it might have been written after I went to Streatham, because I had some old note-paper—I went from Battersea to Streatham on September 18th, 1903—this (Produced) is the bill for the article I purchased, which I mentioned on Saturday—Bridgwater also gave me a ring and a fancy watch—he wrote letters to me, but I have not kept any—I destroyed them as soon as I read them—there may be some about the house, but I do not think so—those are all the things he has given me—before Fisher left he tried to push a little present on to me, but I refused—it was two pieces of silk and a little box desk, but I refused them three or four times—at last I said, "Please don't say any more about it," and he went away and left them—I kept them; I could not do otherwise—I did not use the silk; it is there now with the desk—it was old-fashioned silk, not worth "2 1/2 d.—I think this is the key I had of the door of the office (Produced)—I have not got my key now; I gave it to one of the porters of the building.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. During the time I was Mr. Fox's confidential clerk I was in possession of all the details of his business, and during that time I have been faithful and true in all details with regard to Mr. Fox's interests and I have not spoken of his business to a single soul—I do not recollect ever mentioning his name to Bridg-water—I never mentioned to him the existence of a safe in the office or the details of the office—it never entered my mind to speak of there being diamonds and jewels in the safe, and I did not know that Mrs. Fox's jewels were there—if Fisher states that Bridgwater told him all the details of Mr. Fox's business and that he had learnt them from me, he is a liar—I am absolutely certain no information has been learnt from me; there are three other channels for information to be got through besides me—my knowledge of Bridgwater began, I think, in the beginning of 1903, and then it was solely that of medical man and patient—I have nothing to complain of, of the way he has treated me—I never told Bridgwater that Mr. Fox had an office at 28, Victoria Street, but I have evidently written him letters from there—I suppose a week never passed without Mr. Fox's name being mentioned in the newspapers, so if anybody wanted to find out where he was, they could do so; there are very few men so well known, I suppose—I first had a notice put up at the bookstall that I wanted a lodger three months after I went to Streatham, probably

early in 1904—I think Dean first came to me a few days after July 18th—the notice was put up twice and I think a third time—I paid 2s. 6d. and they kept it up for a month and then took it down, and then I paid again and they put it up again—they were not three consecutive months—I never looked to see if the notice was up—I do not think it was there in July, it would be there in June possibly—it would be well known by those who came in and out of the station that I had rooms to let—while Dean was in my house my sister was there part of the time—she was there when he came, and stayed for quite a week—with that exception, nobody else was in the house except Dean—it is my impression that Dean left on Monday, September 26th, because I was so annoyed and I wanted the place to myself, and it seemed a long time before he went—I did not give him a key of the outer door the first day he came, but I did within two or three days, and from that time he could go in and out of the house at any time—there was no one at home all day long—on Saturdays I came home at 3, or 4, or 5—Dean had breakfast on Sunday morning as soon as I was up—I told him I should not hurry; I do not hurry for anybody—he had it between 9 and 11 a.m.—I do not think I have a single thing in my house locked except a cash box—during the day Dean could have got at my papers if he had chosen; it would have been more risky at night, as I am a very poor sleeper—I very seldom took my keys in the bag up to my bedroom unless I was very tired and went straight upstairs, otherwise I left them in the dining room—I generally went to bed about 10 p.m.—Fisher was sometimes in bed before I got home—I was generally home by 10—I had about twelve or fifteen keys on my bunch, of all sizes—I had an ordinary big latchkey and a Yale latchkey to my house—unless a man knew which was the key of Mr. Fox's safe, it would be awfully difficult for him to tell which it was—I cannot say what part of last year it was that I went up to Bridgwater three or four times—I cannot say when I last saw him before September 22nd—I did not see the Joint Stock Bank cheque book until August 27th, and if the cheques were removed from it in Paris it must have been prior to August 23rd—I was here at the trial in March and heard the valet, Joseph Bricusse, examined [The COMMOM SERJEANT said that he could not have statements put in evidence which the witness had heard at the former trial, and MR. MUIR stated that the valet was in attendance if MR. WRIGHT wished to call him]—Bridgwater never asked me any of my employer's secrets and I never volunteered any—if a patient called while I was visiting at Bridgwater's place I should have gone into the next room, and should naturally take my bag with my keys with me, but I cannot say if I did so every time—I have no recollection of leaving them behind me; I may have done so, and it is quite likely that I did—my rooms are upstairs at Streatham—the whole of the garden belongs to me—it was in the evening that Dean told me a plant had been pulled up—I cannot say the month; I should say it was about the middle of the time that he was there—when he told me I think we were both in the house—I think he was in when I came home—I always take my hat and cape off before I go into the garden—I went down and put the plant right, but I do not think I immediately returned into the house, as I always

poke out there a long time—if my lodger was wicked enough to endeavour to take impressions of my keys, he had in the summer time, almost every night, ample opportunities if he had the cheek to go into my room—I used to be sometimes all the evening in the garden—it takes an hour to water it with the hose—on Sundays I never go out except I take an excursion somewhere—while Dean was my lodger he was only away one night, when he told me he had been to Wales—when I told Bridgwater of the forgery he seemed surprised, as one would expect a man to be—I think Dean wore his frock coat and high hat during the last week he was in my house, but I cannot say for certain—anybody who wanted to get my key from the receptacle where keys were kept by the porter at 28, Victoria Street, could easily do so—the porter was not there when I came in and out—I do not know if he was supposed to be there all day—I never saw Dean from the time he left my house until I saw him in the Police Court—when I knew him he looked aged, about thirty-five and sprightly, and when I saw him at the Police Court he looked very much older, but I had no difficulty in identifying him—I could not help remembering his jaw and tiger mouth—perhaps it would not be easy for somebody else to recognise him; of course every man has got his double—when I had the conversation with Dean about my scrap book it was nearly the end of his time with me—I did not go to show him the book, but some conversation started and I went to the book and turned over the leaves in front of him, and then I showed it to him—he could then have seen the two testimonials—there were four testimonial pinned together, and Mr. Fox's were at the top—he could have seen them, as he had shark's eyes—I did not tell Bridgwater that I had been looking for Dean, and I never told a soul that I intended to look for him—I made a lot of inquiries of postmen and other persons—I never knew he had another name besides Dean—I never told Bridgwater that Mr. Fox was a wealthy man, or that he was connected with Carnegie—he was connected with Carnegie—I was paid generally by cheques, which I sometimes cashed or changed at my bank, and sometimes I have kept them for three or four days in my purse, which would be in my bag—Mr. Fox never wrote to me at my place; he always wrote to me at the office, but I may have taken his letters home—none of his letters were anywhere except in my portfolio—I have seen since that in that portfolio there was a printed biography of Mr. Fox, and a lot of information could have been got from that—it was there the whole time Dean was with me, but I did not know it.

Cross-examined by Shackell. I have never seen you at Bridgwater's premises or anywhere else except in Court.

Cross-examined by MR. WALSH. I say the same of Mrs. Foster—I knew that Bridgwater had been assisted by a lady doctor, because it was on his bills, but I never saw her and knew nothing about it—I saw the name Dr. Macdonogh and asked Bridgwater who it was, and he said, "It was a lady doctor I had once with me"—both names were on the bills: Bridgwater and Macdonogh—I did not know where she had gone to.

Re-examined. It was at Bridgwater's place that I told him of the forgery, and I have never talked to a soul about it except Mr. Fox and the police.

By the COURT. When I first went to Bridgwater he had two establishments—I called at the ladies' establishment in Soho Street first and saw him—he closed that place and then I went to the other one—I did not see a lady doctor at either place—I knew Bridgwater went to Seaford at week-ends; I learnt that from him—I was under the impression that it was his own place—I thought he had a country house and a town house—when the police first came to me and asked if I had a sweetheart, and I said a doctor, they did not ask his name—I was not asked to give any name until the second trial of Holmes; then Kane asked me, "What was the name of the doctor you said you knew?" and I told him straight and said, "Bridgwater"—Fuller asked me what he was like and I said he was a fine tall man, but I did not consider he bore any resemblance to the man who cashed the cheque—the first time I was asked I gave a description of my sweetheart, but I did not say his name—I may have told Dean that I had a sweetheart who was a doctor, when he was talking about his wife—when Dean came to me I had grown cool with the doctor—I did not tell Dean where my sweetheart lived or his name—I wrote this letter (Produced) in April, 1903—I wrote this "M. E. T. T. B."; they are my initials and Bridgwater's in a little acrostic.

FREDERICK ARTHUR BALLARD . I am a dentist at 1, Oxford Street—I have known Bridgwater about five or six years—he has frequently introduced patients to me—I gave my evidence at Westminster Police Court on October 28th last—before going into the box I was shown a number of men in the yard, and I picked out a man whom I had attended professionally—Blair was the name I had—Fisher or Blair is the man I Attended—Bridgwater introduced him to me—I think I put in two gold crowns and parts of an upper and lower plate for Fisher—I was paid £12 12s.—the work commenced on October 8th, 1904—I saw him several times and had plenty of opportunity of getting to know his appearance.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. It is a very frequent thing for medical men to introduce patients to me—during the last four or five years Bridg-water has introduced to me a number of patients—I should not think he would introduce anybody whose acquaintance with him he wanted to keep secret.

WILLIAM PIGGOTT DARBY . I live at 16, Delamere Street, Paddington and have a druggist's shop at Willesden—at the beginning of 1904 I was seeking employment—I saw an advertisement of Bridgwater's in the street, and in consequence called upon him at the corner of Soho Street—I had studied medicine for a time, but I am not qualified—I called about January or February, 1904, and as the result became his assistant—this agreement, dated March 28th, 1904, was entered into between us, and I invested £100 in his business—for the first three months I was to have a salary at the rate of £104 per year and after that at the rate of £117—I was medical assistant or dispenser—I was to attend daily except Thursdays and have my meals there—I remained in his service until September 1st. 1904—I was employed in the dispensary—it was part of my duty to keep a call book—when people called, the porter Everett generally took them into the waiting room and brought their names to me on a piece of paper

—I would then enter them into this ordinary foolscap book (Produced)—it has some of my writing in it now—some of the leaves have been taken out—they were there when I used to enter the names—I think about a quarter of the book has gone—there are no entries in it except an address at the end—there is a page put in since—the entries on it, "Wednesday, January 4th," that is 1905, are not in my writing—that is after the leaves have been torn out—the entries have been written in since I was there—I saw Fisher at the Police Court—I knew him as Blair—I have seen him at 59, Oxford Street—I remember the day he first called; it was some time in June, 1904, I should say—Bridgwater was not in when he first called, and he called again—I then went and told Bridgwater he was there—I believe I took his name in—I told Bridgwater that a well-dressed man named Blair had called and I thought he was an American or something like that—Bridgwater said words to the effect that, "That is all right; I know him"—I do not remember how the doctor came to see him then, but he did see him in the consulting room—I entered his name in the call book—he called then very frequently until I left, perhaps twice a day; certainly six or seven times a week—when he came he always saw the doctor in the consulting room, I believe, but he took him upstairs also—I know he saw him upstairs once—I was in the room with them occasionally—they were talking and drinking whiskey—whenever he called I think I always entered his name in the call book—he seemed to be on very friendly and intimate terms with Bridgwater—I believe I have seen Holmes twice, just previous to my leaving and after I left—the first time would be towards the end of August—he called to see the doctor—I only knew his name—I went back there once or twice after I left, for money which was owing to me—I have never got my £100 back—I knew that Holmes was employed there after I left, and wh a I called there after I left he was there as dispenser in the drug room—I do not know Shackell at all—I cannot remember ever having seen him—I had practically nothing to do with the advertisement distributing—I have seen Foster once at Seaford—I went down there once with the doctor on pleasure—I stayed at "Ingle-side"—I thought Foster was the doctor's wife, and I have heard her called Dr. Macdonogh, I believe, by Bridgwater, and I have seen her name written like that and also as Dr. Foster Macdonogh—Bridgwater has shown me Foster's father's name in the medical directory and told me that that name Foster was that of her father—I believe that was before I went to "Ingleside," so I knew of her existence before I went down—he did not say any more about her—when I went down there he spoke of her as the "Missis"—he introduced her to me, but I do not remember how—I regarded them as husband and wife; his manner towards her led me to think she was his wife—I have seen Miss Toovey at the doctor's—I distinctly remember seeing her once, and I believe she has been there more than once—I believe I entered her name in the call book—while I was there, there was a patient named Satzga suffering from tonsilitis—he came very often—an operation was performed on him I should think about the end of July, 1904, in the consulting

room, by Dr. Keys, who was an assistant of Bridgwater's and looked after his branch establishment at Pimlico—Bridgwater told me he did not perform the operation on Satzga himself, because he wished to see if Keys knew his work—Keys was sent for from Pimlico to come up to see the patient—while I was there Bridgwater himself never performed an operation for tonsilitis—I do not remember a patient named Oswald.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I have frequently heard Foster called the lady doctor—I have heard Bridgwater speak of her as the "Missis" at Oxford Street—I do not know if she was called the "Missis" at Seaford—I never saw Blair treated as a patient except on one occasion when he had a slight scratch on his leg—I do not remember what he was given for it, but he was given something; it was a very trivial affair—I have never known him to be suffering from a private complaint—I believe I have said before that the doctor said, "I know him," when I told him that Blair had called, but I do not remember—I understood that Keys had an American qualification—I do not know if he performed the operation for tonsilitis very badly, and greatly to the doctor's dissatisfaction—I do not know that he only removed one tonsil instead of two, and that another tonsil had to be removed on a future occasion—I left Bridgwater on bad terms with him—he never accused me of habits of intoxication or threatened to dismiss me if I continued; I left and he did not dismiss me on account of my drunken habits—Keys was a great friend of mine and I believe he was on bad terms with Bridgwater—I and Keys went to a police station and Keys made a complaint against the doctor—when I went back to the doctor's after that, I believe I had had some drink, but I was not drunk—I did not some weeks afterwards see Bridgwater in the street and tell him that I had deserved my dismissal—I asked him for some of my money back—I did not ask him for a little present.

Cross-examined by MR. CORNISH. I did not see Holmes until the end of August—I never remember seeing him and Blair together—Holmes succeeded me as dispenser.

Cross-examined by Shackell. I never saw you before I saw you before the Magistrate.

Cross-examined by MR. WALSH. The medical register I saw with the name of Foster's father in it was a very old one—I know she had certain medical diplomas herself, Continental and English; the doctor told me so and I saw it on the advertising bills, and he told me also that she had formerly assisted at Oxford Street—I have no idea how long she had left, but I believe it was some time before I went there—I never saw her at 59, Oxford Street.

Re-examined. This (Produced) is the book which was in use at Oxford Street when I was there—it was called a case book—sometimes the doctor made entries in it and sometimes I did—this also (Produced) is a case book which was in use while I was there—when the larger one got full we used a smaller one—in the smaller one I see the name of Satzga—one date of an entry is August 31st—I cannot remember the date of

the operation for tonsilitis—I should say it was three or four weeks before September 1st, when I left—I do not see any other entry of Satzga's name in the small book and I do not see any entry of Satzga in the other book—so far as I recollect, Blair's name was never entered in any case book as a patient—my quarrel with Bridgwater was a general one—I got sick of the place—there was nothing in particular—there was a lot of whiskey going there—I have had some there with the doctor, and some with patients, and some with friends—it was to the doctor's knowledge that it was going there—I knew nothing about what Keys was complaining about at the police station—I took no part in it—the Soho Street place was not going in my time.

WALTER BERRY . I am a coastguardsman at Cuckmere, near Seaford—I know Bridgwater and Mrs. Foster—I have seen them at my station—on October 28th last I was shown a row of men at the Westminster police station and asked whether I knew any of them, and I picked out Fisher—I had seen him at my station with Bridgwater once, some time last year; I cannot say the month.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I was asked to go into the back-yard of the police station and pick out a man who I had seen at Cuckmere—a detective interviewed me at Cuckmere; I do not know his name—it was that man (Pointing to Carlin)—he asked me if I knew Bridgwater and I said, "Yes," and had seen him out with a gentleman—I had seen him with several gentlemen and I did not know which one the sergeant meant—I was asked to identify the convict, but he did not tell me his name—when I got to the station there were seven or eight or twelve men in a row besides Fisher—I was twenty-six years at sea—when I saw Fisher he was dressed in a high hat and a dark jacket; he had a dark moustache—I am certain I have seen Fisher at Cuckmere—it was in the summer time when I saw him, I think.

Cross-examined by MR. WALSH. Seaford is a seaside place, and the coastguard station is two miles and a half from it over the downs and four miles by road—I go to Seaford to do my shopping and sometimes get to know the landladies there—the place is empty in the winter and full in the summer—I know "Ingleside"; it is the same side of the town as the coastguard station—I knew Mrs. Foster lived at "Ingleside" for two or three years—I knew her by the name of Foster.

GEORGE EASTWICK . I am a coastguardsman, stationed at Cuckmere—I know Bridgwater and Mrs. Foster, and I think I have seen Holmes with Bridgwater at Cuckmere on the beach—on November 4th last I went to the Westminster police station and was shown a number of men in a row and the gentleman who took us in said, "When you get inside you will see a lot of gentlemen. I want you to take particular notice of them and see if you can see anybody who you have seen at your station with Bridgwater"—I did so and picked out a man whom they told me was named Fisher—I had seen him with Bridgwater at my station, I think, twice, but I am certain I saw him once—I remember the Dippy (Dieppe) boat was running at the time; it was pretty loppy as she passed and I said, "There are a tidy few who will not have any dinner to-day,"

meaning they would be sick—Bridgwater said that it was pretty rough when he had been over once, and that it was the engines which turned you up more than anything else—we had a conversation about one or two things and Fisher gave my little boy 6d.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I had only seen Fisher once before—I cannot say if I have seen him more—sometimes I do not see anybody at the station for a month—we are three miles away from anywhere, over the hills, but when people are at Cuckmere they come and talk to us—I was told I was wanted to pick out a gentleman I had seen with Bridg-water—I identified Fisher by his appearance; he is a man I should know if I saw him again—we were talking for a long time and I took notice of his face—there was nobody at the Police Court at all like him—I should describe him as a dark complexioned man, very short, with a dark bushy moustache and with a dull looking sort of face.

Cross-examined by MR. CORNISH. I am not certain about Holmes.

Cross-examined by MR. WALSH. I have seen Mrs. Foster come out to the station—I have been there four years—I know she has had a house at Seaford for two or three years—I do not know if people sometimes stay there in apartments.

ALBERT PEARCE HADLOW . I keep the Wellington Hotel at Seaford, and know "Ingleside"—I should think it is 500 or 600 yards from the Wellington, facing the sea—I have known Bridgwater three or four years, through his patronising my house—I fancy Holmes has been there with Bridgwater, but I cannot swear to him—I fancy he has been there a good many times, but not so often as Bridgwater, who was a frequent visitor—on November 4th I was called to the Westminster Police Court and before going into Court I was shown a number of men in the yard and picked out Fisher as a man who had been to my house with Bridgwater—I cannot say when, but some time in the summer of 1904—he has been there several times; I cannot say how many, but always with Bridgwater.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I think I said at the Police Court that I had seen Fisher several times (Depositions partly read): "I might have seen Fisher once or half a dozen times; I will not swear I have not seen him more than once"—I meant to express the idea that I had seen him there several times—a Scotland Yard officer came to see me at Seaford and asked me if Bridgwater used my house and I said, "Yes, and his friends "—I was asked if I could pick him out and I said, "Yes"—he asked me how many times he had used the house and I said he was a frequent visitor on Saturdays and Sundays—he asked if I could pick out anybody else and I said I could pick out his friends—when I got up to town the asked me if I could pick out Fisher; I believe they said Fisher, but I am not sure—I do not think they told me that Fisher was a convict and a sinner; they said, "Pick out the man you know as Bridgwater's friend"—I cannot say if there was anybody in the row of a dozen men resembling Fisher, because I knew him and went and picked him out—there was no man about the same size—I picked Fisher out because I knew him by his features—he had a very pleasant face and was generally smiling—he was introduced to me by Bridgwater—I believe Bridgwater told me that

Fisher was a doctor and was a "true bill"; I suppose he meant a good fellow—I have a good many people in my house in the summer, but I am generally able to identify anybody I have seen.

Cross-examined by MR. CORNISH. I was managing a house for a friend had went to Epsom in the Derby week—I deal in brewers' requisites; I did not know Holmes as a commercial traveller, but I am not certain—I do not know a firm named Palliser—I once went to the Brewers' Exhibition at the Agricultural Hall four or five years ago—I have never bought a beer filter there, and I do not think I have ever seen Holmes there but I am not certain.

Cross-examined by MR. WALSH. I have been at my present house at Seaford for eleven years—I have known of Mrs. Foster as a resident but I do not know her personally—I knew "Ingleside"—she had been there about three years—I do not know if she was a ratepayer—Bridg-water did not bring his friends to sleep at my hotel.

ROLAND YALLOP . In September, 1904, I was a cashier at the London Joint Stock Bank, Victoria Street, and I was there when this cheque for £819 (Produced) was presented on September 22nd, about 4.65 p.m.—a man came in with it and placed it on the counter—my suspicions were not aroused—I examined the signature and it appeared to me to be quite correct, and I asked him how he would take it—he said he would take it half in fifties, half in twenties and £19 in gold—I paid him 19 twenties, 2 tens, 8 fifties and £19 in gold—it was so late that my supply of notes had been taken away, so I walked to the back of the office and got some, which I banded to him—I made a note of the numbers—these are the £20 notes (Produced)—they have now had their corners torn off—they are all here—the man then walked out—I did not see him after that—shortly after he had gone the cheque was put before the manager and I examined it again and in consequence we sent a clerk to see Miss Toovey—I went round afterwards and then we gave information to Scotland Yard—that same day I gave a description of the man who had cashed the cheque, and on January 6th last I was taken to Westminster police station, where I saw a number of men, from whom I picked out Holmes—I said I was uncertain between two men and I was told to touch both of them, and I went up to Holmes first and then to the other man and touched him—I have now no doubt whatever that Holmes is the man—when he came into the bank he had on a frock coat and a tall hat, and a large expanse of white shirt front, which looked almost as if he had on a white waistcoat; his coat was buttoned low down—when he was on his trial I heard him give evidence and noticed his voice, which seemed familiar, as it is rather a peculiar voice—it seemed to be the same voice as I had heard in the bank.

Cross-examined by MR. CORNISH. It seemed to be a deep voice—I think I said his appearance was like an American's—it is not unusual for people to come into the bank just before closing time, and if a man does so I do not look at him more than anybody else—people in tall hats and frock coats are a common sight in the bank—there was nothing about the man's appearance to excite my suspicion—it was the manager who

called my attention to the cheque about fifteen minutes after it was cashed—there was a little screen in front of my desk—the man did not stand behind it; he was in full view—when I gave my description at Scotland Yard Sisman was present—I do not know if Barrett went with us; I think we all three were there—Barnett would hear what we said—my description to the police was, "A big min, dressed in a black frock coat, with silk facings, and a tall silk hat, showing what seemed to be a white waistcoat or shirt front, big build, tall and stout"—I altered that to "rather stout"—I did not say a word about his moustache—I noticed that he had one; it must have been an oversight—Holmes would look bigger about the shoulders in a frock coat than he does now—I have talked this matter over with the people at the bank and I have had several interviews with the police—I was shown photographs of a man with a moustache and without one—I was shown the description in the "Police Gazette," which was, "A man aged forty-five to fifty, height six feet complexion sallow, hair and moustache dark, wearing a black frock coat with white vest and silk hat"—I do not remember mentioning that the man had a moustache—I did not help the inspector to get out that description, but he discussed the question with me—it was after I had been the "Police Gazette" and the photographs that I went to Westminster for the purpose of identification—I cannot say if Holmes was the only man with a dark moustache—I cannot say if the other man I picked out had a light or brownish moustache—he was dark and rougher than Holmes and of fairly gentlemanly appearance—all the other men had not dark moustaches—I have seen Holmes at both his trials.

Re-examined. None of the photographs I saw were photographs of Holmes.

ALBERT JOSEPH SISMAN . I am a clerk in the London Joint Stock Bank, 22, Victoria Street, and I was there on September 22nd, 1904—I remember the forged cheque on Mr. Fox's account being presented on that day—I saw the man who presented it—I was at the counter at the time, on Yallop's left—I was taking the total amount of notes which he had paid away during the day—I could not do that until the last customer had been dealt with—while I was standing there I was doing nothing to interfere with my view of the man—I left immediately after the notes were entered in the cashier's book, and the man who presented the cheque was then at the counter—ten or twelve minutes after the cheque was changed I learnt that it was a forgery and I was instructed to go to Mr. Fox's office—I think I was the first person to go there—I did not take the cheque, but I believe it was afterwards taken round there—about 4.15 or 4.20 I went to Scotland Yard and gave a description of the men to Fuller—there was someone else there; I do not know who it was, but nobody else from the bank—on January 6th I went to Westminster police station and saw a number of men and picked out Holmes—I say now, as I said before, that I am quite satisfied he is the man who presented the cheque.

Cross-examined by MR. CORNISH. We generally take notice of those who are in the bank—there was one other customer there at the time, a tall man, who I know very well; he has not got a dark moustache—

I went to Scotland Yard by myself, the same day that Yallop and Barrett gave their descriptions—I only gave one description—Barrett and Yallop were not there then—I have talked the matter over with them since—a forged cheque for £819 is not an everyday affair—in my description I said nothing about a white waistcoat; I said an open waistcoat—I mentioned the dark moustache—I was not shown the "Police Gazette"—I was shown some photographs before I went to Westminster—I do not think Yallop told me what was in the "Police Gazette" before I went to Westminster—the first I heard of the "Police Gazette" description was at the first trial in this Court—when I went to Westminster I had no doubt about Holmes; I walked up and down the lines to satisfy myself—there were twelve or fifteen men as far as I can remember; I cannot say how many had black moustaches—I do not think Holmes was the only one—when I gave my evidence at the former trial I said that the man was inclined to be sallow, and fairly tall generally in appearance.

Re-examined. I did not positively recognise any of the photographs shown to me by the police.

GEORGE BARRETT . I am a messenger at the London Joint Stock Bank, Victoria Street—it is my business to attend to the door, and to some extent to those who come in—I was there on September 22nd, 1904—the doors close at 4 o'clock, and shortly before that time a man got out of a hansom and came in—he went up to the counter and after a time I saw some notes handed to him—he looked through them and put them into his breast pocket and some gold into his hip pocket, and then went out—as he was in front of the counter I noticed he was rather white and as he went away he got rather flushed—he was in the bank ten or twelve minutes and left about 4.10—he got into the hansom and drove away towards the abbey—on January 6th last I went to Rochester Road police station and saw fifteen or sixteen men there—I went independently of Mr. Sisman and Mr. Yallop—I recognised Holmes among the men as the man who had come into the bank—when he cashed the cheque he had on a frock coat buttoned at the bottom and open at the upper part—I fancy he had on a white collar.

Cross-examined by MR. CORNISH. I think I said at the last trial that he had on a white shirt—after he came into the bank I closed the door and then went up to him—I said at the former trial that he was pale when he came in—I should describe him as of sallow complexion, and he became almost stony white and remained so until he went out, and as he passed me he became flushed—when he sot into the cab I should say he was red—I should say the cabman's complexion was between ginger and claret—he had a dark horse, but not black—I did not notice the number of the cab—I was not suspicious about the man—I did not hear what Mr. Yallop and the manager were saying—to the best of my belief I did not say at the last trial, "I saw the manager and Mr. Sisman talking about the cheque, and of course I went and heard what they said, "but I might have—I have not talked this matter over with all manner of people—I may have done so with the officials at the bank, but not with the police—I did not give a description of the man—I was shown some photographs of

men with dark moustaches—I never said a word about a man with a dark moustache—I was not shown a description in the "Police Gazette"—when I picked the man out I did not hesitate, and when I came to Holmes the police did not say, "Touch him"—I said in the March trial, "I looked down the line and I came to the prisoner; I pointed him out and they said, 'Touch him,' and I touched him"—that is right.

By the COURT. When I went to pick the man out I went by myself.

New Court, Tuesday, November 21st.

HAROLD BODE . I live at 5, Esmond Gardens, Chiswick, and am employed by Messrs. Thomas Cook & Sons, of Ludgate Circus—I was there on the afternoon of September 22nd, 1904—these two £50 notes have both on the back of them, "Exc," standing for "exchange," in the writing of Mr. Hurd Smith—they were tendered for exchange on the afternoon of September 22nd, I should say about 4.30, by a man—in January last I went to the Westminster Police Court and saw about ten men in the yard, and amongst them recognised Holmes as the man who had tendered these two notes—he wanted French money in exchange for them—I was not certain at the time whether he wanted gold or paper—we had not exactly what was asked for—whatever he asked for we had to make it up with the alternative, and we gave 2,510 francs for the notes, half in paper and half in gold—the change was put on the counter and he left part of it there as he was leaving the office—I am not sure which part he left, but I think it was the gold—I called after him and said, "You are leaving part of your money on the counter"—he turned very quickly, grabbed it, as it were, and rushed out of the office—I should say he was not in the office more than two and a half or three minutes—this coin is a 20-franc piece, and coins of that issue are current in France—there might be two or three coins of that kind in change given at the office; it has the Gaelic cock upon it.

Cross-examined by MR. CORNISH. Dozens of those coins pass through our banks in this country—I did not attend to the man who came into the office—I was at my desk when he came in, two desks lower down, but before the transaction was finished I went down to my colleague for some purpose or other and it was the fact of the man leaving the money on the counter which attracted my attention—when we got the numbers of the stolen notes it was called to my mind—I understand the police came in later that day, but they did not see me—I believe they saw Mr. Smith—in January at the Police Court I gave the police a description—I was shown no photograph by the police—I gave a rough description before I went to the police station—I saw no papers—I did not have a conversation with Mr. Smith on the subject; he was away—I did not pay any attention to the man at first—when he came back I only got a glimpse of him as he took up the money—I saw him full face for a moment—I noticed nothing particular about his features except that I thought he was a well-built man and was inclined to be dark—I told the police on January 6th he had a moustache—I do not remember the police coming to me before that—I had a better view of the man's general appearance than of his features

—when I went down to identify him I had the idea of a well-built man dressed in a certain attire—I thought he resembled a casual acquaintance who comes up in the train with me—when I went into the yard the man was standing with a number of others—there waft no other man who had a resemblance to my acquaintance—I did not pick out a suitable body and put my friend's head on it—I only saw his front then—I did not see Holmes walk in the yard—I described the man of-medium height.

Cross-examined by MR. WALSH. There is a 9 p.m. train from Victoria to Paris.

Re-examined. When I went to Westminster Police Court it was January 13th, 1905—I looked for a man dressed in a frock coat and silk hat—when I picked out Holmes he had on a light overcoat and a soft hat.

MARY ANN LILBURN . I live at 59, Winn Street, Lincoln, which is opposite the Steam Hammer beer-house, kept by my brother, John Sanderson—I was in the habit of going to the beer-house daily and I have seen Holmes there on several different visits—on Monday, September 26th, 1904, he came to my brother's; that was the first time I saw him on that visit—he stayed till the following Saturday week—I saw him every day during that time—I remember seeing in his possession a gold coin which had some kind of bird on it—to the best of my belief it was like this one (The 20 franc piece produced)—he gave it to my sister-in-law in lieu of his lodgings and he asked me to return it when he sent the money, which he did on the Tuesday, and the coin was sent back to him, I think, by me; but I am not quite sure of that—before that visit 1 think it was twelve months since I had seen him.

Cross-examined by MR. CORNISH. Holmes could not have been at my brother's without my being aware of it, because I go in every day and it is a very small place—I have not seen German and French money very often—Holmes did not give me the idea that he looked upon this coin as a curiosity—he left it because he was hard up—I never knew him as a wealthy man.

ALICE HUMPHREYS . I am single and live at 23, Burton Crescent, King's Cross—I have known Shackell for ten years, and have lived with him as his wife for five years—I ceased doing so in September, 1904—on August 24th of that year the banns of our marriage had been put up and we were to be married at St. Pancras Church on Saturday, October 1st, at 12 o'clock—the marriage did not come off because he left me on September 27th—for some time before that I had been ill and owed 35s. for rent—shackell had always promised that that would be paid—after he left me I went to Bridgwater's two or three times to try and find out where he was—I saw Bridgwater and afterwards Holmes—I saw Bridg-water the same week that Shackell left me and I asked him if he knew where Shackell was, as he had not been home, and he said he had not been him for a day or two as he had not been back to work, and he did not know where he was—I said I could not understand his staying away, as we were to be married and I did not know what to do—he asked me to call again if I was passing that way, and if he heard anything of Stackell he would let me know—I called on the following Saturday, the day we

were to be married, and saw the doctor—I asked him if he had seen shackell, and he said yes, he had been in the day previous, but had only stayed a little while—I asked Bridgwater if he would be kind enough to let me have a little money to pay my rent—Shackell had told me hat they had been doing a little betting and that the doctor owed him some—Bridgwater did not make any reply when I asked him, but gave me half-a-sovereign—I saw the doctor again the following week and asked him if he had seen Shackell and he said he had seen him at different times just running in and out of the office during the week, but not to stay—I told him that I had heard that Shackell had been with another lady and the doctor said he was not quite sure if he was with anybody or not, but that he had seen him with somebody, meaning another lady—I saw Holmes at the doctor's a fortnight after I was to have been married—I asked him if he had seen Shackell or could tell me where he was—Holmes said he did not know where he was living, but that he had seen him occasionally—that was all the information I got from him—in November, 1904, I went to 2, Beauchamp Road, Clapham Junction, and saw Shackell there with Mrs. Thomas, who was then in the name of Annie Harris—I said I wanted to speak to Shackell and I was asked inside—I asked him why he had not been over to see me or written—he said he had not made up his mind what he was going to do, but would come and see me the following day at my address—I was still in the same house where he had lived with me—he came to the station to see me off by train—nothing was said about money on that occasion—he came alone the following day and saw me and asked me not to go to Beauchamp Road again—he gave me no reason, and I said it was rather hard for me, as I had known him for more years than this little woman had known him months—he told me he was not going to stop with her—I asked him for some money—he said he had not got any—I said, "They are worrying me again at home for the little debt which is owing," and he said, "I will give it to you as soon as I get it"—Mrs. Harris told me something about his spending money, but I did not mention it to Shackell because I did not see him to speak to after I was told of it—when Mrs. Harris came to my address she was wearing a plush coat and three rings which I had seen before, but I did not speak to Shackell about them because I did not see him—Mrs. Harris came to my address when Shackell was away—I went to see him at 2, Buckingham Street, off Great Portland Street—that was Mrs. Thomas's house after they left Clapham Junction; that was in September last—Mrs. Thomas came to the door and I asked to see Shackell—she shut the door in my face and said he was not at home—I said I knew he was at home because I had seen him in there, and I would like to see him as I had two letters to give him—in the end I saw him—he said I had no right to come there to him and told me to go out—I said I should not go out until I had said what I wanted to—I asked him if he was still going to remain with this little woman and he said that was his business and added, "Do not you come here again," and asked me to leave—I said, "I have two letters to give

you"—he said he did not want any letters or to have anything more to do with me—then I fainted and he sent for a policeman—nothing happened to me before I fainted—there is nothing more I can tell you—the police came—I was given a glass of port and I was put out—I have heard Shackell speak of a man called Bill the Barman—he said that he, Shackell, had a £20 note, he did not say from whom he got it, which he gave to Bill the Barman to cash, who had run away with it—I swore that before the Magistrate and it is correct—I also said, "He had bought the other woman some things and she had told me so herself," and, This woman had said he had bought her three rings and a plush jacket and taken her about and spent money upon her"—I said he was very unkind about leaving me, and, "I went up to his place and he knocked me down in the room"—that is cure; he knocked me down just before I fainted—that was because the woman had asked me to go out and he said I was not wanted.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I did not tall Bridgwater that Shackell had told me that Bridgwater owed him some money or that he and Shackell had been doing a little betting—I am quite sure that Bridgwater knew I had lived with Shackell and that Shackell had promised to marry me—the 10s. that the doctor gave me was a gift.

Cross-examined by MR. CORNISH. I knew that Holmes was employed at Bridgwater's as druggist—my conversation with Holmes about Shackell I think was in the following October—it was later than the last week in September.

Cross-examined by Shackell. I did not say before the Magistrate that you had told me you had spent money on the other woman and taken her about—I said it was very unkind of you to treat me as you did—I only saw Bridgwater two or three times when I called, but I saw Holmes other times—I am not sure if I told Bridgwater that he owed you money, but I believe I did—Carlin came and asked me if I knew you—I said, "Yes"—he said, "How long?"—I said, "A number of years," and I told him about Bill the Barman; he did not ask me about him—I have read the accounts of Fisher's evidence in the newspapers—I was not present when he first gave evidence, but he was examined while I was there—you told me you had given Bill the Barman a £20 note—I did not say before the Magistrate, "A note or two"—I said, "A £20 note"—I went to Beauchamp Road to ask you what you intended doing—when I said we were not married on the Saturday you said there were plenty more Saturdays to be married, and you told me distinctly you were not going to stay with the other woman, but were coming back to me, and I said I did not understand such goings on—all that I said was in your presence and in the other woman's—I was not intoxicated when I arrived there—I did not create a scene—when we arrived at Clapham Junction station I created a scene because I did not want you to go back; I wanted you to come to my place—I threw myself on the platform because you pushed me into the train and because you would not say good-night to me—you were not sober—there was whiskey and everything on the table when I got there—you would not have treated me in the manner you did if you had been sober—I had a

drop of whiskey there—when I went to Buckingham Street I had a friend with me and another person; they were both ladies, Mrs. Baker and Mrs. Sewell—I do not know what Mrs. Baker said to you—I do not know that she caused a disturbance and used foul language—I was present, but I did not take any notice; I was talking to you—she told you you ought to treat me better and not handle me so—you ordered her to leave the premises—I do not think she refused to go—I do not think you ejected her from the room—you opened the door and she walked out—I remember a policeman coming in and he asked me to leave and I went out—I was carried out on to the stairs and when I was sufficiently recovered I left—I believe it was a hysterical fit which I had—I suffer from them at times—I did not say before the Magistrate, "I was very bitter against him"—I have always felt kindly towards you—I have never threatened that I would do something which would get you into trouble. [The witness here became indisposed.]

M. E. TOOVEY (Re-examined). These are my keys, and a bag which is exactly like the one I used (Produced)—the keys are the same with the exception of those tied with red cotton, and with one other exception, which is the door key, which I do not think was on the bunch at the time, but I am not certain.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. The number of the keys vary according to what my private affairs are—there are often more keys on the bunch than there are now.

JOSEPH SCANNELL . I am a photographer, of 51, Tottenham Court Road—I have known Shackell for about two years—he was employed by Mr. Hornsby at York Buildings, Strand, and afterwards he told me by Bridgwater—I know Holmes; he was a medical student—I did not know that he was employed at Bridgwater's, but I understood from Shackell that he was—I have never seen Shackell and Holmes together—I know Alice Humphreys—Shackell told me he was going to get married to her and had put up the banns—I think he told me that on September 27th, 1904—before that date I had lent him small sums of money for refreshments and so on when he called upon me—I think the last time I lent him money was about a week before September 27th; I think it was a few shillings—I do not recollect how much money he owed me then, but I should think about 10s.—on September 27th he came to my place and asked me to go out and have a drink—I said I did not care about going out and he said, "You have not been a bad sort to me; I owe you a little money and I want to pay you; can you cash a fiver, old chappy"—I said, "Show me your fiver," and he handed one to me—I held it up to the light and it appeared to be genuine and I said, "Have you got any more?" and he said, "Oh, yes, two or three"—I said, "Show me"—he stooped down, pulled up his trousers, and stuck in his sock there were at least ten notes—I said, "Why, you are a mint; do you make them?"—he said, "I will go out and get change"—he went out and came back and gave me about 7s. 6d.—he said, "Come out and have a drink now," and we went out together—that was about 4.30 or 5 p.m.—we went to several places in the neighbourhood of Tottenham Court Road and

eventually we went to the Horseshoe, where we met a lady, and he was enraptured with her—she was going in the name of Mrs. Thomas then—I thought she was a respectable woman; I had done business with her before—I spoke to her, and Shackell came up to my side and asked us to have a drink—there was no formal introduction; he did not want much introduction—we all three had a lot of wine and went to several other places—Shackell insisted upon paying for everything—I do not recollect seeing him cash any £5 notes—he said we would all go to the Empire and I remember going to Leicester Square, and I do not remember anything more until I found myself at Vine Street police station, when I was charged with being drunk and incapable—Shackell and the woman had left me and I was let out on my own recognisances at 3 a.m. to appear later that morning before the Magistrate at Marlborough Street, but I was too ill, and nine or ten days afterwards I was fined 5s.—on September 28th, when I was too ill to appear, Shackell and the lady came round to me and I told them the circumstances and they laughed and went away—Mrs. Thomas lived in Sussex Chambers, Candover Street, which is Goodge Street, off the Tottenham Court Road—I have called there several times to see her and have seen Shackell there—I threatened him about the notes, as he got me into serious trouble last February, and I told him I would tell the police about them—he poo-poohed me and walked away—Mrs. Thomas was there at the time.

Cross-examined by Shackell. On September 22nd you made me drunk; it never happened before except about five years ago, when I was convicted of drunkenness—if a police officer said I have been convicted many times it would be untrue—Sergeant Scholes did not say before the Magistrate that I had been convicted of drunkenness on several occasions—I do not know if it was 8 or 9 o'clock on September 27th that I found myself in trouble—a man like you could certainly make me drunk against my will, as you piled it on to me; I got drunk against my own inclination—I said before the Magistrate that I bore you no love, and I am not particularly fond of you, considering what you have done for me—you have done me a serious injury; you were the instigator of Mrs. Thomas committing wilful perjury before the Magistrate—when the Magistrate investigated my case he said that Mrs. Thomas ought to be prosecuted for perjury—I said before the Magistrate that the woman was responsible for the prosecution against me, but you urged her to do it when you had no money, and at the finish you demanded money from me and sent your solicitor up—I do not remember ever telling anybody that I would get my own back or, "I will get something up for him"—I have never said anything of the kind—when you changed the £5 note you owed me about 10s., but you only gave me 7s. 6d., which is just what you would do—it may have been more than 7s. 6d.—I was perfectly sober then—I have been a photographer for twenty years in Fleet Street and ten years in Tottenham Court Road—I am a respectable, honest man—at the Police Court Sergeant Scholes said something to the effect that I was an associate of bad characters, but I never associated with them; if they come into a public bar where I am, I cannot help it—I am not an

associate of women of bad character—Mrs. Thomas posed as a respectable woman at first, but I found out afterwards she was not—I have not been in the habit of visiting other women of this character—I know Alice Humphreys through you—I do not know anybody else living in her house—I did not know Ruth Sewell, but I have seen her outside the house when I have been there with you—I have not been there by myself—I have not been there after Ruth Sewell; she is a respectable married woman—I do nothing besides photography for a trade; I do not deal in anything else—I swear that the incident of the notes took place in my reception room—at the Police Court, counsel for the Prosecution put my signed statement before me, which I could not read, because I had not my glasses with me, and the Magistrate read it for me—I said in the statement," I knew that Shackell and Holmes were both employed at Dr. Bridgwater's," and I have said so to-day—I do not think I told Inspector Kane that I had seen you and Holmes at public-houses or at any particular place together, and I have not done so—I contradicted my statement in the box—when you called on September 27th I took your photograph, but the 7s. 6d. which you gave me was not for that; you said you would not pay me for it—my rule is for people to pay at the time, but you have such a pressing way and will not pay, but you spend a lot of money in drinks—I saw the notes in your sock, because you were almost touching me—I can see a long distance, but I have to wear my glasses for small work or printing—people have seen me wear glasses, but I do not know if Holmes has—I have known him for many years—I have not known you for so long—I did not see so much of you, and I did not want to—you were not a frequent visitor, but when you did come you did not forget to touch me for some money—the story about the £5 note is not my own invention and is not the answer to a threat that I would get you into trouble, because I did not threaten you—I lent Mrs. Thomas £14 on a cheque for £25—she told me to get as much as I could on the cheque, as she was in difficulties—I did not say I would discount it for her—it was a post-dated cheque—it was given to me in July last year—it was to be met on September 5th—this was before you came on the scene—she said it was her husband's cheque—after September 5th I did not pay Mrs. Thomas the money, because she was not entitled to any, as she owed me money for work I had done—I owe her £7 still, but she owes me more than that—the work I did was enlargements and cabinets—the cabinets are worth a guinea a dozen—there is a statement in my studio that my charge is 5s., but you can buy a coat for 15s. or ten guineas, and it is the same in photography—the, enlargements are worth about £3 10s. each—they are permanent enlargements, 24 by 18—they are worth more than 15s. each; I am a first-class photographer—I swore at the Police Court that I owed Mrs. Thomas £7—I did not take the cheque from her under the pretence that I would discount it—I paid her £14 when she handed me the cheque and she said she did not mind paying something for discounting it—it is a worthless cheque—it was on the same bank as mine, the Birkbeck Bank—I did not pay it into my account—I did not go to the bank and

inquire about her or Mr. Thomas—when this transaction happened I believe you were undergoing some imprisonment—Mrs. Thomas told the bank a lie: that she had lost the cheque—I received £4 for discounting the cheque for one month—it does not matter if that is nearly 50 percent.—I did not say you came to my premises with Mrs. Thomas and tried to blackmail me; you sent your solicitor—you wanted me to write you a cheque for £2 and you made a terrible scene and I said, "I will call a policeman and have you put out"—you said you had a little business on—the £2 was not on account of Mrs. Thomas's debt—you are living with her—she was keeping you—you sold other people's furniture—Mrs. Thomas had about £20 altogether from me, because she may have come round and borrowed money, which I gave her and never made a note of—I am not surprised that on September 28th you cam and demanded £2, although you were in possession of the notes on the 27th—I did not know what you had done with the money during the night.

Re-examined. This (Produced) is my statement, which I made to Inspector Kane on August 30th—Mrs. Thomas charged me with stealing the £25 cheque at Maryborough Street Police Court—I think the hearing was on February 10th—Shackell and Mrs. Thomas gave evidence against me, and after the Magistrate had investigated the case he discharged me and said the woman had committed wilful perjury—I did not see the value of the notes which were in Shackell's sock, but he showed me a £5 note.

By the COURT. In my statement to the police I said, "I said to him" (that is Shackell) "'How do you get those; do you make them?' He said, 'Ah, I have a nice little deal come off; you do not think I am such a b—fool as not to chance my arm and not starve'"—he used those words at my place—on September 28th Shackell came with Thomas—I was sitting in the back room, and Thomas remained in the reception room and did not hear our conversation.

ALICE HUMPHREYS (Further cross-examined by Shackell). I was jealous when I found that you were living with another woman, as I was very fond of you, and my great anxiety was that you should return to me as I thought we were going to be happy—Scannell has been to my place several times with you, but not without you—he has not visited anybody else in my house.

ALBERT CASNOVA BALLARD . I am a property owner and live at Oakdale Road, Streatham—I know No. 2, Beauchamp Road, Lavender Hill, and in October, 1904, it was to let—a man whom I identify as Shackell applied to me for it—I asked him for references and he gave as one, Dr. Talbot Bridgwater, 59, Oxford Street, and said he had been secretary to Bridgwater for upwards of eleven years—I told him I would write to him, which I did, and also sent my clerk Temple to see him—on October 13th I wrote this letter to Bridgwater, "Dear Sir,—Mr. Thomas, of Sussex Chambers, Candover Street, has referred me to you as reference. He informs me he has been your secretary for some years. Will you kindly acquaint me if this is correct I Also if you consider he is able to

pay a rental of £42 a year"—I knew Shackell in the name of Thomas—I got no reply to that letter, and Temple made a report to me when he came back from Bridgwater, and on considering what he said I let the house to Shackell—I believe he had the house about October 15th or 16th—he paid slightly less than one month's rent—there was a three years' agreement signed by him in the name of Thomas, dated October 19th, between me and William Thomas, of B Flat, Sussex Chambers, Candover Street, W., for the letting of 2, Beauchamp Road, Lavender Hill, for three years at £42 a year, rent payable monthly, a month's rent to be paid on November 19th; witnessed by J. Dodd—I have not the least idea who Dodd is—I think he came out of possession on February 19th, but I cannot say to a day—he promised faithfully to pay the three months' rent two days after he left, and I discovered he had left by my applying for the rent—I did not go personally—I do not know whether Temple went—I re-let the house months afterwards—I had no notice of his going, and on February 28th I wrote to Bridgwater a letter of which this is a copy—I did not post it myself—I did not get any reply and I wrote again—I think I wrote four times altogether—I never received any reply—the dates I wrote on were February 23rd, 25th, and 28th—the only rent I ever got was for slightly under three months, although I referred to a solicitor, Mr. Tomkin.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I never saw Bridgwater, but I received a wire which appeared to come from him—I have no personal knowledge that Shackell was living in Sussex Chambers.

Cross-examined by Shackell. You went to Fortescue, one of my agents at Clapham Junction, before you came to me, but I do not know the date—I do not know if my clerk telephoned to Fortescue, telling them to send you along to me—he did not act upon my instructions; he would act in his own way—you came to see me on October 12th or 13th, when you called with a lady—I asked for references and you brought a rent bock in the name of Thomas, which I know now was a fictitious one, because it was not yours—you were not a tenant of B Flat, Sussex Chambers, because it was in the name of Mrs. Thomas, and I am absolutely satisfied that there was no Mr. Thomas there—I sent the agreement to that house and it was returned signed by you—I cannot say whether you lived there, but you were not the tenant—you told me that the property was in the hands of executors, which was totally untrue—the agents for that property are not in Nassau Street—you said you had rented some place in Nassau Street and you said that the landlords of Sussex Chambers were dead, which is totally untrue, as I have got a letter from the landlord.

WILLIAM TODD TEMPLE . I am a clerk to Mr. Ballard—I saw this letter, dated October 13th, after it was written, and called upon Bridg-water with it—I delivered it by hand to somebody who handed it to somebody in his room and then I went in and saw him—he had not the letter in his hand when I spoke to him—when I went in he mistook me for a patient and asked me if I had been there before, and I said I had come with regard to Mr. Thomas, who had applied to us for a house at a rental of £42 a year and who had referred

us to him, and was he good enough for that amount?—he said he was, and I then said that Mr. Thomas had informed us that he had been his secretary for ten or eleven years; was that correct?—he said, "Yes, all right"—I saw this letter of February 28th after it was written—I do not know who posted it; I may have done so or another clerk—letters I write are sometimes posted by myself, and by another clerk if he writes them—this (Produced) is the letter of February 28th to Bridgwater (Thanking Bridgwater for his wire and asking when Mr. Thomas left his employment, and if there was any special reason why he did so, asking for a reply to the letters which had been sent and if he could say where Mr. Thomas was employed)—no reply was received to that.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I have no note who posted the letters—I am certain I asked Bridgwater if Thomas had been his secretary—I did not ask if he had only been known to him for some years—the word I used was "employed"—I will not swear to what particular word, but it was to that effect—I do not think it was "known"—I never saw the letter of October 13th in Bridgwater's hands, but I saw it taken into his room.

Cross-examined by Shackell. I cannot say if I received a telephone message from Messrs. Fortescue with regard to your tenure; I do not remember it—I was not present at the interview between you and Mr. Ballard—we sent the agreement to B Flat, Sussex Chambers, I suppose, and it was returned signed—so far as we knew, you lived there—I did not personally make any inquiries with respect to your tenancy of that flat—I did not call at the flat—we had the agent's address—I did not call upon them—I never saw any rent book, but it was mentioned to me.

CHARLES POULTNEY . I live at 6, George Street, Euston Road, and am a collector and salesman to Mr. Simmons, furniture dealer, of 231, Euston Road—I know Shackell—I saw him first at Mr. Simmons' stores fast before October 17th, 1904—I did not interview him myself, but I knew he came for some furniture on the hire system—this (Produced) is the agreement, dated October 19th, 1904, signed William Edward Shackell—I was not present when it was signed; Mr. Percy witnessed it—we got a reference from Bridgwater—I went up to see him about that date—it was before October 17th—I asked him if he knew Shackell and if he was all right for £64—he said he was a very good fellow and could well afford to pay the amount named—I said why I wanted to know—I was satisfied with the reference, and we let Shackell have the goods—the total value was £64 17s.—I think a deposit of £10 was paid by two payments of £5 each and one installment of 25s.—that is all we got.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I said it was in November at the Police Court, but I told you afterwards it was a mistake—I am speaking entirely from memory about my conversation with Bridgwater—25s. a month was to be paid by the agreement, which would be about 5s. or 6s. a week—I did not ask Bridgwater if Shackell was good enough for 6s. a week—I did not say anything about 6s. a week—I said "Goods on terms" and mentioned the amount—I thought that what Bridgwater said was true—I did not think at the Police Court that what he had said was true—I believe I said at the Police Court, "I do not think that as to any matter

of fact Dr. Bridgwater told me a single word which was not true," but I think now that he did not give me a proper reference.

Cross-examined by Shackell. I saw you several times in October on our premises—I know nothing about the £5 payments except what I have heard, but I heard you say you would pay £20—I was inside the office than—it was reduced to £10 afterwards—6s. 2d. a week is not a very great payment or a very small one.

By the COURT. We got the furniture back after a lot of trouble—Shackell sold it and we had to prosecute to get it back.

FLOSSIE ISTED . I Live with my parents at 3, Richmond Terrace, Sea-fold—I have not left school—I know Mrs. Foster—I did housework for her out of school hours—I know Bridgwater—I thought he was Mr. Foster—Mrs. Foster addressed him as "My dear"—he came nearly every Sunday—Mr. Moore was the milkman, and Mr. Sayer the baker—Mrs. Foster used to go away now and again, and on those occasions she would tell me to tell them not to call until she came back, when I would go and tell them to come—her house is called "Ingleside"—it has eleven rooms and two floors—there is a dining room downstairs and another sitting room, a kitchen, a scullery, and the hall—on the first floor there are five rooms—I do not know how many on the top floor—I have never been up the second flight of stairs—looking at the house from the outside, there are five windows—I do not know if anybody occupied the rooms on the top floor—then is a clock in a frame in the hall; it is only a little tiny clock—it strikes every fifteen minutes—there used to be a brown dog kept there last year—it was about as high as my knee—I do not know what sort it was—the dining room is in the front of the house—I have never been close to the clock to see if there is anything outside the dial.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I used to go to the house on Sundays for a good many hours—Mrs. Foster was not away on Sundays as a rule—I was hardly ever in the room when Bridgwater and Mrs. Foster were there together—I have never heard him call her anything—I have heard her call him "Dear."

Cross-examined by MR. WALSH. When I said eleven rooms I meant all the rooms in the house—I helped in the kitchen, but not at table at meals—Mrs. Foster always dusted the bedrooms—I did not help to make the beds—I had a little more work to do in the summer than in the winter—during the week people came to stay there as lodgers—I never saw any children there—I did not attend to the lodgers—I worked under Mrs. Foster downstairs—I am thirteen years old—I began to work for Mrs. Foster when I was twelve—I was there in May and June last year—sometimes I cleaned the boots—I never cleaned Mrs. Foster's boots, only the visitors'—I arrived there at 8 a.m.—the milkman called before I got there—I did not always find the milk on the door-step; sometimes Mrs. Foster took it in—the baker came at 2.45 p.m., when I was at school—I only saw him on Saturdays—I knew a baker named Lee, and sometimes I ran down and got a loaf from him if Mrs. Foster ran short, because he was nearer.

CHARLES SAYER . I am a baker at 50, High Street, Seaford—Mrs. Foster is one of my customers, and had a book in which I entered her

tread—it was an ordinary weekly pass book—when it was made up from my ledger it was left at the house—this is the book (Produced)—for the week beginning Monday, September 19th, I supplied nothing, nothing on the 20th, one loaf on the 21st, on the 22nd one, and on the 23rd and 24th nothing—I began again on the 26th with one loaf—it was not usual for her to have no bread on Saturdays.

Cross-examined by MR. WALSH. I do not know that it was usual for her to run short and send to other bakers.

F. ISTED (Re-called by MR. WALSH). I never saw Fisher to take any notice of him—sometimes Mr. Foster brought people down with him and sometimes he came alone—I carried the dinner things upstairs two or three times on Sundays, but I have never seen anybody there.

Re-examined. I never went into the dining room when visitors were there.

JOHN MOORE . I am a dairyman at 10, Terminus Buildings, Seaford, and Mrs. Foster was one of my customers—this is her book, and I supplied her with milk twice a day—on Monday, September 19th, I delivered milk twice, on the 20th twice, on the 21st twice, on the 22nd twice, on the 23rd not at all, on the 24th not at all, on the 25th once in the afternoon, on the 26th twice, and after that twice each day.

Cross-examined by MR. WALSH. I made two deliveries on Sundays—in September I should keep open until 10 p.m. on Saturdays—I do not remember selling milk to Mrs. Foster or her little girl in the shop, but it would not strike me as anything out of the way if I did—my wife serves in the shop and I have an assistant—the people come into the shop on Saturday nights and buy milk for cash.

FRANK BERTRAM WALKER . I am an assistant cashier in Messrs. Cook's office, and am now at their office in Cairo, and I have been fetched from there to give evidence in this case—I was formerly employed at their office in the Place de L'Opera, Paris—I commenced duties there on September 1st, 1904, until about the end of November—in the office there, there is a long counter with brass railings in front and placards up on the different desks, one of them being the word "Sterling," and it was at one of those desks that I was cashier—at those places we change English money into foreign—this is a book (Produced) which I kept at that time, and on September 24th, 1904, I have got an entry of £350 in bank notes purchased for 25 francs 15 centimes per £—the total amount in French money was 8,802 francs 50 centimes—the person who came in was a woman—I first saw her on the evening of the 23rd, about 6 p.m.—she had some English bank notes in her hand and I said, "We are closed for the evening; you will have to come in the morning"—she said, "All right, thank you," And walked out—next day I saw her, to the best of my recollection, about 130, and, if I remember rightly, it was just after I returned from lunch—she presented her notes and I asked her to let me examine them in the usual way—I looked for the private marks and I also examined the list of stolen bank notes—the number of the notes she gave me did not appear on that list and I asked the manager if I might cash them and I told the woman I would give her 25 francs 15 centimes and asked her to indorse

them, and she did so at the other end of the counter—she then handed them back to me—on eight of these nine notes (Produced) there is our stamp, "T. C & S."—they look very much like the ones I cashed and they bear the indorsement which was put upon them at that time—before we remit them to England we divide them in half, and all these notes except one has been divided—the one which is not stamped may have been missed—if someone comes in and wants a £10 note, we occasionally pay out old notes, but generally we give new ones—it is not possible that this £10 note could have been paid out—I noticed that the woman was wearing? black jacket and heavy hat—she did not take off her gloves to indorse the notes; she was inclined to be dark and was a small person—her gloves were dirty white kid—she seemed to be somewhat nervous towards the end of the transaction, but I put that down to its being rather a large amount—on November 1st last I was shown a number of women at Westminster police station and picked out Mrs. Foster, and I say that I recognise her as the person who cashed the notes.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I am not prepared to swear to the time the person came in, but it is my recollection that it was after lunch—as a rule I went out at 11.30 and came in at 12.30—after October 3rd or 4th I was not trying to see if I could identify the woman or see her anywhere—I did not look for her in Paris; I knew she would not be there—I saw the "Sheffield Sunday Telegraph" about a month and a half ago, when I was in Cairo—it is sent to me each week by my father—I think it was between October 7th and 10th when I saw what purported to be likenesses of the four prisoners—when I saw the paper I knew that the prosecution was said to involve the very notes I had changed, so I wanted to identify the woman, but I did not look particularly at the portrait because you cannot take particular notice of woodcuts—I looked at the picture, but I did not know if it was right—I did not express any doubts as to the woman at the Police Court—some of the women, from whom I identified the prisoner, were about the same height—the woman I saw in Paris, to the best of my recollection, was about forty to forty-five years of age.

Cross-examined by MR. WALSH. Cook's office is rather a large one and is divided into departments—the counter has an iron network or grille in front of it which rises higher than the head of the woman from whom I took the notes—the jacket was a very dark one; I think it was a fur, but I am not certain; it was not a smooth cloth and it was not a cape—she walked two or three yards away to indorse the notes and stood up while doing so—the banking department closes at 6; she must have come almost at 6 o'clock—if you wanted to get into the banking department at 6 you could not—I do not know that there is a train from London arriving at the lord at 6.4—there is a train from Charing Cross at 9 a.m., which gets to Paris at 4.45—the station is twenty or thirty minutes' walk from the office—if you go from Holborn Viaduct I cannot say if the only train is 11 a.m. and which gets to Paris at 6.45—on November 1st, when the identification took place, there were twelve women there all dressed in hats and cloaks—I did not really look at the others;

I simply walked up to the prisoner—she was wearing a very heavy black hat, but I cannot say if she was the only one who was doing so—nothing could ever convince me that I am mistaken.

Re-examined. I made a report on October 4th and I wrote a letter which was signed by the manager, in which I gave a description of the woman, and I described her as short, wearing a large and heavy hat, white kid gloves, complexion inclined to be dark, wore a dark jacket, from all appearances English, spoke English without accent of any kind, aged about forty to forty-five.

By MR. WALSH. Anybody in Paris in the afternoon cannot leave for London before the 4 o'clock train, which, I think, gets to Victoria at 9 and Charing Cross at 9.45.

By MR. MUIR. I do not know if there is a train at 12 noon which gets to Holborn Viaduct at 7.10 p.m.—you can get into the tourist part of our office until about 7—we sometimes close a few minutes before 6.

New Court, Wednesday, November 22nd.

THOMAS GATES . I am manager of Messrs. Barclay's Bank at Seaford and have been so for about ten years—I know Mrs. Foster as a customer of the bank, keeping there an ordinary current account in the name of Eliza Foster—I produce the Signature Book containing her signature when the account was opened—it is Eliza Foster—I never saw the other prisoners till the proceedings at the Police Court—these eight cheques (Ex. 21) were drawn by Foster on that account in the name of Eliza Foster, except three, which are signed "E. Foster"—these two cheques (Ex. 24) were drawn by Bridgwater & Co. in her favour and indorsed by Eliza Foster—they passed through her account—these two cheques (Ex. 24) were drawn by her, also these fourteen cheques (Ex. 30)—these have been paid and charged to her account—this letter and envelope (Ex. 32), signed "E. Frickart," is in Foster's writing—this letter (Ex. 33), signed "E. Frickart," is, I should say, in her writing—I should say the indorsements on these nine bank notes are her writing.

Cross-examined by MR. WALSH. There is a great difference in classes of writing according to the position the people occupy, whether educated or uneducated—these bank note indorsements are obviously the writing of an uneducated person; it is not what I call good writing—sometimes you find highly cultured people write badly—as a rule there is great similarity between the writings of country people—Foster's account was opened on September 25th, 1903, and ran on through 1903 and 1904 very much in the same way as it did in 1905—it has not varied much—it was a small account—a great many cheques on it were drawn in favour of local people, such as the Seaford Gas Company and Messrs. Under-wood, grocers and drapers—all money, whether cheques, notes, gold, silver, etc., would be entered in the pass book as "Cash"—the particulars are entered in the Waste Book—in the ledger it is entered as "Cash"—Foster's writing varies slightly—looking at this bank note indorsement and comparing it with those on the other eight bank notes, the "S" in "Smith" is different from the others—it is more like a "G"

than an "S"—the variations are entirely a matter of opinion—the "p" in "Clapham" on the notes curls round—the "p's" in the two cheques in "pounds" are different—also the "p's" in "Seaford Gas Company" vary; some of them resemble very much the indorsements, but they also differ very much—the letter "t" in "Smith" on the bank notes is looped up to the "h"—in "Foster" on this cheque of October 15th, 1903, it is a straight stroke down and a straight stroke up—five of these fourteen signatures have got a "t" similar to the one of October 6th—the majority of these "t's" are straight down—some of the same letters on the notes vary as compared with the letters on the cheques, but I do not say they are very unlike.

Re-examined. Taking this photograph of the notes, I find this G-like "S" there—I find the "S" in "E. Sayer & Son" on this cheque (Sheet 3) very much like it—also the "S" in "Seaford Gas Company" on this cheque is very similar; also in "Moore & Sons"—taking these two letters (Ex. 32 and 33) I find the "S" in "snowing" is very similar—they are all like the "S" in bank note No. 5—the "S" in "E. Smith" on bank note No. 3 differs from the others—the "S" in "50, Oxford Street," on this envelope is similar to that on bank note No. 3—also the "S" in "Shaw" is similar—also the "9's" on the bank notes are very similar to the "9" in "59, Oxford Street" on the envelope—all the "9's" are very similar—referring to the "9" on sheet 3, No. 5, of July 29th, I see it comes round at the bottom, it has a hook up at the bottom—there is a slight hook to the "9" in cheque No. 6 of October 29th—the "S" in Moore & Sons is similar to that on the majority of the bank notes—the "p" in Clapham on the bank note is a peculiar one—I should say it is a similar "p" on this cheque of September 12th, 1905—it is a similar "p" on cheque No. 6—also the "p" in April on cheque No. 3 is similar—also the "p" in "pounds" on the same cheque—I say the bottom of the "t" in "Foster" on a great many of the cheques is not straight—this one in cheque No. 8 has got a round bottom, also No. 7—also No. 2 is round, but not quite so fully round—No. 4 is fully rounded—the "E" on bank note No. 6 has got a flat back—it is a very similar "E" in "Eliza Foster" on cheque No. 5 in sheet 1—looking at this enlargement of the "E" of the note, I should say it is very similar to the "E" on this cheque—looking at the "a's" on the bank notes, I say they are very peculiar; they each look like two "e's" joining almost together—I find very similar "a's" in the two Frickart letters in "Dear," "Darling," "please" and "Torquay"—looking at the writing on these notes, I say it is our customer's.

By MR. WALSH. I say the "E" on note No. 4 is like the "S" on note No. 5, but I do not think so with the exception of the final turn—looking at the "E" in bank note No. 4 and the "E" in the signature "E. Frickart" in the letter beginning "Thursday," there is a slight difference.

THOMAS HENRY GURRIN . I have been giving evidence on handwriting for the last twenty years—I have studied the indorsements on the bank notes produced and the cheques which have been photographed, also the signatures on the cheques photographed, and the Frickart letters—I can

point out a number of similarities between them—I have not heard the evidence of the last witness—taking bank note No. 5 on the photograph, that has an "S" in "Smith" which resembles a "G"; I find similar "8's" in cheque No. 2, sheet 3, cheque No. 3, also cheque No. 8 on sheet 3, also in sheet 5 in the word "snowing"—I also find a different character of "S" on the bank notes which do not look like a "G" but which finish off with a loop more like an "S"—several of those appear on the notes, one on the indorsement on note No. 3, another on No. 4 and another on No. 6, on the envelope sheet 5, No. 3, also in the word "snowing" on sheet 5, No. 2; also in the word "Sons" on sheet 2, No. 7, another in the word "see" on sheet 5, No. 2—on the notes I find two capital letters "E" which are different characters—the "E" on note No. 2 is similar to the "E" on sheet No. 4, cheque 6—the "E" on bank note No. 6 on the photograph is a different kind of "E"; it has a different kind of top; the back of the downstroke, instead of being curved, is a flat stroke—I find a similar "E" on sheet No. 1, No. 5; also on sheet No. 2, cheque 5—taking the "a" in "Clapham" on the bank notes, the first "a" is frequently written with a double loop, almost like two "1's"—it is noticeable in the indorsements on Nos. 1.4, 7, 8 and 9 notes—I find similar "a's" in Frickart letter No. 1 in the word "Dear," again in the words "please," "Darling," "Torquay," and again on sheet No. 2 in the words "Thursday," "Darling," and "Torquay"—I call particular attention to the "p" in "Clapham" on note No. 9; the same "p" appears in the word "September" on sheet No. 4, cheque 4, of September 12th—there is a similar "p" on cheque 6, sheet 3, in "fourpence"—there is another instance in "April," also cheque 6, sheet 2, "April" again; on several cheques on sheet 2, Nos. 2,3, and 4, there are "p's" of a somewhat similar type to that in "pounds"—taking sheet No. 4, of September 12th, the combination "th," I find similar combinations on the notes—the shape of the loop in "h" is one feature; it is rather triangular, and the finish of the "h" drops very much below the level of both letters"—that peculiarity appears in several indorsements.

By the COURT. To the best of my belief those indorsements were written by the same person who wrote the "Foster" on the cheques—that is my general opinion.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. My occupation is that of a handwriting expert—handwriting expert evidence is a matter of opinion only, and nothing else—I do not think one can be absolutely certain on handwriting unless one really saw the person write it—my judgment has been at fault on several occasions; out of perhaps about 2,000 cases in which I have been engaged, I may have made mistakes in about six—I gave some evidence in the Beck case, but not all that I should have liked to have given—I do not agree that I gave enough—I do not consider that in the first portion of my evidence in that case I made a terrible mistake—I was at fault in the first part of my evidence—my explanation is that various documents of different kinds were placed before me; I reported on those documents—my report was a twofold one—in connection with the first part of it I said that to the best of my belief certain documents in the

1895 case which were known as the incriminating documents were, owing to the similarities that I saw, in the handwriting of Beck, who was being tried—I said I was not positive about that—other documents were shown me in connection with the previous case of 1877 and I said that those documents were the same writing as the man who had committed the fraud in 1895; consequently, whoever that was, it was the same man as in 1877—when I was standing in this box in 1896 I was asked questions simply with regard to the first portion of my report—then counsel for the defence asked me if I had not been to see certain documents relating to the 1877 case—Counsel for the Prosecution objected, and after a discussion between Judge and Counsel the rest of the evidence was ruled out to order—I say if the whole of my evidence had been given, in all probability the matter would have been cleared up and the prisoner would not have been convicted—I say that my mistake did not contribute to Mr. Beck's conviction—sixteen witnesses swearing positively to the identity of Beck, and the Jury not leaving the box and not asking to see the writings at all, my evidence did not contribute to his conviction—that is my opinion—I do not say that it did harm—so far as it was admitted, it was mistaken—I do not often find a strong similarity between the writing of different persons, but on rare occasions you may find a strong similarity—you may often find a slight similarity—writing by the same person with a glove on or off would be different.

Cross-examined by MR. WALSH. This writing I should say was natural, but somewhat of a scribble—I see no intentional disguise—there may be a similarity between the writing of people in one condition of life—the writing of people who write a good deal may be called cultured writing—I do not think there are greater similarities in the writings of people who do not—in cultured or cultivated writing the similarities are prominent, they are easy to get hold of; in the writing of people who write very seldom, there is not so much to get hold of, because there is less peculiarity in them—I do not think when I was asked by the police to compare the incriminated documents with the admitted writing, I had anybody else's writing put before me—I only had the Frickart letters, the envelopes, the cheques and the bank notes—I also saw the indorsement on the two Bridgwater cheques—I should not say that "Eliza Foster" on the admitted cheque was a laborious signature—I agree with the last witness that there are many similarities—there are some dissimilarities; I do not think a great many—the amount of matter is not great and it is nine times repeated in the indorsements, and as the similarities affect the "E," the "S," the "h," the "o," the "r," the "9," the "c," and "p," it is more than half the letters in which there are similarities—most decidedly there are dissimilarities even in the bank notes themselves; there always are; there are dissimilarities in all the Foster cheques as compared with one another.

GEORGE EDWIN SAUNDERS . I am the "Times" reporter at the Westminster Police Court; also for other papers—I took a note of the evidence there in this case on October 7th last—I sat just under the witness box—on referring to my note of Fisher's evidence given on that date, I find this:

"Mr. Muir: That same Saturday night did you go again to Bridgwater's house? Witness: Yes, and I got my corner. Next day I went down to Seaford with the doctor and Mrs. Foster"—that is what the witness said on that point.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I have not in my note that Fisher said, "And I went down to Seaford on the Saturday with the doctor and Mrs. Foster."

Cross-examined by MR. WALSH. I have not a note of what took place on September 30th; I was not there then.

M. E. TOOVEY (Re-examined by MR. MUIR). I have brought with me the ring and watch that Bridgwater gave me—he said he gave for the ring either £15 or £18—I do not know what the watch cost—I paid him two guineas for his medical attendance—I have not been able to find any other letters of his—I have found a piece of poetry in his writing—this is it—it was not in this envelope when he gave it to me.

By MR. WRIGHT. This poetry is in the shape of an acrostic—the first letter of each line is "M. E. T. O. O. V. E. Y,"—it was his own composition and valued by me as such—I valued his society both as a doctor and a friend—I gave him presents—I gave him a gold-mounted card case, a gold and pearl locket, and I think one more—the presents given were mutual.

ALFRED DEAKIN (Sergeant, New Scotland Yard). My duty for some time past has been that of a photographer—among other things, I make enlargements of things requiring enlarging, such as finger prints, for example—I made the photographs which have been produced here from the original exhibits—I made this enlargement of the two "E's"—the first "E" was found on sheet 1, cheque 5, the "E" in "Eliza Foster"; the other is in the indorsement on bank note 6.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I am not the officer who has charge of the photographs of criminals who have been convicted.

Cross-examined by MR. WALSH. That enlargement was made about October 1st—I do not know if that was after Mr. Gurrin had been called in—Chief Inspector Arrow instructed me to make it—they are selections which he had previously made—they are enlargements of "E's" which are very similar—I have no enlargements of letters which are very dissimilar.

A. J. SISMAN (Re-examined by MR. MUIR). I produce the ledger which contains Mr. Fox's current account—this is his pass book (Ex. 8)—this book was made up previous to September 19th, 1904—it is made up to August 25th—I have drawn a red line on both sides in the pass book underneath the last entry that anybody who looked at it would see on September 19th—up to this mark the amount on the credit side is £3,763 1s. 8d.—that is a credit really up to August 25th—on the debit side there is £1,222 1s. 9d.—taking this book of used cheques, the first in date is June 1st, 1904, and the last is June 29th, 1904—taking this bundle of used cheques they run from July 30th, 1904, to September 26th, 1904—they are cheques which run continuously on—they are all Mr. Fox's current signatures.

By MR. WRIGHT. This book takes no account of drawings out or payments in after August 25th—I have been familiar with Mr. Fox's signature for at least five years—I do not think it has materially altered from first to last.

By MR. MUIR. Looking at this cheque book (Ex. 2), I see the "F" in "Fox"—it is crossed with a horizontal line with a stroke down at the end—throughout this book it is so—looking at this forged cheque (Ex. 4) I find the same method of crossing the "F"—looking at these other cheques of 1904, I do not find one which is crossed in that way, except that there is one which is nearly like it—looking at these two testimonials, I do not find either of the "F's" agree with the forged cheque—looking at the termination "x" in the green book of 1905, they all terminate in a similar way—I should say it is a curl at the end of the last stroke of the "x"—I find that in the cheque dated September 26th, 1904—there are some in the other book—the first one is in a cheque for £17 3s. 2d., of June 30th, 1904, to Harvey; then on July 16th, 1904, to the Fire Resisting Corporation; on June 7th, 1904, "Myself, £20"; on June 29th, 1904, to "F. C. Vanduser" (it looks like)—none of those cheques are payable to Miss Toovey—the forged cheque has the same peculiar termination of the "x."

BENJAMIN SPENCER (Constable X.) I am accustomed to make plans—I made a plan of the ground floor and three upper floors of 57 and 59, Oxford Street—I produce it—the other documents which have been produced are correct tracings of it—it is a correct plan drawn to scale.

CHARLES ARROW (Chief Inspector, New Scotland Yard). I have had the conduct of the inquiries of this case—I was in charge of the case when Fisher was arrested on July 1st in connection with coining—I had several interviews with him—I also received a number of letters from him—he made certain statements to me with reference to this case—on September 23rd last a warrant was issued at the Westminster Police Court for the arrest of the four prisoners—on that day, about 12.10 p.m., I went to Bridg-water's, at 59, Oxford Street, with Inspectors Fuller and Kane—I saw Holmes at the street door—he was speaking with Kane—Holmes went upstairs and I followed—I saw Bridgwater in his consulting room—I said to him, "You know me, Mr. Bridgwater?"—he said, "Yes, Mr. Arrow"—I paid, "I have a warrant for your arrest"—I read it—it was for forging and uttering the £819 cheque—he said, "Absurd, preposterous, monstrous"—later on he said, "It is a conspiracy on the part of the police"—as he left the house in charge of other officers he said to a young lady who was present, and whom he had described to me as his housekeeper, "You wait here while the police search; they are capable of anything; they may put something here and say they found it"—the lady's name is Bird—I said to him, "Will you give me your keys?"—he said, "I have no keys; everything is unlocked"—to Miss Bird he said, "You wait here and put no obstacle in the way of the police"—assisted by Fuller I made a search of the premises—Fuller searched the consulting room and dispensary, and I searched the rooms above—Holmes was arrested at the same time as Bridgwater—I read the warrant to him; he said nothing—having

searched the premises I took possession of the books and papers and then went to Rochester Row police station, where I found the three male prisoners were detained—there I read the warrant to Shackell, who had been arrested by Kane—he said, "Who is the informant?"—I said, "The Director of Public Prosecutions is the prosecutor, if that is what you mean"—he said, "Who is the informant? Surely I have a right to ask"—I said, "I cannot tell you more"—when charged the prisoners said nothing—I saw Foster before her arrest—it was on August 15th, 1899, at 59, Oxford Street—I told her I wanted to see Dr. Bridgwater—I do not remember the exact words—she said, "I am Mr. or 'Dr.' Bridgwater's wife"—I found these two cheques (Ex. 22) on Bridgwater's premises in his bedroom; also this agreement, Bridgwater to Darby (Ex. 31), these two letters signed "E. Frickart," and two case books—in one case book I find this entry: "Oswald, Mr., York Road, Waterloo," and in the margin "Chronic tonsilitis"—underneath, across the page, "10.9.04, 15th, 22nd, 29th, 6.10.04" and between the 22nd and 29th the words, "Removed tonsils"—I find there are about 3,000 cases in the books—I have examined them all and find no other entry of "Removed tonsils"—I do not find in the books the name of "Blair" entered as a patient—I produce a pendant notebook—Bridgwater was wearing it when arrested—I find on page 52, "Oswald, of tonsils, 4 p.m. Thursday, 22.9.04"—there is only one page in the book with nothing on it—the earliest date in the book is "25.1.00" and the latest "9.2.05"—I found this call book at Bridgwater's, also this "Every Hour" diary for 1905—about one-third of the call book had been removed before I found it—I found no diary for 1904, nor any call book containing entries of 1904—in this diary I find the name of Flatman entered as a caller—January 6th, 1905, is the earliest date, and July 4th, 1905, the latest date of his calls—I find he called twice on February 9th, 1905—there are about twelve names between the two entries—that was the date of Holmes' first trial—he appears to have called on February 10th—I found in Bridgwater's possession a number of counterfoils of cheques to Wigram—they are in Bridgwater's writing—on September 26th last I went to Mr. Fox's office with a locksmith—Mr. Fox pointed out door No. 15—the locksmith took off the lock and shook out a part of a key that was in it—I examined Mr. Fox's safe and found in it this green cheque book (Ex. 2)—three cheques and part of the counterfoils had been torn away—at Bridgwater's I found two letters from Arthur Flatman; also this bill of sale, Bridgwater to Foster; also these letters from Miss Toovey.

New Court, Thursday, November 23rd.

CHARLES ARROW (Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT). I had no difficulty in executing the warrant on Bridgwater within an hour or so of its being issued—there was a considerable medical practice carried on in Oxford Street—Bridgwater said he had left everything unlocked, and I found that was so—nothing was concealed on the premises—this little note book found on him contains entries of medical appointments, betting, cheques and other things—Wigram's name does not, as far as I know, appear—

I have known Fisher about seven years—I would not believe him on oath without corroboration—the first interview I had with him about this case was on August 15th, but on July 3rd at Bow Street Police Court he made me the first offer of giving information generally, but did not mention this case—I told him that if he wished to see me he should apply to the Commissioner of Police for an interview with me—he then wrote me two letters—I saw him then at Brixton prison on July 8th on a Home Office Order—he did not then mention this case—before he said anything as to this particular charge I mentioned it to him—I did not say to him that I wanted the Victoria Street matter cleared up—I did not hear his evidence here—something of this sort may have occurred on August 15th:—I cautioned him that anything he said might be used in evidence against him; after that he said, "I was in the Victoria Street forgery; I can tell you all about that," and I might have said, "Well, I shall be glad to clear that up"—I do not remember having said that—since the Police Court hearing I have thought over that matter and I might have said then, "I shall be glad to clear that up; let us start on that," and then we started on it—it has happened that a convict by giving information has derived a most substantial advantage—I have not been down to Seaford and I do not know it—I believe the proceedings in Holmes' trials were fully reported in the papers—I do not know that Wigram was a man who betted heavily—there is an entry in the little book about an operation for tonsilitis—I believe the tonsils grow again and are taken out again—Bridgwater, I believe, was not a throat specialist, but a blood and nerves and private diseases specialist.

Cross-examined by MR. CORNISH. Fisher, I believe, was at liberty between June, 1904, and July, 1905—Holmes' case was before the Courts in January, February and March—there was also the police description out on September 30th, 1904, but that was for the police alone—the "Police Gazette" is supposed to be only for the use of the police—I do not know whether Fisher saw the published description—I do not think there was ample opportunity and plenty of materials for Fisher to have concocted such a story as he gave—he is, I agree, a very clever man—I think he is a nervous man.

Cross-examined by Shackell. I was not present at your arrest—you did not say to me that Inspector Kane had told you that there was an informant in the case—Fisher was never uncertain about his details, and his memory needed no jogging—his statement was entirely voluntary—his evidence before the Magistrate was exactly the same as his statement, but was not in such detail—it has not occurred to me that Fisher may probably be the forger of this cheque.

Cross-examined by MR. WALSH. The first conversation I had with Foster was in 1899—she may have left Oxford Street in 1902; I do not know—she was, I believe, being advertised on handbills as Dr. Foster Macdonogh, but not, I think, at the time of her arrest—in consequence of the action of the medical authorities, who do not permit advertisings she was struck off the "Medical Register" in 1902—I have in my possession two or three of her diplomas—one of November 24th, 1877,

shows that she was a Doctor of Medicine of Zurich—there is also a diploma of the King's and Queen's Colleges of Physicians in Ireland—I believe when she was removed from the Register she went to Seaford, but I do not know that she started any ostensible business there—I do not know that she is short-sighted—I have not spoken to her since she has been in custody—I do not know that she has a peculiarity in her speech—I did not superintend the identification by Mr. Walker—when Foster was brought to London she was not wearing a white hat; it was a large dark hat—I was instructed by the Treasury officials to tell her that she could put on a heavy black hat at the identification if she liked—I did not tell her that Mr. Walker had reported that the person who came to him was wearing a heavy black hat, but I told her solicitor, who was then acting for her and who was present, that it was the hat she was believed to be commonly wearing about August or September, 1904—he was not told what Walker had reported.

By MR. WRIGHT. The photographs were shown to Miss Toovey by Inspector Fuller—I know that Fisher's was not amongst them—we have it now and had it then.

ROBERT FULLER (Detective Inspector A.) I had charge of the inquiries as to this forgery—I interviewed various people on the matter—I interviewed Mr. Fox's valet on September 23rd, 1904; also his chauffeur on the 28th—Holmes was first arrested on January 6th, 1905, and put up for identification on that date by the bank witnesses—he was identified on January 13th by Mr. Bode, and on February 9th by Mr. Hurd Smith, who had come from the South of France—Holmes was tried on February 9th and 10th, when the Jury disagreed—he was again tried on March 9th and 10th, and again the Jury disagreed—I again arrested Holmes on September 23rd last at 59, Oxford Street—he said, "Is it for the old matter?"—I said, "Yes, it is that case of forgery for which I arrested you on January 6th this year"—he replied, "It is rough having to go through it again"—that was all—he may have said, "It is very ridiculous," but I do not remember—he was very talkative, but he did not refer much to this case—I tried to find 91, Victoria Road, Clapham—there is such a road, but no such number.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. I was responsible for Miss Toovey being shown some photographs—Fisher's was not amongst them—it was an unintentional omission.

Cross-examined by MR. CORNISH. The three bank witnesses did not give their descriptions together—they might have repeated them together at the bank—Barrett told me about a man with a white face and the mysterious cabman, but I attached no importance to it—he said he went out to try and find the cabman—he told me he was quite clear he could recognise the man who handed the cheque, and the cabman—I did not find the cabman—I have searched for him—at Holmes' first identification by the bank clerks, Yallop first of all touched Holmee and then touched another man—Holmes did not then step out and protest—he said something later on, but I forget what—I had not charge of the identification—it was not after he said something that Yallop came back and picked

him out—no one said to Barrett, "Touch him"—the usual practice was followed—they walk along the line at their leisure and indicate one, and the officer having charge says, "Which one?" and insists upon his coming out—I say that when Barrett got to Holmes the officer did not say, "Touch him," and that then he touched him—it was after Barrett had first identified him that he said, "Touch him."

Cross-examined by Shackell. After Holmes' arrest in January, Kane and I went to his house and saw a lady there—I did not say to her, "I know your husband is not the forger of this cheque; a man named Shackell is"—it may have been said at the Police Court at Holmes' trial that Shackell was the forger, Holmes the utterer, and Bridgwater the brain centre—if those were not the words, that was the case put forward—I was one of the officers responsible for that statement—I consider it was a right and proper thing to say—I do not think it was calculated to prejudice you as a free man—I do not know if it was published in the papers, but it may have been—I do not remember reading the case—I had no control over the matter of then putting you on your trial—I supplied all the information I possessed to the prosecutor's solicitors—I cannot tell you what the information was.

Re-examined. Bridgwater gave evidence at Holmes' first trial for Holmes and was cross-examined, among other things, as to his connection with Shackell, Wigram, Robertson, and other people, and the whole manage at Oxford Street—the basis of that cross-examination was police information.

By the COURT. At Holmes' first trial Mrs. Foster's name came out.

Cross-examined by MR. WALSH. The reference to Foster was as to the establishment, medical or otherwise, at 59, Oxford Street, and that only, not as to the forgery at all.

JOHN KANE (Detective-Inspector D.) I was present at Holmes' arrest on January 6th, 1905, assisting Inspector Fuller—I was present throughout his trial and assisted in the investigation—at 12.30 p.m. on September 2.3rd, 1905, I went to 2, Buckingham Street, Portland Road, and there saw Shackell—I said to him, "You know who I am, Mr. Shackell. I have come to arrest you for being concerned with Bridgwater and Holmes, who have just been arrested, for forging and uttering a cheque for £819 on Thursday, September 22nd last, at a bank in Victoria Street"—he, said, "Have you a warrant?"—I said, "No, no warrant is required; it is a serious felony"—he made no reply at the moment—I said, "Do you understand the charge I have just made?"—he said, "Yes, I say nothing; it requires grave consideration"—he was taken by another officer to Rochester Row.

Cross-examined by MR. CORNISH. At Holmes' first arrest in January I did not caution him in any way; I never caution a prisoner—I told him the charge—as he was crossing the road I said to him, "Holmes"—he turned round and I said, pointing to Mr. Fuller, "This is Inspector Fuller, of the A Division; I am Inspector Kane, of the D Division. We have come to arrest you for forging and uttering a cheque for £819 on a bank in Victoria Street on September 22nd last"—he said nothing—he

appeared to be taken aback—I said, "Do you understand what I have just told you?"—he paused and said, "I understand, but I know nothing about it."

Cross-examined by Shackell. When I went to search Holmes' house I did not mention your name there, but I did say in this witness box before that I told Holmes I knew perfectly well he did not write the cheque, but that I knew who did—I did not tell a woman at Holmes' house that a nun named Shackell was the actual forger—I was responsible for the statement at Holmes' trial in February last that Shackell was the forger of the cheque, Holmes the utterer, and Bridgwater the brain centre; I supplied the materials for it as the result of my inquiries and information then in my possession—I decline to say what the information was—it was from inquiries of the most careful character—the time was not then ripe for your arrest—counsel for the Prosecution thought it was in the interests of justice to make the statement—it was published in the papers—you have never left my mind since Holmes' arrest—I did not at your arrest say, "This is a very grave matter, Shackell," and you did not say, "It is a matter that requires no consideration"—you used the words I have given—I took a statement from Scannell on August 30th—I sent for him that night, but he had previously made a statement to me in February or March at Marlborough Street Police Court—it was a voluntary statement—it was not then put in writing, but it was later on—it was read over to him very carefully—it had at the bottom, "This statement has been read over to me by Inspector Kane and is absolutely correct"—the "absolutely" was struck out as being ungrammatical.

FRANCIS CARLIN (Detective-Sergeant, New Scotland Yard). I acted in this matter under Inspector Arrow's instructions—on September 23rd, 1905, I was at Seaford awaiting his instructions—I received a telegram—at 2.30 p.m. I went to "Ingleside," Claremont Road, with Detective Yard and Sergeant Funnell, of the Sussex Police—when I got to the house I knocked and rang at the front door, but got no reply—I left my colleagues there and went to the rear of the house—I heard the bolting and slamming of doors—I quickly returned to the front and saw Foster at a window—I shouted, "Come down; we are police officers"—I again returned to the rear and heard the prisoner moving about inside the kitchen—I said, "Open the door, please; we are police officers"—the prisoner said, "We have dogs here"—the door was then slightly on the chain—I tried to force the door, but failed—I then went to the kitchen window, forced the catch and gained access to the room—I found the door leading upstairs looked and bolted on the outside—I forced the lock and rushed upstairs and found the both room door locked—I heard the prisoner moving about inside—I said, "Open the door, please; we are police officers"—the prisoner said, "I will not"—I forced the door and on entering the room I saw the prisoner, who was in a very excited state, attempting to get out of the window—it was on the first floor—I seized her and said, "We are police officers and I hold a warrant for your arrest"—she said, "For me?"—I said, "Yes, your name is Eliza Foster"—I read the warrant to her—she smiled and said, "I know

nothing of it"—I read her the names of the other prisoners mentioned in the warrant—she said, "I do not know them"—she was the only person in the house—on the way to Seaford police station she said, "I thought you were tramps. I do know Dr. Bridgwater"—I said, "You are his wife"—she said, "I am not; he comes here occasionally"—the same evening she was conveyed to Rochester Row police station—she refused to give her name and address, and pointing to me she said, "The detective has brought me here on a ridiculous charge"—the station inspector said, "He has read the warrant to you"—she said, "Yes, I only know two of them, Bridgwater and Shackell"—she gave her name and address the following Monday—I found a number of documents at her house—among them fourteen cheques drawn on her account, thirty-seven cheques in all—I paid three visits—I saw no dog there—in what appeared to be a medical room there was a doctor's operating chair—the front of the house faces the railway and the sea, and from the room one could see a person advancing—you turn sharply to the left from the station to the house—the kitchen is at the rear of the house and at the back is a yard with a fowl house—in the hall there is a clock which strikes—it is an ordinary eight-day clock—I did not notice its appearance.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. This was my first visit to Seaford—I should say it would be a charming and popular place in the summer—I think the railway run excursions there—I have heard it is a favourite walk from Seaford to Cuckmere.

Cross-examined by Shackell. I took down Fisher's statement at Worm-wood Scrubbs—I also took a statement from Humphreys—I went to her in the course of my business—I asked her if she could give me any information about you and she said, "Yes"—I did not suggest any information to her—I am sure Foster mentioned your name.

Cross-examined by MR. WALSH. We were all in plain clothes when we went to arrest Foster—she was looking out of a window—she could see me—we were, standing back a little way—when I shouted out that we were police officers I cannot say that she might not have heard—I may have said at the Police Court, when I stated that Foster would not at first give her name, that she said, "The detective has brought me here on a ridiculous charge; he will tell you my name"—I am not quite certain whether she said that or not; I have not got a note in my book—if I said it she told him that—I did not invent it—I knew her address and the man in charge did too.

[MR. WALSH pointed out that Foster was indicted as a principal only on four counts for forging and uttering, and on the fifth count for receiving from the bank "under the cheque" and submitted that there was no evidence against her as a principal on either, assuming the whole story of the Prosecution to be true, and that there was no such offence known to the law as receiving the proceeds of a forgery. He said it might possibly be thought that there was evidence of her being an accessory after the fact, to the receipt by others of £819 by virtue of the forged cheque, but that the actual receipt and obtaining from the bank was complete by 4 o'clock on the Thursday, and that the evidence against her began at 7 o'clock on that day. He quoted

the Forgery Act, 1861, Section 38, and submitted that there must be privity between the person receiving and obtaining and the person from whom the money is received and obtained; that the evidence here was that the £819 was obtained by Holmes, that a portion of it was handed to Bridgwater and that at 7 o'clock the same evening Bridgwater handed £350 in bank notes to Foster as a messenger to take to France to change into French money. He quoted Queen v. Soares in Russell and Ryan, 28, also in 2 East's Pleas of the Crown, 974, and Queen v. Badcock in Russell and Ryan, 249, to show that if several plan to utter a forged order, and it is uttered by one in the absence of the other the utterer is alone the principal. The COMMOM SERJEANT said he could not stop the case, but would consider the point on the whole evidence.]

Bridgwater, in his defence on oath, stated that he possessed several American qualifications by examination; that he carried on business as a medical specialist; that he knew Fisher under the name of Blair, as a patient; that he did not recognise Fisher at the Westminster Police Court, as Fisher always wore his hat at 59, Oxford Street; that Fisher first called upon him a few days after July 4th; that he attended him for three or four months, for the first week or two almost daily; and after that perhaps once or twice a week; that as to the leaves of the call book he (the prisoner) did not tear them cut; that it was untrue that Fisher came to him on June 6th or any other day, asking him if he had any jobs in hand; that it was untrue that he told him (Fisher) that he had a patient called Miss Toovey and that he had quizzed her at all the interviews he had with her and had extracted from her information about her employer; that he never on any occasion mentioned her name to Fisher; that what Fisher stated as to his (the prisoner) knowing him before he (Fisher) went to prison on his previous sentence was utterly false; that Fisher never went with him to Seaford; that he never saw him there except on one occasion in August, when he accidentally met him; that Fisher never visited "Ingleside"; that there was never any conversation or arrangement between him, Shackell and Holmes as to the commission of a forgery; that he never suggested to Fisher that he should go to Streatham; that he never told him to worm out of Miss Toovey her business secrets with Mr. Fox or anything of the kind; that he did not tell Fisher he was to get at Miss Toovey's an impression of her keys in wax; that he (the prisoner) had not the remotest knowledge of her employer's name; that he never went to 28, Victoria Street, Mr. Fox's offices; that he never told Fisher to go there; that on no occasion when Miss Toovey came as a patient to his (the prisoner's) place was she asked to go into another room, nor did she leave her keys behind; and that he had nothing to do with the forging and uttering.

Holmes, in his defence on oath, said that he had known Bridgwater since 1897 or 1898 and had from time to time been employed by him as assistant, the first time in September or October, 1897; that when he was at Bridg-water's in 1904 he saw Fisher there as a patient in the name of Blair; that he did not know he had any other name; that on September 22nd, 1904, an operation was performed by Bridgwater in his surgery a little after 3 p.m. at which he assisted; that it was a small affair, but it was about an hour before the patient was fit to go out; that during the next few days after September 24th, when he left Bridgwater, he went to a friend named

Sanderson, who keeps a beer-house at Lincoln; that he bouqht the napoleon from a man with whom he was playing billiards at Shepherd's Bush; that he left it at the beer-house to pay his bill as he had not enough money, but redeemed it in about ten days; that after the March trial he went back to Bridg-water's as dispenser, where he had been ever since; that there was no truth in Fisher's story; that on September 22nd he was not in the Joint Stock Bank or at Cook's at any time; that he kept the call book at Oxford Street and entered Blair's name in it; and that when he (Holmes) left on September 24th the leaves were not torn out.

New Court, Saturday, November 25th,

Shackell, in his defence on oath, said that he had known Bridgwater for nine or ten years, but had rarely seen him up to about the end of August, 1904, when he met Holmes, who told him that Bridgwater required a bill inspector; and that he was ultimately engaged by Bridgwater; that it was untrue that he had seen Fisher on the premises at the times stated by him; that it was untrue that any cheque or document teas handed to him (Shackell) to forge; that he was not the worse for liquor on September 20th; that he was not to the premises at 1 o'clock on that day and saw the other prisoners in consultation with Fisher; that he was not engaged on September 21st in practicing writing from the testimonials; that he was not on the premises on September 22nd at the times stated by Fisher, or forging the cheques; that he never had any cheques at any time of any kind; that he had no conversation with Holmes or Fisher with respect to forged cheques; that he had not given Fisher his address, as he (Shackell) did not know of it until October 13th, 1904; that Fisher had not visited him at Beauchamp Road; that the incident of the £20 note and Bill the Barman occurred alone in Fisher's imagination; that he (Shackell) first heard Bill the Barman's name mentioned at the Westminster Police Court; that he had not mentioned the name to Alice Humphreys; that in 1904 and 1905 he was mostly living by himself and not with Humphreys; that he had not shown Scannell any £5 notes; that he had never been to Frascati's or other public places with Holmes; that he had never seen Foster before; that he had never been to Seaford; that Kane had told him that he was certain that he (Shackell) was the forger of the cheque and asked him to tell him everything he knew; that he told Kane he knew nothing about the matter and Kane then arrested him; that he had been convicted of forgery in 1901 and sentenced to three years' penal servitude, which conviction was practically achieved on the evidence of the handwriting expert, Mr. Gurrin; he admitted in cross-examination that with regard to the conviction in 1901 he had presented the forged bill of exchange, although he had then attempted to prove an alibi (See Sessions Paper, July 27th, 1901, page 734); that he had been to both the banks mentioned; that he had himself forged the bill of exchange and the direction to pay, and a man named Jones the signature on the acceptance; that he had been convicted of drunkenness and assaults; he stated that he had not been living with prostitutes, although Thomas had been convicted of keeping a brothel at the time he was living with her; that he had not been associating with convicted thieves, although he had been in the company of a man named Sewell or Alexander Dalrymple, who had been convicted of stealing jewellery; that he knew a man named Jack Howes or House

but did not know that he was a convicted thief; that he had not been to the Birkbeck Bank, where Scannell banked, to ask about his balance; he then admitted that he did go himself to the bank and inquire of a cashier, but was not told what Scannell's balance was, but the cashier told him that Scannell had an account there, which was all he wanted to know; that when Scannell was prosecuted by himself and Mrs. Thomas, the bank officials were subpoenaed to produce a copy of Scannell's account and the required information as to the balance so obtained; and that that was done to show that Scannell could pay the money owing to Mrs. Thomas.

Foster, in her defence on oath, said that she had been married to a Dr. Frickart in Switzerland, from whom she obtained a divorce, and about six or ten years afterwards carried on business with Bridgwater at Oxford Street; that she was associated with him for about fourteen years; that she left Oxford Street in 1902 and then adopted the name of Eliza Foster; that she did not write the indorsements on the notes in Paris on September 24th, 1904; that she did not go to Paris in 1904 at all, and had not been there for twenty-five years; that she had never seen Fisher; that he had never been to Seaford to her knowledge; that she had never received three £5 notes for expenses on going to Paris; that Holmes had never been to her house, but she had seen him at Oxford Street; that she never saw Shackell until at the Police Court. In cross-examination she stated that she had never passed as Bridgwater's wife; that on September 23rd, 1904, she came up to London by the 9 a.m. train after having breakfast at home; that nobody was with her in the house at that date; that she did not have milk in on the 23rd, as she very often took lemon with her tea; that she returned to "Ingleside" on the following Saturday by the 6.45 p.m. train from Victoria; that she came to London to have her spectacles mended; that she had bought them in Torquay; that she had another pair which she had got in Switzerland; that she went to Coleman's an optician in Oxford Street; that no one went with her; that the optician said he would have to get a frame specially made, which would take some days, so she bought a half-crown pair; that they had been taken from her by the police; that Bridgwater got her the other pair in November; that she had a third pair which somebody had left behind for her; that she went to Coleman's twice on September 23rd; that before that date she had last been in London on March 2nd, and after September, not till December 5th; that while in London on September 23rd she did some shopping, but had no bills of her purchases; that she called upon no friends, and that the only people who knew she was in London on that day were Miss Bird, with whom she slept that night at Oxford Street, and Miss Bird's friend, Miss Blake; that when the police came to "Ingleside" she heard somebody calling out that they had lost their dog and wanted to come in, so she would not let them in, but did not know they were police, but thought they were tramps; that she did not lock herself in the bath room and was not trying to get out of the window, as had she done so she would have broken her neck, it being high up; and that she had not said she did not know Bridgwater.

Evidence in Reply.

EDITH ELEANOR FULLER . I am now married and my name is Dumont—I went into Bridgwater's service as housekeeper on March 17th, 1903—

I left on September 3rd, 1904—last Saturday I was shown a number of men here and picked out Fisher, who I knew as Blair—I was first introduced to him in the dining room at 59, Oxford Street, by Bridgwater—I should say that was about July, 1904—he dined there with Bridgwater and myself—I should say he was in the room for an hour or an hour and a half—I forget if there was a fourth person; I do not think there was—during dinner Fisher did not wear his hat—I have seen him there before in the dispensary—Darby was working there at that time—I have not seen Fisher in any other part of the house besides the dining room and the dispensary—I only remember seeing him in the dining room once—I heard him and Bridgwater speaking; they did not appear to be new acquaintances.

Cross-examined by MR. WRIGHT. My attention was first called to this last Friday by a police officer—I do not know his name—he asked me to come to London the same night—he did not say I was wanted to identify Blair—I followed the case in the paper—I only saw Blair's portrait in the newspaper once, but I could not recognise it—I am certain he is the man I saw at Oxford Street—I remember him so distinctly because he trembled so while at dinner—when I came up here I was not asked if I had seen anybody dining with Bridgwater on the third floor—a man does not generally have his hat on at dinner—it was not uncommon for Bridgwater to have anybody to dine with him—I did not leave in August—I was told to go months before I left—perhaps I did leave suddenly—I had not stolen a ring of Bridgwater's; I had a ring from him as a gift—he lost three rings and I think he had in two detectives, but I found the ring in his blue waistcoat pocket which he was wearing all the time, and they were not lost—I turned his bedroom upside down to find them and I was very much upset at their being lost—I went through all his clothes, as I had permission to do, and so found them—it is untrue that I produced them after he told me he would have me arrested for stealing them—I remained out all night once; I did not want to be murdered by Bridgwater—I loved him once; I thought he would murder me in the end—I was out that night with Darby and Keys—I was sober when I went in in the morning—that was not a day or two after the incident of the rings—when I returned Bridgwater told me I could go, but he knew I was going before that, and I had my boxes packed.

Re-examined. The incident of the rings I think was some months before I left—I made a statement to the police on September 17th, 1904—I gave them my address and have kept them informed of my whereabouts since.

F. CARLIN (Re-examined). I took possession of these two pairs of glasses And this spectacle case (Produced) after Foster was arrested—I found no other glasses in her possession or at her house.

Cross-examined by MR. WALSH. I found these two glasses in the dining-room at "Ingleside"—I saw a shelf in the bath room behind the door; there were a few bottles on it—I am sure there were no glasses there—I was not particularly looking for glasses—I noticed that Foster wore glasses, and thought it best to take them.

HENRY COLEMAN . I am an optician at 72, Oxford Street—Bridgwater's premises are on the opposite side of the road—I know him as a customer—I cannot swear if he bought these gold-rimmed glasses in this case from me, but they are a similar make to what I sell—the case is mine and bears my name—I cannot say who bought it—I should say these other glasses, were not sold by me—I have not seen Mrs. Foster before to my knowledge.

Cross-examined by MR. WALSH. On September 23rd, 1904, I had three cash sales of half-crown glasses—one was sold to a person named Barker, one to someone named Broughton, and the other one I do not know—I and my manager were in the shop on that day—I cannot say who sold the glasses against which no name appears—I have nothing to show if it I a sale to a lady or gentleman, or the size—it is the cheapest kind of glasses we sell—it is quite likely that I should sell glasses of that sort and not remember them a month afterwards.

HENRY JAMES PROSSER CHANTER . I am a journalist, and among my other duties I occasionally report at the Westminster Police Court—I took a verbatim note in shorthand of the opening in the case against Bridgwater and others for "The News of the World," which would be published the following day—I cannot find my shorthand note—I transcribed it and saw the paper afterwards—I took Mr. Muir's speech down in the first person and transcribed it in the third person—this is correct (Produced).

Cross-examined by MR. CORNISH. I wrote what appeared in the paper within ten minutes of Mr. Muir's speech.

BRIDGWATER, HOLMES and SHACKELL GUILTY . The Jury found that FOSTER was in fact the person who cashed the notes in Paris, but there was no evidence to show that she had any part in the forgery.

NOT GUILTY .

The police stated that well-known forgers and confidence trick men frequented 59, Oxford Street, and were known to Bridgwater, and that the woman Fuller had brought it to the notice of the police that abortion was alleged to be procured there; a previous conviction was proved against Holmes at this Court for perjury. Three previous convictions were proved against Shachell. BRIDGWATER— Seven years' penal servitude. HOLMES— Fifteen months' hard labour. SHACKELL— Five years' penal servitude. The conduct of the police was commended by the COURT. There was another indictment against Foster for misdemeanour, and the trial was postponed until next Sessions.

NEW COURT, Thursday, Friday and Saturday, November 16th, 17th, and 18th, and

OLD COURT, Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Friday, and Saturday, November 20th, 21st, 22nd, 23rd, 24th and 25th, 1905.

Before Mr. Recorder.

Reference Number: t19051113-48

48. WILLIAM LESLIE (40), RICHARD JAMES ROSENBERG (33), GEORGE WEBBER (37), and ALICE FRANCES CHEESMAN (24) , Conspiring together by false pretences to obtain from traders and dealers in electrical appliances a large quantity of such apparatus andmoney with intent to defraud, and WEBBER obtaining credit from certain persons by false pretences.

MR. MATHEWS, MR. BODKIN and MR. BOYD Prosecuted; MR. THORNE Defended Rosenberg; MR. DICKENS, K. C., and MR. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS Defended Webber; MR. J. P. GRAIN and MR. FORREST

FULTON Defended Leslie and Cheesman.

JOHN PACEY . I live at 47, Urpingham Road, Putney, and am a builder, trading with my son as J. Pacey & Son—I am the owner of a garage in Dryad Street, Putney—on May 17th I entered into this agreement (Ex. 138) with Leslie, letting him the garage at £30 a year.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I have known Leslie for some time as a respectable and hard-working man.

ALEXANDER FRANCIS HENDERSON . I live at 44, Powis Square, Bays-water, and am the manager of the New Theatre, Charing Cross Road—I was the lessee of the Grand Theatre, Fulham, up to December 24th, 1904, on which date Mr. Robert Arthur succeeded me as lessee—Leslie was in my employment as working electrician at that theatre from October, 1899, to December, 1904, at a salary of £3 a week—I knew Webber as carrying on an ironmonger's business at 63, High Street, Putney, quite near to the theatre, and it was his custom to do small jobs and supply material at the theatre from 1897 down to the date of my leaving—Rosenberg was employed occasionally, I believe, as an assistant to Leslie, receiving 1s. 6d. a performance; he used to manipulate the lights for stage purpose—he was paid by me—Webber's account roughly used to come to £250 a year; it varied from time to time—just before I left the theatre I received this requisition from the London County Council with regard to some electrical improvements they required, dated December 21st, 1904 (Ex. 70)—I had previously told Leslie about some of these things, because I knew they were wanted to be done—on receiving the requisition I asked him to prepare an estimate showing how much it would cost—in consequence, he submitted to me two documents at different times, the first of which (Ex. 2) is headed: "Approximate cost for putting right the following items as per the requisition of the London County Council," in his handwriting, and purporting to be an estimate for materials only, and it works out to £54—subsequently he submitted a second statement to me which included the first, and brings up the cost of material and everything to £80—I had an arrangement with Mr. Arthur by which I should do that work, and the few occasions on which I went to the theatre after I left was for that purpose—I paid three or four visits in the beginning of January, when there was work being done under the requisition—it was going forward, but in the Result it was not entirely completed—I had no communication at all with Webber in reference to this work; I did not give him any instructions nor orders for sparking plugs—all the work which Webber did upon the theatre, which was connected with plumbing, was done by means of written orders or estimates which my manager, Mr. Merer, had authority to issue to him; he did not do any electrical work—when by estimate it would be submitted to me and authorised by me, and when a

written order it was under the hand of Mr. Merer on a printed form—Mr. Merer remained on in the same capacity with Mr. Arthur after I left—up to the time I left, Webber's account for 1904 was settled as between him and myself; he used to send in accounts periodically, sometimes weekly, and I then discharged them, when he would give me a receipt—I never handed Leslie any letter under which I became responsible for any such sum as £3,000 for electrical repairs or work to be done in the theatre; nor before this case did I know of the existence of any such document—I never heard of the existence of any undertaking by Mr. Arthur involving him in the payment of any sum at all for Leslie—I do not think I visited the theatre with reference to this work after January—I went down with the specific object of seeing whether Leslie had done the work which is mentioned in the first paragraph of the estimate, the running of the iron barrels to the back of the stage in the engine loom, and re-wiring one of the staircases, and 1 found that had been done—with regard to the work for which 1 was to pay Leslie, no account was ever sent to me, and that account is still outstanding between him and myself—on July 20th I received a visit from a clerk of Messrs. King, Adams & Co., Webber's solicitors, and he handed me this letter (Ex. 4, read: From Messrs. King, Adams & Co., stating that they enclosed copy of order upon him by Mr. George Webber to pay them £100, and they would be obliged by his handing bearer a cheque for that amount payable to their order)—the authority indorsed upon the letter runs thus: "To A. F. Henderson, Esq., New Theatre, St. Martin's Lane. I hereby order, authorise and request you to pay my solicitors, Messrs. King, Adams ob Co., of 66, Gannon Street, E. C., the sum of £100 and their receipt therefore shall be your discharge. Dated this 20th July, George Webber"—I had no arrangement under which by Webber's authority I was to pay anybody £100—I wrote to him on July 20th (Ex. 5, read: Stating that he would he interested to know his (Webber's) explanation for authorising him to pay £100 to a representative of King, Adams & Co., and that he was indebted to him (Webber) in a sum of £25,000 as stated by King, Adams & Co.'s representative)—I do not think I received a reply to that letter—on July 21st I received this letter from King, Adams & Co. (Ex. 6, read): "July 21st, 1905. Dear Sir,—Mr. Webber has sent us your letter to him of yesterday's date. We are investigating the circumstances connected with the delivery of the goods to your theatre. The value of the goods which have been delivered on the order of Mr. Leslie amount to the sum that we named, and, we believe, considerably beyond it. We shall probably have to file Mr. Webber's petition and the matters will have to be dealt with by the Court. In the meantime you will please that the notice served upon you yesterday as a charge in our favour for the amount named. In due course the particulars of such part of the account as is attributable to you will be got out and sent in"—I do not think I answered that letter—I had no knowledge what-ever of any sum of £25,000 outstanding between myself and Webber—I believe some invoices came to the theatre from Webber in connection with this electrical work, but they did not come to me—I received no

invoice of any description from Webber—in January Webber sent an invoice to the theatre for a small amount for some glazing he had done, and it was returned' to him for some reason, but that is the only one I received from him in the course of the year—the original total cost of the electric installation at the theatre was between £2,000 and £3,000—I never had any of these sparking plugs (Pognon sparking plug, Produced) in the theatre—I did net know of any intention to have an extraordinary theatrical display at the theatre necessitating vast preparations and vast outlay.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. Leslie was about six years in my employ—he was not a sort of sub-contractor authorised to employ two or three men to carry out any works I required, charging me the whole amount, and paying the men himself; he was simply a working electrician to ovary out alterations, or any work connected with the installation that might be required, as my servant—when I said at the Guildhall that he used to pay his own men I was alluding to the night hands who manipulated the limelight—he used to render an account of his own wages and the names of the men he had had on the stage—during the whole time he was with me I regarded him as a very trustworthy and able man—on September 13th, 1904, I gave him this letter (Read): "Dear Leslie,—It will give me much pleasure to testify to the extreme care and attention given to your duties during the past seven years in the capacity of the engineer to the Grand Theatre, Fulham. I shall be at all times more than pleased to give you a testimonial. You should find no difficulty whatever in obtaining a good position either as a theatre electrician, the business of which you thoroughly understand, or any similar post."

Cross-examined by MR. THORNE. I should say that while I was at the Grand Theatre, Rosenberg was employed on three different occasions—I did not myself engage him; Leslie got him.

Cross-examined by MR. HUMPHREYS. The Grand Theatre was opened in August, 1897, and Webber was the first to supply ironmongery goods—I cannot remember who recommended him; I think the shop itself recommended him to me; it is a nice large shop—he continued to supply ironmongery goods for about two years before I came into communication with Leslie—he did not come through Leslie in any way—I had a gas-engine driver and my consulting engineers besides Leslie—I had nobody, other than Mr. Merer, to see to the ironmongery repairs—Webber used to call very occasionally about the business he did for us—Leslie would be there to meet him about his business, so they would be brought a good deal in contact with each other—I got some electric lamps from Webber once—he would hand those over to Leslie, it being his department—Leslie took on this London County Council work as a sort of contractor, and the rule as to written orders to Webber would not apply to that work—I should say that Webber would be justified in accepting orders from Leslie for that work without written orders from myself or Mr. Merer—this was quite a different sort of arrangement; it was the first work of that nature that Leslie had ever done for me—I did not know

Webber was doing it—I did not see him in 1905 at all till I saw him in the dock at the Guildhall—Mr. Merer represented Mr. Arthur after I left, and Leslie represented me—I did not inform Webber of that fact; I had no communication with him at all—when he sent accounts into Mr. Merer on my behalf they reached me through him—I am still the lessee of the theatre and am still responsible for it; I have only sub-let it to Mr. Arthur—I believe that Webber sent dozens of invoices addressed to me to Mr. Merer this year which near reached me—to the best of my recollection I never had any communication with him this year in reference to a disputed account—I have looked through my papers for an invoice sent directly to me, or which came to me through Mr. Merer, and I have no such invoice—I have a recollection of receiving an account from him purporting to be an account rendered for about six or seven invoices, and writing and asking him what he meant by it—I cannot remember the month; I should not think it was as late as March—I got a similar document to this (Invoice from Webber, Produced), but whether this is the right amount, or the right details, I cannot remember—the last item is March 1st and purports to show that eleven invoices have been sent in, coming altogether to £51 6s. 9d.—it is addressed to "A. F. Henderson, Esq., Debtor to G. Webber. To amount as per invoice, £4 2s. 6d." and then follow ten other amounts as per invoice, making £51 6s. 9d.—I now think it must have been in March—the item of £4 2s. 6d. was the only item which I knew anything about at all, and I have a recollection of writing to Webber and saying so—Leslie was continually calling on me; I think he must have called about this—he said that he was getting the material from Webber for these repairs—I wrote to Webber saying that I was satisfied with Leslie's explanation and would pay the amounts—I have not paid it yet; the work had not been completely finished and I intended to wait until it had been before I paid it—I did not repudiate it; I only said that I knew nothing about it except the first item—Leslie informed me that the accounts were for materials supplied in connection with the London County Council work, and I believed what he said—I was not prepared to pay Webber without having seen the invoices upon Leslie's assurance that it was all right; I certainly intended to see the invoices and the details of the goods supplied before I paid, in the ordinary course—I do not think I asked Webber to let me have any details—I think Leslie told me that Webber was upset over it—I presume he was upset at my saying that I knew nothing whatever about the accounts—I presume he thought I had received the invoices [At MR. HUMPHRY'S request, MR. MATHEWS put in letters of March 9th and 10th]—I wrote to him on March 9th (Read: Stating that he would be glad to know why the enclosed account was sent to him; that he (Webber) was well aware that Mr. Arthur was now lessee and manager of the Grand Theatre, and that the account should of course have been sent to him; that the first item, £ 42s. 6d., was his (Henderson's), which he would pay on Mr. Merer passing the work as satisfactory)—I then saw Leslie, and on the next day, March 10th, wrote to Webber again (Read: Stating that he had not the remotest idea that the accounts were for goods ordered and supplied

to Leslie on his behalf; that he could not understand why he (Webber) was upset over the matter, as it was evident there had been a misunderstanding; and that on getting the details from Leslie he would forward cheque on)—up to 1905, and for the years preceding, Webber's accounts were generally addressed to Mr. Merer and Mr. Merer used to hand them to me or to Leslie to check; they eventually came to me to be passed; the envelopes were addressed to Mr. Merer and the accounts headed to me—it would depend on the nature of the accounts whether Mr. Merer handed them to Leslie—if he gave them to him to check, he would receive them back from him and hand them to me—that had been going on for eight years.

Re-examined by MR. MATHEWS. The accounts were explained by Leslie; they were not exactly handed to him—they might, under some circumstances, remain with him—they would go into the temporary possession of Leslie for the purposes' of examination—Leslie told me that the account of which I knew nothing except the first item was for goods supplied by Webber in reference to the London County Council work—the amount of Leslie's estimate (Ex. 2) is £54, and is similar to the amount of the account, £51 6s. 9d.—after I left, no one except Leslie was authorised to do anything for me—the only thing I remained responsible for was this particular work—I spoke to Leslie about the London County Council requisitions first in the early part of November with regard to what he required, because I was negotiating with Mr. Arthur from October—I cannot remember exactly the date when Leslie gave me his estimates; I should say it would be before January—there was no specific time given in which to do these alterations—Leslie assumed the same position with Mr. Arthur as he had with me—it was some considerable time before this that Webber supplied the electric lamps—the account came forward in due course and was settled.

ROBERT ARTHUR . I live at 4, Seville Row, and am the lessee of the Grand Theatre, Fulham, which I took over in succession to and from Mr. Henderson on December 24th, 1904—I knew from the negotiations with him that the London County Council had required some alterations to the installation and Mr. Henderson agreed to take that upon his shoulders—on my entering into occupation Leslie was the working electrician and he kept on in the same position and with the same wages—Mr. Merer, Mr. Henderson's manager, became my manager; I took over the staff—Mr. Merer would know about the charges of Leslie's workmen; that was in his department—I had never seen Webber before I saw him at the Guildhall—until a letter of July 14th I never had any communication from him (Ex. 7, read): "Dear Sir,—Would you be good enough to pay to Messrs. Stanley Evans & Co., solicitors, of 20 and 22, Theobald's Road, Bedford Row, W.C., all money due and to become due from you to me, and their receipt shall be a good discharge to you for the same, lour faithfully, George Webber"—I was not at the office when it arrived—before I had time to answer it I got this letter of July 15th (Ex. 8, read): "Dear Sir,—With reference to letter sent you last night, will you kindly return the same to me by bearer, as this was sent to you under a misunderstanding, and greatly oblige. Yours faithfully,

G. Webber"—I retained these letters until I gave them over to Messrs. Turner, solicitors—to my knowledge, I have never had since December 34th any accounts or invoices from Webber for electrical apparatus on appliances or materials supplied to the theatre—I never had any communication with him or anybody on his behalf in reference to work at the theatre—I saw they were pulling down the walls at the theatre and making some alterations to the wiring in accordance with what I expected, as Mr. Henderson had agreed to put the lights in order—they were alterations along the dress staircase and stalls and gallery passages—I cannot remember the date, but it was some time after the pantomime; it might have been January or February—the work went on, but I thought rather slowly—Leslie had the work on behalf of Mr. Henderson and he employed one or two men to assist him—the work went on till about July, until Leslie left the theatre—I said to Leslie that I thought the work was getting on slowly and he said, "There was more to do than I expected"—I cannot say that I know what a Pognon plug is—I cannot My I have seen the inside of a motor car—I never saw any of these plugs in the theatre (Pognon plug, Produced); I cannot imagine what they would do with it—I never wrote this, or caused it to be written (Ex. 9 read): "Dear Sir,—I am in receipt of your letter in which you say the cost of my share of the alterations and repairs would run into about £2,500. I do not object to this, providing the work is done well and to the entire satisfaction of the London County Council. Yours faithfully, 3s. Arthur"—I have no knowledge of any secret electrical installation or display at the theatre from the time I took it over, nor any knowledge of any syndicate of persons interested in such a thing—there was nothing in which extraordinary effects were desired to be brought about other than the ordinary theatrical effects—I never wrote a letter in which I authorised Leslie to spend £8,000—I had no communication with Leslie beyond writing and telling him that I thought he was not getting on sufficiently well—under my arrangement with Mr. Henderson he was to pay any sum incurred in satisfying the requirements of the London County Council.

Cross-examined by MR. HUMPHREYS. There were no large quantities of goods supplied to the theatre in the early months of this year, to my knowledge—I have heard since they were, but at the time they were delivered I knew nothing about them—it is quite possible that large quantities of foods may have been delivered without my seeing them.

CYRIL WILLIAM HILL . I live at Elton Road, Hornchurch, and am manager of the Exchange & Hop Warehouse, Limited, 24, Southwark Street—Leslie and Cheeeman called upon me on June 18th, 1904, to take an office in the building of the Exchange—Leslie gave the name of Sinclair, and I understood Cheesman was his wife—they gave me a reference to S. Wenlow, East Hill, Wands worth, and on applying on June 15th 1 got this answer (Ex. 158, read): "Dear Sir,—Yours to hand. I have pleasure in stating that I have done business with Messrs. G. Sinclair & Co., and always found them reliable, and think you would find them suitable tenants"—the rent of the office was £4 a quarter, and they

came into occupation on June 20th, 1904, remaining one quarter and two or three weeks in the next quarter—I saw Cheesman there the more frequently—"G. Sinclair & Co., was painted on the door in black paint—no notice was given them to leave—the rent was paid in advance at each quarter.

Cross-examined by MR. GRIAN. Leslie was the spokesman, and, as far as I remember. Cheesman said nothing—she was announced to me as "Mrs. Sinclair"—I had not seen them before—I never went into their office.

By the COURT. They paid for the whole second quarter, although they were only there two or three weeks, so I did rather well out of it.

JOHN DUNENBURGER . I am the caretaker at Terminus Chambers, Holborn Viaduct, and I live there—No. 83 is one of the offices on the sixth floor, consisting of one room at £1 17s. 6d. a month—there is a lift—Cheesman came to occupy that room in November, 1904—it was unfurnished and she brought furniture—"Sinclair & Co." was put up first, and then" The Electrical Accessories Company" was put up—they were both up for a time, when "Sinclair & Co." was taken off—I saw Cheesman there almost every day—Rosenberg, whom I knew as Knight, sometimes came there, and Leslie used to come almost every evening after 6, when Cheesman was still there—sometimes they closed the office at 7, and sometimes at 7.30 p.m.—I first noticed Rosenberg come in May of this year, it might have been, or before—he did not come every day, but sometimes two or three times in a day—I manage the lift and Rosenberg always went up by it—Leslie always walked up—I did not see them together at any time—towards the end of the time that they occupied the office people used to come inquiring for the Electrical Accessories Company—people connected with the office kept coming till Thursday, July 20th—from that time the office remained unoccupied until the police came and spoke to me—I, with the police, looked round the office—I saw in the fireplace a fair amount of burnt paper—I do not remember there being any in the coal-box—on the shelves there were some electric lamps lying open and some of these plugs (Pognon plug, Produced), some of which were in a box—I believe there were 150 in a box—on two or three occasions while the office was in occupation I have seen goods taken up—that was the only part of the building the Electrical Accessories Company occupied—this is a receipt, dated January 7th, for one month's rent, made out to "Mr. F. Cheesman"—the rent as a rule was paid in advance.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I should say there are twenty people occupying offices in the building—a good many people go up and down, and it keeps me pretty busy with the lift—I have got a man to help me—I could not see everybody going up and down the stairs—I cannot say that I saw parcels being carried up to the Electrical Accessories Company's. office every day—there were perhaps a few hundred electric lamps about—I might have seen parcels carried down from their office on two or three occasions—I did not notice Leslie bringing any parcels—he might have had some parcels when I did not see him—there was an entrance to the building from the back in Arloar Court, but there is only one staircase that leads up.

Cross-examined by MR. THORNE. I first noticed Rosenburg coming in May, but I cannot tell you exactly the date; that is about as near as I can place it—I really cannot tell you whether it was May 27th or June 27th; it may have been June 27th—I do not remember him bringing a cart up and putting in it a number on goods about the second week in July—I have not seen a van with the name of Purcell & Nobbs on it coming, and Rosenberg putting goods in it in the second week in July.

Cross-examined by MR. HUMPHREYS. I do not think I ever saw Webber there.

GEORGE HEYS JONES . I have an office in Cranbourne Street, and am the assistant electrical engineer to the London County Council—this requisition was prepared by my Council (Ex. 70)—I have from time to time visited the Fulham Theatre to see if the requirements had been carried out—I visited it last June, and I have never seen Pognon plugs there—I have never known a case where the London County Council required Pognon plugs to be used in connection with electric installations.

By the COURT. They might use them in the case of a gas engine.

FREDERICK MERER . I am the manager to Mr. Arthur at the Grand Theatre, Fulham, commencing my duties in that capacity in December, 1904, having been manager is Mr. Henderson from the time the theatre was opened eight or nine years ago—during the time I have been manager Leslie has been the working electrician and has had a small room in the theatre—his wages ultimately were £3 a week at the time of the change from Mr. Henderson to Mr. Arthur, but I think they were less at the beginning—he would be expected to do all the repairs as regards the wiring of the theatre and electric light—Jamieson and Rosenberg assisted him—I do not remember Rosenberg being an assistant to Leslie until Mr. Arthur took the theatre over this year—Jamieson was there before this year—I knew Webber as an ironmonger of 63, High Street, Putney, and during Mr. Henderson's time he had done repairs and odd jobs generally at the theatre; he would supply iron standards that were required or that sort of thing; his account came, roughly speaking, to about £250 a year—I wrote the orders to him and invariably signed them—they were kept in duplicate, so I have a record of the orders given out—he sent his accounts in sometimes weekly, sometimes monthly, and sometimes quarterly; it varied—if I wanted to check the order, then he has once or twice sent me the written orders back—in Mr. Henderson's time I had the power of drawing and signing cheques, and that is how I paid Webber's accounts, but if they were small I paid in cash—I paid Leslie's wages, in Mr. Henderson's time—in the early part Mr. Henderson used to sign the cheques, but the last two years I used to sign them—in Mr. Arthur's time the cheques were obtained from Regent Street signed either by himself or his secretary—we have a treasurer who takes them to the bank and cashes them—I would look at the accounts for work at the theatre to see whether they were correct, and then I would forward them on to the office in Regent Street and the cheque would come from there—as to the wages, the treasurer goes up to Regent Street on the Friday, obtain the cheque, goes

to the bank, got the cash and pays them—under Mr. Arthur I continued signing written orders, and small orders of that kind have been given to Webber—from December 17th, 1904, to June 21st, these accounts (Ex. 11, Produced) have been rendered by Webber, amounting to £12 or £13, and they are marked "correct" with my initials—I knew that a certain amount of re-wiring was required to be done by the London County Council and that Mr. Henderson had arranged with Mr. Arthur to satisfy those requirements—I was representing Mr. Arthur only after December 24th, and if any letters came addressed to Mr. Henderson they would be sent on to him at the New Theatre—letters addressed to Mr. Arthur I would open unless they were marked "Private"—for this particular installation work Leslie was decidedly looked upon as the representative of Mr. Henderson—after December 24th I got a number of envelopes addressed to me from Webber enclosing invoices, practically all by post—of course I knew the invoices would be for supply of iron materials, but I did not examine the items—I cannot accurately say to what department the goods referred to, but I should say more for the electrical department—I handed the invoices to Leslie, assuming they had something to do with the London County Council work—the invoices were similar to these (Bundle produced)—I should not say all of these were received by me, but a portion of them—I did not notice the amounts; I did not keep them long enough—I remember, when I handed them to him, Leslie saying, "Oh, this is Mr. Henderson,"—he seemed to understand them and said he would take them—I have seen Webber a couple of dozen times at the theatre, I should think, since December 24th; I have seen him on the stage and in the corridor, and sometimes with Leslie on the stage—he had access to the theatre at any time and has been there frequently for years—Webber sent in some invoices addressed to Mr. Arthur for small sums, which I took and paid—I never saw any from him addressed to Leslie—up to July 19th I never had any conversation with Webber about the electrical work, nor about any work at the theatre of that kind; he never mentioned the subject to me—I met him frequently in the theatre and in the street, but he has never discussed with me the position of Mr. Arthur or Mr. Henderson in connection with that work Leslie was doing—on one occasion I saw a switchboard outside the stage door and on another occasion, when I was in the front of the house, I saw a van come up and the man presented an account—I asked him what it was and e said, "A lathe"—he gave me an invoice for Webber, and I directed him to take it to Webber, which he did—I saw no other goods delivered at the theatre, either by Webber or his men—after July 19th I saw some wooden cases under the stage, but I did not see inside them—I saw from the labels they were from the "Union Electric Company," addressed to Webber—on July 19th Mr. Hohne and Mr. Parsons, representing Gent & Co., came to see me at the theatre, and I had a conversation with them—we looked over the theatre and they recognised some lamps outside the front of the house and some carbons under the stage—the next day, July 20th, Mr. Hohne and Webber came to see me at the theatre

—Webber asked me if this apparatus, referring to the electrical goods, was required at the theatre—I asked him why he had not spoken to me before—Mr. Hohne asked him why he had supplied all these goods and he said he had seen a letter from Mr. Robert Arthur to Leslie authorising him to expend £8,000 on his behalf on this electrical work, and a similar letter from Mr. Henderson to Leslie authorising him, Leslie to spend £3,000 on his behalf—I asked him if he had the letters, and h said that Leslie had them—I remember saying that it was hardly likely that £11,000 would be spent in repairs on a building that possibly only cost about £30,000—Mr. Hohne asked him if any accounts had been sent in to Robert Arthur and he answered, "Yee"—I asked him to whom they were directed and he said to Leslie—I then asked him why Mr. Henderson's accounts had been sent to me instead of Leslie, who represented Mr. Henderson, and why Mr. Arthur's accounts had been sent to Leslie instead of to me, who represented Mr. Arthur—he did not give any satisfactory answer; he evaded the question by saying that he had always sent Mr. Henderson's accounts to me, and thought it was right to continue to do so—they then went away—Webber did not in any way point out any parts of the theatre to Mr. Hohne as far as I know, nor did he point out where any Pognon plugs had been fixed—I have never seen a Pognon plug at the theatre—the last time I saw Rosenberg at the theatre was on July 17th; he was working at night as a limelight man from the middle of May—sometimes he worked in the day at this wiring—I cannot remember his doing any day work the last six weeks before July 17th—Leslie was connected with the limelight, and they were together at the theatre—Leslie had to be there till the theatre closed for fear something went wrong—we made our own electricity.

Cross-examined by MR. THORNE. To the beet of my knowledge, since I have known Rosenberg he has borne the reputation of an honest and hard-working man—he was first employed at the theatre in October, 1899—he was originally an engineer in the engine-room—I cannot be sure as to the dates he was employed—I know he was there from December, 1902, to June, 1904—if he is acquitted by the Jury, I shall take him back into my employment—I believe he was engaged by Leslie, and it would follow that he had the right to give him notice—strictly, the engagement ought really to be made by the manager, but of course it is not always done.

Friday, November 17th, 1905.

FREDERICK MERER . Cross-examined by MR. DICKENES. I was a travelling manager before I went to the Grand Theatre—in my experiences invoices for goods supplied would come into the hands of the manager made out to the proprietor—of course, in some cases they may be directed to the proprietor, but the resident manager would open them—Webber's invoices were generally addressed to me and I opened them—until July 20th it was not suggested to Webber that sending Mr. Arthur's invoices made out to Mr. Henderson and addressed to me was not the right course—I see that amongst this bundle of invoices from Webber (Ex. 10) some are for electrical appliances, coil, £3 17s. 6d. stage resistances, £25 10s.,

coil, £25; 500 lamps—so far as Webber knew, I might have put those invoices before Mr. Henderson—I was not communicating or seeing Mr. Henderson from time to time—I wrote to him on another matter to this—I believe he came to the theatre once or twice, but I did not see him—I was mostly in front of the house and I did not see the goods delivered—no electrical goods were delivered in the first five months of 1905 to my knowledge—I said before the Magistrate that during that time a good many electrical goods were delivered at the theatre by the Union Company, but I said that in consequence of what I had heard—the door-keeper would know more about that than I—I cannot be sure that on the interview on July 20th I arranged that Mr. Hohne and Webber should come at 6.30 p.m. on the next day—I do not remember them coming on that day—I was not doing any work for Mr. Henderson in the first five months of this year—as regards the item of £4 23. 6d. in the invoice sent by Webber to Mr. Henderson, as to which Mr. Henderson said he was writing to me to pass as satisfactory, that was for some windows that had to be repaired and re-glazed, and he wanted my approval of the work before he paid.

Re-examined. As soon as I saw that the invoices were headed to Mr. Henderson I just marked the envelope "Leslie" because I put all my papers in one little drawer so that I could hand them to Leslie—that would be from the beginning of this year—I never looked closely at them and I really took no notice of the amounts—the theatre was closed from September 17th to December 24th—I was no longer manager for Mr. Henderson, so that these invoices did not concern me; I presumed they were in connection with this London County Council job which Leslie was looking after in the interests of Mr. Henderson—it was perfectly well known that Mr. Henderson had gone to undertake the management of the New Theatre.

HARBERT ARTHUR FINN . I am the cashier of the London & County Bank, Borough High Street, Southwark—on July 25th, 1904, Cheesman opened an account at the bank in the name of Francis Cheesman, of 10, East Hill, Wandsworth, and 108, Hop Exchange—she gave as references Mr. Rohls, of Hurlingham Road, Putney, our Putney branch, and she said that she worked for her brother-in-law, who was trading as "G. Sinclair & Co.," carrying on business at 108, Hop Exchange—she said the contemplated opening an account at our Putney branch, but she considered it would be more of an advantage to have an account near to her business, and she had been to our branch several days previously—we inquired of our Putney branch and after taking their report we accepted the account—we did not inquire of Rohls—the account was opened with a payment in of £50 5s. 6d. on July 27th, 1904, and the last operation on it was on July 20th, 1905, which left a credit balance of £3 16s. 1d. which is still there—this is a certified copy of that account (Produced), and I see by it that on September 30th, 1904, the credit balance was 8d.—on August 27th and September 13th, 1904, respectively there are two credits for £15 by cheques drawn on our Putney branch by "G. Webber"—on December 31st, 1904, there was a credit balance of £1 17s. 7d.—on November 9th there is a cheque to the London, Chatham A Dover Railway, for £1 17s. 6d. for the rent at 83, Terminus Chambers—the balance on March 31st,

1005, was 2s. 7d.—two out of the three cheques which were drawn from January to March are for payment of rent to the London, Chatham & Dover Railway, one for £2 and the other for £1 17s. 6d.—from April 14th up to July 14th considerable sums were paid in frequently—this is an extract from the waste book (Ex. 95), showing the payments in from April 14th to July 14th, with very few exceptions—on April 14th, 1904, there was paid in a cheque of £350 15s. 11d. by Falk, Stadelmann & Co., Ltd.; on the same day £1 14s. 2d. by the same company; on May 5th, Verity's, Ltd., paid in £150; May 6th, General Electric Co., Ltd., £356 10s.; May 8th, Croggon & Co., £150; May 15th, Evered & Co., £125; May 20th, Verity's, Ltd., £200; May 22nd, Braulik, £146 5s.; May 27th, Edison, £245 14s.; May 29th, Electric Co., £169 13s.; May 30th, Brush Electric Co., £192; Sparks, £222 10s.; May 31st, Edison, £628 13s.; June 1st, International Electric Co., £212 Is 3d.; June 8th, Emmanuel & Sons, Ltd., £262 10s.; June 10th, Hands, £220; F. Suter & Co., £200; June 14th, Emmanuel & Sons, £262 10s.; June 22nd, Edison, £1,867 2s. 3d., McGeoch & Co., £100; June 24th, Sperati, £336 7s. 6d.; Hale, £180; June 26th, Bolding & Sons, £2,000; June 27th, Hands, £218 7s.; Evered & Co., £661 4s.; Emmanuel & Sons, £401 2s.; June 29th, Croggon & Co., £20216s.; Strode & Co., £232 15s. 9d.; Milne, £337 10s.; Joel, £450 8s. 9d.; Electrical Co., £992 2s.; Sparks, £500; Purcell & Nobbs, £329 7e.; Rashleigh, Phipps & Co., £335 15s. 9d.; 'June 30th, Croggon & Co., £210; McGeoch & Co., Ltd., £132 10s.; Bolding & Sons, £2,000; Webber, from the London & County Bank, Putney, £100; July 1st, Maple, £329 1s. 3d.; Falk, Stadelmann, £324; Roger Dawson, Ltd., £610 13s.; July 5th, Gent & Co., £606 18s. 9d; Purcell & Nobbs, £220 17s. 6d.; July 7th, Sunbeam Lamp Co., £206; on July 17th a cheque for £200 drawn on Lloyd's Bank; July 10th, White, £232 10s.—altogether £16,181 16s. 1d, was paid into the credit of that account from April 1st to June 30th—there was brought down to begin the next hall year a credit of £8,261 6s. 8d. and there was paid in as between July let and 14th, £2,741 9s. 5d. so that there was paid in altogether £18,650—turning to the other side of the account and dealing with the same period with the exception of two cheques of £1 17s. 6d. all round sums were drawn out from time to time, and practically the whole £18,650 was drawn out—the last cheque drawn was a cheque for £300 payable to "H. Stanley," drawn by "F. Cheesman" and indorsed "H. Stanley," which was cashed, £200 in gold and two £50 notes—moneys were paid out both in the form of notes and gold; about £2,500 was drawn out in gold altogether—this (Ex. 98) shows the gold and the numbers of the notes which were paid out against the cheques drawn on that account from May 15th to the end—Cheesman generally paid the cheques in and drew the money out; nobody else had power to operate on that account—the last payment to "H. Stanley" was paid to a man—I did not pay the cheque myself—Cheeeman always signed her name "Francis"—in explanation of drawing out notes and gold she said she was making payments to some French people she was doling with who demanded notes and gold—she informed us that she had got a valuable patent, and the goods were being manufactured in France.

Cross-examined by MR. DICKENS. There were only three cheques paid into that account by Webber, August 27th, 1904, £15; September 13th, 1904, £15; and June 30th, 1905, £100—I cannot say they were payable to Cheesman.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. Cheesman said the Electrical Accessories Co. had got a valuable patent, and she also said that by paying in notes and gold they got a better price from the French firm who were making the goods—I understood from her that the patent belonged to the Electrical Accessories Co., of which she was practically the proprietor—she did not say she was merely a clerk—I do not think she ever told me she was the sole proprietor, but I understood she was part proprietor; she said she was trading as "The Electrical Accessories Co" with others—we know that Webber had an account at our Putney branch, but we did not know it at the time when Cheesman called upon us—I cannot remember that she gave me any reason for opening an account at the Putney branch; I guessed it was because her references were with Putney people—I cannot tell you in whose favour the £100 cheque was drawn by Webber on June 30th—none of the cheques drawn by Miss Cheesman were signed "Francis. Cheesman, Secretary"—I cannot remember whether she indorsed cheques in that manner; if she indorsed for the Electrical Accessories Co., she may have indorsed "Proprietor" or "Secretary," I do not know which—she indorsed cheques on behalf of the company, bat it depended upon whom the cheques were made payable.

Re-examined. According to this statement, on March 12th, 1903, four £50 notes were paid out of Cheesman's account, Nos. 89495-8, May 22nd; four £20 notes, Nos. 48016-19, dated April 16th, 1904; May 29th, five £20 notes, Nos. 67301-5, dated April 16th, 1904; May 30th, six £20 notes, Nos. 67306-11, dated April 16th, 1904; May 31st, five £100 notes, Nos. 97330-4, dated February 18th, 1904; May 20th, two £80 notes, Nos. 94929-30, dated March 12th, 1903, and two £10 notes, 32816-7, dated January 15th, 1904; May 30th, four £20 notes, 67312-15, dated April 16th, 1904, which was paid indirectly; June 2nd, one £100 note, 97338, February 18th, 1904; and two £200 notes, 67523-4, March 18th, 1902; June 6th, one £100 note, 97339, February 18th, 1904; one £200 note, 68111, March 18th, 1902, and one £200 note, 65725, March 18th, 1902, in which case there was an exchange at the Bank of England of the notes; June 8th, three £100 notes, 86054-6, February 18th, 1904; June 10th, five £100 notes, 11691-5, March 18th, 1904; June 14th, three £100 notes, 86058-60, February 18th, 1904, and one £100 note, 11696, March 18th, 1904; June 16th, two £100 notes, 11698-9, March 18th, 1904; and one £100 note, 17000, March 18th, 1904—the total amount that so found its way into Webber's account was about £4,000.

ELIZABETH ANNA HORTON . I carry on a stationer's business at 10, East Hill, Wandsworth, and I allow letters to be addressed there on the payment of a penny—I have been there since March 25th—I remember a letter coming addressed to Miss Cheesman, and a lady, whom I cannot now recognise, came and took it away—Cheesman did not live at my address, nor had she any business there—I let out two rooms aft the top

and occupy the rest myself—I bought the business from a Mr. Edwards, a stationer, who had been there eight or nine years.

HUBERT STANLEY HOHNE . I am the manager of Gent & Co., manufacturing electricians, of 3a, Upper Thames Street—about April 29th Leslie called upon us and had a conversation with me; he said he could place some large orders in my hands—I said if such orders were for electrical or similar goods I should be pleased to execute them if I could—he said, that he should require some commission and I told him that I should see hat he would not lose anything on it if the business were satisfactory—he told me then that the orders would come through Mr. Webber, of 63, High Street, Putney, who carried on the business of an ironmonger, and who also had supplied electrical goods to the Fulham Theatre for some seven or eight years—he said that this year they were preparing some very unique and wonderful electrical effects—I presumed he meant on the stage, but he did not say so—I endeavoured to use every argument and persuasion I could to find out exactly what it was they were going to do, but Leslie's invariable answer was that it would be violating a confidence to tell me, and possibly result in the lose of his position—I think he may have given me at that interview details of goods that were required, but at any rate he did on subsequent interviews—he particularly mentioned the chief things were sparking plugs, accumulators and batteries together with the general electrical material—he said they would be wiring some 30,000 lamps—he told me also that the sparking plugs were procurable at only one place in London and that the reason Webber was coming to me for them was because he could not obtain credit for such a long period as he would require from these people, the Electrical Accessories Co., Terminus Chambers, Holborn Viaduct, who, as it was subsequently shown, wanted cash—he also said a certain type of battery which he wanted could be procured at the Electrical Accessories Co.—he said it was the Pognon plug—I had heard of sparking plugs, but I had not heard of this one—he said the reason he was bringing me the order was that he had taken some orders in the past for another firm near, who, although having promised him commission, had not paid it—the only other particular point of importance that I remember at these interviews is that Mr. Robert Arthur's, the lessee of the Grand Theatre, Fulham, name was mentioned as being the one responsible person to Webber for any electrical goods that Webber was supplying—I suppose he visited my place about three or four times between April 29th and May 12th—Leslie said he courted the fullest investigation and Webber would be found to be a perfectly honest tradesman—I made inquiries as to Webber through two or three trade detection societies and the results were satisfactory inasmuch as that he was generally spoken of as an honest trades-man—I did not make inquiries financially; the person who was financially responsible was Mr. Arthur—I put through an inquiry as to Mr. Arthur's financial position and found that he was considered responsible for £5,000—all these inquiries were finished, I should say before the first order was brought—this order (Ex. 47), dated May 12th, 1905, was for, amongst; other things, lamps, electric fans, and so on, including twelve batteries,

two gross of plugs with adapters, two more gross of plugs with adapters, and twenty-four plugs, was brought on May 12th by Leslie—it is on a printed memorandum, "From Mr. G. Webber, 63, High street, Putney"—it was not immediately executed—on a Saturday after that, I cannot say whether it was one or two Saturdays After, Leslie came and asked me whether I was going to supply these things—I said, "Yes, I think so," and he said, "I must have them to-day; we have got a gang of men working at the theatre all this afternoon and all night and all day Sunday to get the effect completed. It must be ready for Monday night"—he particularly wanted the plugs, so I took a cab to the Electrical Accessories Co.—I saw Miss Cheesman; this was about 2 p.m.—I asked her to quote me for Pognon sparking plugs in quantities, holding out the probability of having some more orders coming along—to the best of my recollection she quoted 5s. 9d. each—I bargained with her, and I think we got down to 5s. 3d. each—on one occasion Leslie told me they could be bought for 5s. 9d.—cash terms were not mentioned—I gave an informal order on a piece of paper or two gross and said that I would go back to my office and confirm that on one of my official order forms and send it by messenger—I did so and sent the messenger with the order, telling him to bring back the two gross of plugs with him—this is the order (Produced), by which I see it was Saturday, the 13th—Leslie came into my office about five or ten minutes after my messenger had left and asked me whether I was sending these plugs on to-day—I said, "My messenger has just gone to fetch two gross, and he said "Two gross will not be sufficient. I must have four gross, or else I must try and get them elsewhere"—I did not want him to do that—he asked me if I would mind giving him a note authorising him to collect the two gross my messenger was collecting and a further two gross, so he could get them all away quickly to the job at the. Fulham Theatre—I said, "It is rather late in the afternoon, and it is not the usual thing, but if you bring me a signature for them, I will do so"—I gave him an additional order to allow him to take delivery of four gross—this was about 2 or 3 p.m.; I was really keeping open late because this business had turned up—he went away with the order and I did not see him any more that day—he came in two or three days later and brought me a counterfoil out of a counterfoil book with no particular heading; it stated that he had received delivery from the Electrical Accessories Co. of the four gross, and I believed that he had received them—I told him that if he required to take personal delivery of any goods to Mr. Webber, in future he must have orders made out to bearer—the next order he brought was dated May 20th for forty-eight batteries, four gross of plugs, with adapters, four ditto, and forty-eight ditto, which were supplied by the Electrical Accessories Co.—prior to the second order I sent my traveller, Mr. Murray, to see Webber, and he made a report to me—the second order was, "Please supply to bearer"—on May 22nd I wrote this letter to Webber (Ex. 49, read: Thanking him for the orders received, which they were delivering to Leslie, as they understood in doing so they were carrying out his (Webber's) wishes)—I got no answer to that letter—on May

30th I wrote to the Electrical Accessories Co. (Read: Stating that with refer once to statement of account and letter they had received they would please understand that the terms were monthly, subject to 2 1/2 per cent.; and that if they liked to put them through any inquiry agents they would find they were well able to cope with such orders as theirs")—that was in answer to a letter received from them asking for prompt settlement—on June 1st I had their reply (Ex. 50, read): "Dear Sirs,—Your letter of the 30th of May received. We regret to say we are unable to wait until the time stated in your letter. Our business is done on strictly net cash terms only, and we must ask you to please let us have your cheque per return and oblige, Yours faithfully, The Electrical Accessories Co., F. C."—our order stated on the back that we paid monthly at 2 1/2 per cent/—on June 2nd I replied to that (Ex 51, read: Stating that they could not understand their wanting to do business except on the ordinary terms on which the order was given)—I believe my total indebtedness to them at this date was between £400 and £600—on June 6th I got this order for twenty-four stage plugs, as selected (Ex. 52, Produced)—this plug had to be made to drawings supplied by Leslie—a sample had to be made which he took down to Fulham for the ostensible purpose of having it passed by the London County Council—there was seven or eight days, delay, when Leslie told me it had been passed with certain small alterations—I was then called upon to supply the twenty-four in accordance with the London County Council requirements, which I did; they are invoiced at about 15s. 10d. each—on June 9th we had a letter from the Electrical Accessories Co, (Read: Stating that if it was inconvenient for them to let them have a cheque they would receive the goods back, but unless they either had the cheque or the return of the goods before the Item they would be compelled to place the matter immediately out of hand)—on June 7th I owed them £622 10s.—I let that letter stand over for fourteen days—on June 10th I received an order from Webber for a set of telephones, as selected, but I wrote to him saying that the order would be delivered when he had paid some money—on June 15th I received this letter from the Electrical Accessories Co. (Ex. 55, read):"Not having received your cheque as requested, we beg to notify you we shall now, without further notice, place the matter in other hands"—on June 17th I received an order from Webber for four gross of plugs, with adapters, and twenty-four batteries, and on June 21st eight dozen gross of plugs, eight dozen ditto, and twenty-four batteries, but those orders were not executed, as we had not had a cheque from him—on June 26th we got a letter from the Electrical Accessories Co.—(Read: Stating that unless they received a cheque, as promised by their (Gent & Co's.) representative, by the morrow morning, they would immediately place the matter out of hand")—it appears that Leslie on taking delivery of the last goods promised them on my behalf a cheque without my authority—on the Saturday before I made the first payment to the company Rosenberg called on me; I had written to them on June 27th that we had authorised nobody to promise them a cheque, and that all our orders were given on the distinct understanding as to payment, and we could not understand, why they jeopardized this business by writing to us so unpleasantly, and

inviting them to come and see us—I think it was the Saturday after that that Rosenberg called—he said he had been instructed to see me about my account, and he practically acknowledged they were pressing me in rather an undue manner, but he could not help it; it was his duty to collect the money—I think he said his governor was a very hasty-tempered sort of man and would insist on the account being paid—he gave the name of Knight to the clerk in the front office, who, to the best of my belief, brought that name into me; I know he did not give the name of Rosenberg—he said he was the manager to the Electrical Accessories Co.—on a writ being served upon us I paid them a cheque of £606 18s. 9d.—the writ was served on us by Mr. Julias White and was, I think, for the whole amount, £833 14s.—I had a receipt for that on July 3rd—on that day I went to see Webber at 63, High Street, Putney; that was the first time I had seen him personally—I told him that through Leslie he had told me a cheque was coming along at the end of the month, namely, at the end of June—Leslie told me first of all that the cheque would come along on June 15th, but it did not come then, and he said he had made a mistake and that Webber had really said at the end of the month—I told Webber that I must have some money and he told me that he was seeing Mr. Robert Arthur that night—I asked him if he had ever applied to Mr. Arthur before for payment of his account and he said, "No"—I then said, "You must write me directly you know what Mr. Arthur has prepared to do"—he wrote to me on July 3rd (Ex. 62, read): "Dear Sir,—In reference to your call this day I have not been able to see my people to-night, so I will write again to-morrow. Yours faithfully, G. Webber")—I replied on July 4th (Read: Stating that it was most important that he (Webber) should see his people at the earliest opportunity, or give them permission to take up the matter for him direct)—there was some correspondence and telegrams between us till July 14th, when I went to see Webber again—Leslie had called once or twice to try and keep matters smooth, saying he knew Mr. Arthur would be soon sending a cheque, and making similar statements—I told Webber that if he did not pay me I should issue a writ—he pleaded with me not to do so, and to give him till the next day—I told him I could not do anything of the kind, and after a lot of discussion as to whether he had been really approaching his people, Robert Arthur, for the money, I told him I had been very good to him in the matter of credit and I thought he ought to be frank with me—I said, "Let me see what money you have got down in your ledger to Robert Arthur, or anybody else you have got a big account with," and after a considerable amount of pressure he did so—he then showed me three pages in his ledger with the name "Robert Arthur" at the top, carefully covering part of it so as not to show dates—we totaled up the pages, and they came, roughly, to £4,077 odd—I said, "That is good enough for me; come up to my solicitors and give me a charge on it."—he asked me to explain as carefully as I could how it was he could give me a charge on his account without bringing me in direct communication with Robert Arthur—I appreciated that, because Robert Arthur might buy direct if he found Webber was buying the things from me—I explained to him that we could arrange it through our solicitors,

Stanley Evans & Co., of 20, Theobald's Road, so that our name did not appear at all, but that the solicitors' names would appear, and that Robert Arthur would not trace any trade relations—he came with me to the solicitors, and this document was drawn up (Ex. 64, read):"In consideration of the debt of £1,180 or thereabouts now due and owing by me in respect of which you are pressing me for payment, I hereby charge all that sum of money due and to become due from Mr. Robert Arthur to me in respect of goods supplied, and work and labour done by me for, and at the request of, Mr. Robert Arthur, which account, in respect of goods supplied, 'includes the goods supplied by you to me for the purpose of supplying them to my said customer with the payment of such sum as is or may be due or owing to me, and I hereby authorise your solicitors, Stanley Evans& Co., to receive such sums to the extent of the amount which is or may be due from him to me"—he signed it—I went back with him to Putney and drew up this letter to Mr. Arthur (Ex. 7, read): "Will you be good enough to pay Stanley Evans & Co., solicitors, of 20, Theobald's Road, Bedford Row, ail moneys due and to become due from you to me, and their receipt shall be a good discharge for you"—Webber wrote that letter in my presence and signed it; the draft was made up in my solicitors' office—I posted it myself at 8 o'clock—Webber asked me to draft a letter to Robert Arthur, explaining why it was that he had given this charge on the account—I drafted a letter for him, and he said he would write it—I knew nothing of his having written the letter of July 15th to Mr. Arthur (Ex. 8, read: Stating that the letter (Ex. 7) had been sent under a misunderstanding, and asking him to return the same)—I did not know of that letter having been written till July 19th or 20th—on July 10th we paid the Electrical Accessories Co. a further £200 on the advice of our solicitors, and this is the receipt from the solicitors of the Electrical Accessories Co. for that amount, of July 18th—I had paid then £806, which left a balance of £300 or more to be paid—Webber had not paid any money, nor did he ever—the amount due from him to me was about £1,180—I bought from the Electrical Accessories Co. at 5s. 3d. a plug, and I invoiced to Webber at 7s. 3d. a plug—on July 12th I received this letter from Webber (Ex. 66, read: Stating that he regretted to say that he had not yet received the cheque which he was expecting, but that he had been promised a cheque the next week, and when in receipt of it he would communicate with him)—I replied to that, stating that he must come and see me on the morrow morning, as the matter could not be delayed any longer—he did not call the next morning, so I wrote to him a letter of July 13th (Read: Stating that he was surprised that he had not called or written)—I wrote on one occasion and asked him to let me have the original orders from Mr. Arthur to him, but they were never sent or shown to me—subsequent to this, on July 17th Leslie called upon me on either the day or the day after the charge was given, saying that he had heard of the charge and he would tell me confidentially that Mr. Robert Arthur was not responsible for these particular goods and work in connection therewith, but Mr. Henderson was; he asked me not to divulge the fact that he had told me, as he said it would cause him to lose his position at

the theatre—that was the first time that I had heard of Mr. Henderson's name in the matter—on hearing that information, on the same day or the day after I went to see Webber—he was out and I waited in his shop an hour and then I wrote this letter of July 17th (Read: Stating that he had heard that Mr. Arthur was not responsible for a penny of the account, and that it would be necessary for him to re-write both the documents, of which he had press copies, inserting Mr. Henderson's name instead of Mr. Arthur's, and failing his receiving both papers the next morning he would issue a writ for the whole amount)—he did not reply to that at all, and on July 19th I went to Putney and saw one of his assistants—I went back to town and saw my solicitors—I am not sure whether I went to the Grand Theatre—about 3.30 or 4 p.m. I returned to Putney and waited in his shop till 8 p.m. or there about—I then went to the theatre, not having seen him, and endeavoured to find Leslie, but failed to do so—I saw Mr. Merer and had a communication from him—I saw Webber that day July 19th for the first time at 12 p.m. at his shop—Mr. Parsons, a friend of mine, was with me at the time—I told Webber that we had seen Mr. Merer, and we had asked him to tell us what electrical work Webber was supposed to be doing at the theatre; that I had told him what particular class of goods he (Webber) had ordered for the theatre, and that he had replied to his knowledge he (Webber) had no authority to order such large quantities of electrical, goods for use at the theatre for any purpose at all; that we searched the theatre to see if we could find any of the goods and had failed to find any; that we had had the night watchman before us to answer questions we put to him as to whether he had ever seen any such goods in the place, and that he had described fairly accurately the batteries which from his description seemed to be the type that we were supposed to have supplied: that we had asked the night watchman what had become of these goods, and that he had said a fortnight ago a truck load of goods of that nature had been taken away from the theatre, and that only that morning a van load had left at about 8.15—Webber said that that was his first intimation that the goods were not at the theatre—I said that it was most important, and that he was responsible to us for the goods, and he should take some action in the matter to find out where they had gone to, and it seemed to me he ought to take some action against Leslie, as the night watchman had told us that it was under Leslie's instructions that these things had been taken away from the theatre—we had to argue with him for some time; he said it was a very strong move to take—we tried to persuade him to come to the police station to see what action he would take, but he was not willing to do so; he said it was a very strong move, and he would hesitate "before doing anything of the—we persuaded him to accompany us to the police station with one of his assistants—I went inside the police station and we put the case as clearly as we could—Webber and his assistant stayed outside, saying they did not wish to come in—we could get the police to do nothing—we then all went to Leslie's house, No. 22, Bangalore Street, which was within six or seven minutes, walk—one of the party attempted to push the bell when Webber said, "Do not try that push; it is out of

order"—we knocked, and a lady calling herself Mrs. Leslie came to the door—on inquiring whether Leslie was in we found that he was out—we could not make a forcible entry, so we all went back to Webber's shop, when an assistant there stated that Leslie had called, and that he had told him we were looking for him; that Leslie had gone back to his house, and that he, the assistant, was surprised we had not met him—we went back again to Leslie's house and again inquired for him, but he was not there; the door was opened by the same lady—Webber and Mr. Parsons went back to his (Webber's) shop to see if Leslie had by any chance returned there—we made the arrangement to meet Webber at his shop at 8 o'clock the next morning—on meeting him there he stated that he was going to see his father, who was then in London, and after that he would come on to my solicitors to make further arrangements—he did not come—I saw him on the evening of the same day—I am not sure where, but I think I called at his shop—we proceeded to the theatre, where we saw Mr. Merer—Mr. Merer asked Webber why he had sent in Mr. Henderson's invoices to him, as Mr. Henderson had left the theatre about eight months previously, and why he had sent invoices made out to Mr. Arthur to Leslie—Webber had no definite explanation to offer; he simply said that he had always sent his invoices into Mr. Merer, and so he continued to do so in spite of the fact that Mr. Henderson had left—I am afraid we did not get any explanation for his having sent invoices of Mr. Arthur to Leslie—on July 19th, before we proceeded to the police station, Webber said he had seen two letters in Leslie's possession, one coming from Mr. Henderson, authorising Leslie to carry out electrical work at the theatre to the value of £3,000, and another letter from Mr. Arthur, authorising Leslie to spend £8,000—I asked him if he had them in his possession, and he said, "No"—I asked him if he had got any copies to show us, and he said he had not—on my asking him, he said he was quite satisfied to order such goods for such a man even though he had not the authorisation in his possession—on my visits to the theatre on one occasion I saw three or four of those special stage plugs, and I think I saw one sparking plug—the whole of the things would come to £2 or £2 10s.; that is all I saw as the result of the indebtedness to me from Webberof £1,182 14s.—I afterwards went to the garage in Dryad Street, Putney, where I saw a large quantity of electrical material stored, including some 4,000 lamps—I made this inventory of goods I identified as my own (Ex. 93), of which there were very few—amongst other things I saw there, there were 4,000 lamps, some four miles of flexible wire, a mile or a mile and a half of cable, eight electric table fans, 40 1/2 lbs. of rubber solution, and a number of other thing—on going to see Mr. Merer at the theatre on the Friday after, July 21st, I met Webber; I had arranged to meet him there to once more go into the matter with Mr. Merer—We found that Mr. Merer would not be ready for us for another half an hour, and Webber went back to his shop, where, I believe, he was arrested—according to these invoices (Ex. 118) the plugs purport to have been sold by Webber to the theatre at 10s.—they seem to date from January 19th to April 29th—I have been through the invoices made out to Mr. Henderson more particularly, in company with Mr. Suter

the theatre—that was the first time that I had heard of Mr. Henderson's name in the matter—on hearing that information, on the same day or the day after I went to see Webber—he was out and I waited in his shop an hour and then I wrote this letter of July 17th (Read: Stating that he had heard that Mr. Arthur teas not responsible for a penny of the account, and that it would be necessary for him to re-write both the documents, of which he had press copies, inserting Mr. Henderson's name instead of Mr. Arthurs, and failing his receiving both papers the next morning he would issue a writ for the whole amount)—he did not reply to that at all, and on July 19th I went to Putney and saw one of his assistants—I went back to town and saw my solicitors—I am not sure whether I went to the Grand Theatre—about 3.30 or 4 p.m. I returned to Putney and waited in his shop till 8 p.m. or thereabouts—I then went to the theatre, not having seen him, and endeavoured to find Leslie, but failed to do so—I saw Mr. Merer and had a communication from him—I saw Webber that day July 19th for the first time at 12 p.m. at his shop—Mr. Parsons, a friend of mine, was with me at the time—I told Webber that we had seen Mr. Merer, and we had asked him to tell us what electrical work Webber was supposed to be doing at the theatre; that I had told him what particular class of goods he (Webber) had ordered for the theatre, and that he had replied to his knowledge he (Webber) had no authority to order such large quantities of electrical goods for use at the theatre for any purpose at all; that we searched the theatre to see if we could find any of the goods and had failed to find any; that we had had the night watchman before us to answer questions we put to him as to whether he had ever seen any such goods in the place, and that he had described fairly accurately the batteries which from his description seemed to be the type that we were supposed to have supplied: that we had asked the night watchman what had become of these goods, and that he had said a fortnight ago a truck load of goods of that nature had been taken away from the theatre, and that only that morning a van load had left at about 8.15—Webber said that that was his first intimation that the goods were not at the theatre—I said that it was most important, and that he was responsible to us for the goods, and he should take some action in the matter to find out where they had gone to, and it seemed to me he ought to take some action against Leslie, as the night watchman had told us that it was under Leslie's instructions that these things had been taken away from the theatre—we had to argue with him for some time; he said it was a very strong move to take—we tried to persuade him to come to the police station to see what action he would take, but he was not willing to do so; he said it was a very strong move, and he would hesitate before doing anything of the kind—we persuaded him to accompany us to the police station with one of his assistants—I went inside the police station and we put the case as clearly as we could—Webber and his assistant stayed outside, saying they did not wish to come in—we could get the police to do nothing—we then all went to Leslie's house, No. 22, Bangalore Street, which was within six or seven minutes' walk—one of the party attempted to push the bell when Webber said, "Do not try that push; it is out of

whether there were not any lower than that—I had never heard of the Electrical Accessories Co. before; I had heard of the Accessories Manufacturing Co. in Oxford Street—I had had no dealings with the former firm—I did not make any inquiries as to them—it may be that 1 charged Webber for 2,376 plugs, but in that case I have not looked carefully enough at my accounts—on the first occasion when Leslie said he must have the goods at once and I let him take delivery from the Accessories Co., I was not satisfied that it was the right thing to do, but it was 2.30 to 3 p.m. on a Saturday—of course I appreciated if Leslie took them they would be delivered at the theatre—I remember on one occasion seeing at Webber's shop some large slate slabs about five or six feet long—he did not tell me how many there were to be—he told me they were to be fitted up with the sparking plugs in them—I am on the Committee of Inspection of Mr. Webber's bankruptcy, and their solicitors represent the prosecution in this case—to the best of my recollection, £4,223 was paid by Webber to the different firms of electricians, the £4,000 that passed into his account and £300 he borrowed in part payment for goods delivered at the theatre—I have not checked the invoices found on him; nor have I checked the invoices, amounting to £1,700, that were sent in to Mr. Henderson—I should say we did not go to Leslie's house before we went to the police station on the night of July 19th; we all went to the police station in a cab—I am quite sure Webber and I did not go to the police station on the 20th with reference to getting a warrant against Leslie—I cannot say that that is not so; I am not absolutely sure—I remember now that we did go together—the sergeant arranged first of all that we were to go to the Magistrate at Lavender Hill; that he would send a constable to go with us by the train next morning, and I was to meet Webber and go together—I do not remember going to the station, but I remember the interview—I believe I telephoned to Webber that I could not keep that appointment in the morning, but I met him in the evening of the 21st at the theatre—I wrote this letter to him on one occasion (Ex. 49, read: Thanking him for hit orders, which they were delivering to Leslie at the Grand Theatre, and that they understood in doing so they were carrying out his (Webbers) wishes.)

Re-examined. I thought Leslie was bringing me the business in the first place because there was a possibility of his getting commission out of it—it is not unusual to deliver goods to the man actually in charge of the work, as Leslie was—every time I saw him I pressed him for information as to this display, but I could not get any more than what he told me I it was a secret, and I felt bound to respect that confidence—Webber told me that he was perfectly satisfied about Mr. Arthur's position in the matter—I cannot tell you whether Webber was still reluctant to go to the police station on July 20th—I will accept it that he did go with me, but I do not recollect it—the application to the Magistrate was for a search warrant to search the garage at Dryad Street to see whether the goods were there—I now remember that Webber did go with me to the police station on the night of the 20th—on that night I heard from the theatre that Leslie had not been

seen since about 8.30 p.m.—these sparking plugs may be used for lighting gas, and therefore can be usefully employed at a theatre.

GIBBS MURRAY . I am a traveller in the employ of Gent & Co., and live at 36, Culverden Road, Balham—on May 19th, in consequence of instructions received from Mr. Hohne, I called and saw Webber at his place of business—I said I had called with reference to an order that had been placed with our firm and asked him for his references—I said that the order was for a rather big amount, a matter of £500, and f asked him what provision he was going to make for payment—he said he could not pay it just at the moment, but he would pay it during the usual monthly returns—he said he could not pay cash, but would pay at the end of the month—he mentioned Mr. Robert Arthur, of the Fulham Theatre—he said they had work on at the theatre and the account would be paid, when the job was completed, by Mr. Robert Arthur—he said he would pay at the end of that month, and that Mr. Arthur paid his accounts regularly.

FREDERICK WILLIAMS . I am a carman employed by Pickford's, Ltd., and live at 10, Han well Road, Fulham—this is my delivery sheet of June 10th (Ex. 85), by which I see that I delivered five cases consigned by Gent I Co. to Webber at 63, High Street, Putney—it is signed for by an assistant of the name of Sexton.

ARTHUR AUGUSTUS BOND . I am the manager of Joseph Sperati, electrical engineer, of 12, Mortimer Street—Leslie called at the shop in the early part of June and saw me—he told me that he was the engineer for the Grand Theatre, Fulham, and asked me if I could supply him with certain electrical materials, amongst which were Pognon sparking plugs, switches, lamp-holders, etc.—I did not know at that time what a Pognon sparking plug was, and I asked him what they were; he told me they were used for stage effects, or "theatrical effects, "I believe he said—he told me there were two or three makes in the market, but he wanted a particular one, which could only be got from the Electrical Accessories Co., of Terminus Chambers, Holborn Viaduct—he produced this document (Ex. 75), dated June 7th, written on Webber's memorandum, purporting to be signed by "G. Webber, "and amongst other things Webber purported to order were four gross of Pognon plugs with adapters as selected, twenty-four plugs, twenty-four batteries, and twenty-four stage plugs—he told me that Webber was an ironmonger in Putney, who did all the work for the Grand Theatre—I told him I should want to make some inquiries as to Webber before I supplied the goods, and he said that Webber would give every facility for making the necessary inquiry—I said, "It is a long way from Fulham to my place. What induced you to come to me?" and he said, "I have been highly recommended to you by a friend of yours"—I asked him who it was, and he said, laughingly, "You will know that all in good time"—he said, "Do you know how much that order comes to that you have got in your hand?"and I said, "I do not know; it roughly represents £400"—I asked him why he did not go direct to the Electrical Accessories Co. at Holborn Viaduct, and he said, "I have been there, but they will not give me a commission, and I consider for such an order as that I am entitled to some consideration, and, of course, you will not object to giving me something?"

—I said, "Certainly not; I shall be very pleased"—he said, "I do not want to be greedy; 5 per cent, will satisfy me, if you are agreeable, "and I said, "Yes, I agree with that."

Saturday, November 18th.

GIBBS MURRAY (Cross-examined by MR. DICKENS). Webber did not say that he expected to be paid when the job was done, but when he had this cheque from Mr. Arthur—I did not mean to say that he said the account would be paid when the job was done, and that the job was to be completed at the end of the month—I do not think I put it, "He had work at the heater and the account would be paid when the job was completed" (Extract read from the official shorthand note)—if I said that yesterday, I should like to withdraw it, because the job would take such a long time and it would not be usual to pay for a job at the completion, because it might take six months—I knew nothing of the job except so far as I was supplying goods.

ARTHUR AUGUSTUS BOND (Re-called). I kept the order of June 7th while Webber's references were consulted—on receiving on June 10th this letter from Webber (Ex. 76, read: Stating that he would be pleased to open a monthly account with him (Bond), and enclosing two references) I communicated with the references and found them satisfactory—I paid a visit to the Electrical Accessories Co., of Terminus Chambers, about June 10th, and saw Cheesman, who was the only person there at the time—I gave her my business card, and asked to see samples of Pognon plugs and stage batteries—she showed me a sample plug, quoting me them at 6s. each, cash within seven days—I accepted that—the next day I went to see Webber at High Street, Putney, and, telling him whom I came from, I said I had had an order from Leslie, the engineer of the Grand Theatre, Fulham, and as it was rather a large transaction I should be pleased if he would give me something on account—he said, "How much is the order?" and I said, "I think about £400"—he said, "Yes, it is rather a large order, and he referred to what I believe is the bank pass book, and said, "I cannot very well manage it, but you will get your cheque as soon as the account is due"—I do not think there was anything more definite on that occasion with regard to when payment would be made—it was arranged beforehand that the terms were to be monthly, but I did not mention that to Webber—I left and the order was duly executed—I got a further order on June 16th—on a Friday evening, I believe, Leslie called and said he wanted the plugs and batteries at once as they were getting some stage effects ready for the Monday following—I told him we were closing and had nobody to send for them, and he said he must have these things and asked me if I would give him an order on the Accessories Co. and he would collect them himself—I gave him this order (Ex. 77) for fifty dozen Pognon plugs, with adapters, twenty-four stage plugs, and twenty-four batteries—on the following day I received from Webber a letter thanking me for the prompt delivery of the goods (Ex. 79)—with the exception of the sample plug shown to me by Cheesman, I never saw any of these plugs at all; I took it for granted that my orders were being

fulfilled by the Accessories Co.—the method of delivery after that was always to Leslie—there were other goods which I supplied out of my own stock and took over myself to Webber—on June 17th there is a receipt for goods supplied by the Accessories Co. signed by Leslie—within a short time I received an account from that company for £345, less 2 1/2 per cent discount, £336 7s. 6d. (Ex. 81); it is dated June 17th, and I sent a cheque for that amount (Ex. 82) at the expiration of the seven days, dated June 22nd, "Pay F. Cheesman, or order, "which went through my bankers and was paid—when delivering the balance of the goods, that is, such, things as came out of my own stock, I did not see Webber, but I had a conversation with one of his employees—I should say that the value of the goods I supplied out of my own stock was £20—seeing Webber later, I told him I had just delivered two cases of accessories in a cab and his assistant had signed for them, but that he would not sign for the things supplied by the Electrical Accessories Co., as he did not know anything about them—Webber said, "Oh, I will sign for those, "and he did—this is his signature on this counterfoil (Ex. 83, read: Stating that he had received from Joseph Sperati in good order and condition five dozen plugs, with adapters, twenty-four six-way stage plugs, and four batteries)—he said, "As you have got them, in a cab outside, you might take them there for me," he meant my goods—I agreed to do so, but as the cabman wanted to go somewhere else I left them on the premises—on June 22nd I sent Webber this account (Ex. 84) for £460 19s.—I never got anything from him at all on account of that.

Cross-examined by MR. GRIAN. When Leslie first spoke to me I did not know he was connected in any way with Webber as agent—I understood that Webber did the work for the Grand Theatre, and the orders came through him—I made no inquiries as to Leslie; I understood Webber was my principal—the commission of 5 per cent., I gathered, was the only benefit Leslie got from it—when I went and saw Cheesman I saw there was a small stock; I do not know that I saw any cases; I cannot say one way or the other—the receipt has the stamp of the Electrical Accessories Co., with "F. C." underneath it.

Cross-examined by MR. DICKENS. I can fix the date now as June 14th when Webber told me that I should have some money when the account was due, because he wrote to me on June 15th (Ex. 78, read): "With reference to your call yesterday, as the goods are urgently wanted, will you be good enough to deliver the same according to Leslie's instructions?"—the first time I went to the Electrical Accessories Co. there was nobody there—I knew nothing about them—it was the first I had heard of the Pognon Sparking plug; I had never known them used in electric lighting—sparking plugs are never used for that purpose, but for motors—I cannot say that I mentioned the name Electrical Accessories Co. to Webber when I said to him his assistant would not sign for the other goods—I brought goods myself in a cab to the value of about £40—I said to him, "Your man does not appear to know anything about the goods that Leslie had, and he will not sign," and he said, "Very well, I will sign for them"—on the counterfoil which he signed the name of the Electrical Accessories Co. is not mentioned at all.

ROGER DAWSON . I am the governing director of Roger Dawson, Limited, electrical engineers, of 8, Berners Street—in consequence of Leslie calling on May 20th or thereabouts, orders came forward signed by Webber—by Exhibit 120 Webber ordered goods including batteries and Pognon plugs to be delivered to bearer—Exhibit 121 shows that Webber supplied the references, for which we applied and found satisfactory—on May 24th we got a further order, and on May 27th an order for fifty dozen Pognon plugs, with adapters—it had been arranged that he should pay thirty days from the date of the delivery of the goods, the first delivery being on May 20th—we wrote to him as regards payment, and on June 3rd he replied (Ex. 124, read: Stating that in reference to the goods supplied he would let them have cheque the latter part of that month, which would be thirty days from the date of the invoice)—that was followed by a memorandum from Leslie, in which he says he encloses an order, and, "I have had part of the goods under a certain arrangement. I will call and see you to-morrow"—the goods in these invoices (Produced) were certainly delivered to Webber's own place—the sparking plugs ordered were to be delivered direct by the Electrical Accessories Co. by arrangement with Leslie—by Exhibit 125 fifty dozen Pognon plugs were ordered, which work out at £157 10s.—Exhibit 126 orders two gross of plugs, with adapters, and Exhibit 127 is the invoice—further plugs were ordered by Exhibit 128, and on June 17th we got an order signed by Webber for forty-eight six-way stage plugs—the last order was Exhibit 130, for two figures fitted with electric light, which we supplied ourselves—just before June 29th we made an application to Webber for payment, when he wrote to us saying that he would forward cheque during the early part of the next week—yielding to demands for immediate payment from the Electrical Accessories Co., on June 30th we paid them a cheque for £613 10s.—the cheque has been returned to us in due course paid, indorsed, "F. Cheesman," for the Electrical Accessories Co.—Webber not having paid, on July 5th I went down to Putney and saw him—I asked him for a cheque and he told me he had been unable to get one from the theatre people—I told him it was a very large amount for a first transaction, although I had had good references; that he had promised me faithfully that I should have a cheque by the end of the week—I asked him then what these plugs were being used for, and he told me it was an invention or patent that was being taken out for a lightning effect at theatres and the plugs were being used for that—he told me the plugs were very satisfactory, but the experiments were not completed, although they would be in a very few days—I asked him if I could go to the theatre and see them, but he said it was a secret, and that nobody could see it until it was finished—he said that he had seen them himself constantly; that he had been to the theatre and saw them being fixed, and that there were hundreds of them already fixed—I was then satisfied to leave the matter for a few days—he said no would send a cheque the following Saturday, when he got his money from the theatre—on July 7th I wired to him and received this reply from him on that day (Ex. 134, read: Acknowledging receipt of wire; and stated that he regretted he should have to disappoint him

with a cheque that week, but that he could rely on his (Webber) doing his best the next week as early as possible)—I was expecting a cheque that morning—I think a wire was sent that unless a cheque was paid that day, a writ would be issued—he wrote to me on July 11th, but with no cheque, and I think I sent another wire on that day—his total indebtedness to me was between £800 and £900, made up of £613 10s. I had paid to the Electrical Accessories Co. and goods from my own stock.

By the COURT. I believe some of my goods were found at the garage—I have never seen a Pognon plug before.

Cross-examined by MR. DICKENS. My manager, Mr. Jackson, saw Leslie when the first order was given, and he told me what had passed—he told me he had asked Leslie what the sparking plugs were for on more than one occasion, and Leslie had told him the same tale that Webber had told me—that was before I had any conversation with Webber—I am not mixing up what took place between Leslie and my manager and what took place between Webber and myself—I believe Leslie said to my manager that it was a patent which had been taken out for lightning effects—I cannot remember what I said before the Magistrate—I was asked the conversation I had with Webber and I told my version of it—it may be that I never said a word about the patent, or that the plugs were being used for lightning effects, or that the experiments were quite satisfactory, but not complete—I am quite clear about all that took place with Webber—I cannot say why I did not mention those things before; I did not want to say any more than was necessary; it was all being taken down in long hand, and it took a very long time—I thought I had said quite sufficient—I am quite clear that he said no one was allowed to see it and it was a secret—I do not know whether Leslie had said that to my manager.

Re-examined. I have given my version of the conversation as I corrrectly remember it.

WILLIAM HENRY ARCHER . I am the city manager of the firm of Strode & Co., of 67, St. Paul's Churchyard, electrical engineers—on May 10th Leslie called upon us and I saw him—he said he was the electrical engineer at the Fulham Theatre and he would require a large quantity of electrical goods, and that the order would be placed through Mr. Webber, of High Street, Putney, who was the contractor to the theatre—he implied he came by Webber's authority and showed me an order from him—he did not leave the order then—it was signed by Webber and on Webber's business paper—I told him we should be pleased to do the business if Webber's references were satisfactory—on May 12th I received this letter from Webber (Ex. 12, read: Stating that he would be requiring some electrical goods, and would be glad to open an account with them (Strode & Co.), and giving two references)—we made inquiries into the references and found them mainly satisfactory, but not good enough to trust them with that large amount of goods—on that same day Leslie brought this order (Ex. 13) for twelve batteries, twenty-four plugs, and four gross of plugs with adapters, and other things—I do not know whether I told him we had not yet taken up he references, but, at any rate, we had not yet done so—not knowing the value of these plugs, I put Webber's credit to the test of £150, and the

references only being satisfactory to a point, I wrote him for farther ones—on May 20th he wrote to us (Read: Stating the names of two further firms as references; that he unshed to haw a monthly account, and would be glad to know at their earliest convenience whether they could execute the order, as he was limited to time)—on inquiring into the further references, one of which was the London & County Bank, we considered the result satisfactory—Leslie came about this time and said that it was Pognon plugs that were wanted—it was about May 15th that he first mentioned that—I said I did not know where we could purchase them, and he said, "You need not trouble about it. I know you can only purchase them from one place; that is the Electrical Accessories Co., of Terminus Chambers, Holborn Viaduct"—I had not heard of the Pognon plug up to that date—on May 25th we received an order for one gross of Pognon phigs, with adapters (Ex. 17)—when I went to the Electrical Accessories Co. I was informed there was nobody there—I sent my assistant several times—that first gross was supplied by them to us at St. Paul's Churchyard and we despatched them to Webber by Carter Paterson—the advice note to Webber followed by post, and it did not come back, so he had it as far as I know—on May 27th we had a further order signed by him for twelve batteries as selected (Ex. 19)—May 27th was a Saturday, and it was May 99th when Leslie brought the order—he told me he had received another gross of plugs from the Electrical Accessories Co., and that he had pledged our credit for another twelve batteries, and that this was the order for them—I told him it was a wrong thing to do, and not to do it again; that we could not have people pledging our credit to that extent—at that time I did not know the batteries were so valuable as they turned out to be when I received the invoice from the Electrical Accessories Co.—I told him that we expected the things to come into our warehouse and to be seen before they were forwarded on to them, and before they were invoiced—he said the circumstances were rather unusual, he knew, but it was all right, and he had brought the order from Webber, so we need not fear that it was all in order—he said at every interview that things were very pressing, and he had pot to get up these electrical effects—on one occasion he said that he had a staff of men waiting there to take the goods from the Electrical Accessories Co. to the theatre to get on with the work—I understood him to mean that they were waiting in close proximity to out warehouse—on his promising me to bring back the goods I said, "If you will give me your word that you will bring back these two gross and two dozen plugs here for me to see, I will give you an authority to go to the Electrical Accessories Co. for them"—he gave me the promise, and I gave him authority to receive the two gross and twenty-four plugs—he did not come back with them—a day or two later he came and said he was sorry he had not fulfilled his promise to bring the plugs back as arranged, but that he had really brought them back at fifteen or twenty minutes past 7, and had found our shop closed—I am not sure whether he said he had taken them on to Webber or the theatre—I do not remember his saying that he had pledged our credit any further—from time to time he was at our premises after that—I do not remember any further orders

after that—we gave one order to the Electrical Accessories Co., which was delivered at different times, amounting in the aggregate to £232 15s. 9d.—with the exception of the first gross, I never saw any other plugs—we supplied some portion of the original order from our stock—the total amount of Webber's indebtedness to us was £331 2s.—about June 20th I went to see him and asked him if he had received all the goods in accordance with our invoices and advice notes, and as it was a large amount I thought I had better call—he said he had received all the goods and our account was in order, and it would be paid on the last day of that month or the first of the following month—then he said he knew where the goods were, and could put his hands on them at any moment; he volunteered that statement—I said, "We are trusting you for a large amount, and we have nothing to do, of course, with whom you are trusting, but we are looking to you for payment," and he said, "That is all right. They have paid me thousands of pounds, and it is all right"—I believe he said "thousands of pounds," but I will not swear to it—he wrote to us on June 10th saying he would let us have a cheque on July 3rd, but no cheque came on that day—Leslie called on us on July 1st, and said that we were pressing Webber, who was annoyed, unduly, and if I could get our people to stay their hand until Monday (this was a Saturday) we should be paid; that he knew very well the manager of the theatre had promised Webber a cheque and we should have ours in due course—about June 27th we had an account from the Electrical Accessories Co. for £232 15s. 9d.; that had been preceded by some correspondence between us in which they were insisting on immediate payment—it culminated in our sending a cheque for that amount on June 26th, with a letter saying that having regard to their arbitrary manner in dealing with the transaction we finally closed the account with them—on July 8th a cheque was sent by Webber to our head office on the London & County Bank, Limited, High Street, Putney, for £331 2s. (Ex. 33)—we presented it, but it was dishonored—we received no money at all from him.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. The two printed receiving notes found at Terminus Chambers, dated May 19th and May 26th, "Please receive I gross of Pognon plugs," and so on, are initialled by a clerk or someone—I understood that Leslie was an agent acting on behalf of Webber, and that Webber was from beginning to end my principal in the matter and I only inquired into his references—Leslie remarked that he had not been, treated fairly by the firm with whom he had recently been doing business, and that we should treat him well—if the business were satisfactory we might have given him something in consideration of the introduction——in consequence of his telling me that he was the electrician at the Grand Theatre, Fulham, I went there on June 20th for the purpose of seeing him; I wanted really to find out if he was genuinely employed there—I got there in the evening—I did not see him, but I saw a man at the stage door, who informed me that Leslie was the electrician—I made no inquiry on that occasion about the plugs—the only occasion on which I saw Cheesman was on the morning of June 28th—we had made the cheque out to the Electrical Accessories Co., crossed, and she came and asked for a cheque

not to payees account only, as it then was; she wanted an open cheque—I told her to go to our Sandburg Street peoples.

Cross-examined by MR. DICKENS. Leslie suggested we should charge Webber 7s. 3d. a plug—we charged him 7s. 9d. because we had to pay 5s. 9d. for the plugs—I said before the Magistrate that Leslie said they could be obtained for 5s. 3d. on May 12th, the same day as he suggested we should charge Webber 7s. 3d. and I told him that I thought 7s. was a fair price; and that is correct—I have since looked at the books to refresh my memory, and now know exactly what it was—I do not think there is anything in the books to show that Leslie said they could be obtained for 5s. 3d. except by my assistant referring to his pencil notes—I was speaking from memory when before the Magistrate—I said before the Magistrate, when asked to justify my charging 7s. 9d. when Leslie had said 7s. 3d. that it was clerical error; I thought so then, but it could not have been—the explanation now is that the 7s. 3d. was on the basis that we had to pay 5s. 3d. but as we had to pay 5s. 9d. we charged 7s. 9d.—when I saw the entry in the books it brought back the conversation to me—I was easily satisfied by Leslie right through this matter—I was not aware that sparking plugs were not used in electric installation—there must be something wrong if I said before the Magistrate that I did—I had not thought about it, as a matter of fact; I took it for granted that they were for use at the theatre—I had never heard of the Electrical Accessories Co. before—on May 22nd my assistant wrote to "The Accessories Co. (Extract read): "Gentlemen,—We have your quotation for Pognon plugs, but we are informed it is not your bottom prices. Some of our competitors are purchasing at a lowest one "—as a matter of fact we had no competitors at all, but I wanted to get a lower quotation (Further extract read): "We shall require a large quantity of these plugs and can place an order for several gross immediately"—Leslie said that he wanted the accessories supplied direct because he had a gang of people waiting—I did not believe it when he told me that he had returned with the plugs and found the shop closed, because I am almost positive that I was there at the time he said he came—I did not ask him to explain—the quantity of plugs ordered struck me as ridiculous, and I asked Leslie about it and he said the manager had ordered them and he could not question what they told him, and that he required them for electrical effects—I took that for granted—he was an extremely plausible man—when Webber said he had been doing business for thousands of pounds it implied to my mind that my transaction was very much smaller than anything he had been doing; he said he had been doing business for large amounts.

Re-examined. When I wrote to the Electrical Accessories Co. that some of our competitors were purchasing at a lower price than 5s. 9d. I was going by what Leslie had told me—I had no complaint from Webber from beginning to the end as to the price we were charging him.

WILLIAM CHARLES DAVEY . I am a salesman employed by Strode and Co.—in May Leslie called at the office and had a conversation with me—he said that he was in a position to place orders with us from Webber

who had a contract from the Fulham Theatre for £5,000 for twelve months—he said he (Leslie) was the engineer of the Fulham Theatre—subsequently he saw Mr. Archer, and on Saturday, about ten days afterwards, May 27th, he came just before closing up time and said he had got a gang of men working on the Saturday night and on Sunday at the Fulham Theatre and he must have the plugs he had ordered—I told him that I had been to the Electrical Accessories Co. in the morning two or three times to see if I could get them and I could not get them—he said he could and that he knew where to get them—I then gave him a pencil note to the company to give him one gross of plugs (Ex. 26, read): "Please give bearer one gross of plugs on order—it should be dated May 27th and not May 26th.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I saw Cheeeman after Leslie had been to Mr. Archer—I have seen her three times, I should think, to ask her about the plugs—she quoted the price to me as 5s. 9d. and she gave me a sample plug off the counter—I did not see similar articles about; I saw a little stock there, but not large; a few batteries—I do not know about any parcels that were closed up—I went there on one or two occasions, when I found the door of the office closed—Leslie said that 5s. 3d. was the price Webber paid for the plugs; that they could be got for 5s. 3d. and I told Mr. Archer that—I asked Cheesman if 5s. 9d. was the lowest price and she said, "Yes"—I said, "We can get them at a lower price," but I did not say anything about Leslie to her; that is all that passed on that interview—I went down and saw her after the order had been sent, and told her that we had not received the plugs, and she said they would be sent on—I did not see her again until she came into oar shop about a cheque—whatever I asked her on any occasion she answered openly—when I returned, after having seen her about the price, I did not make any note of it—I am sure that Leslie gave us the price as 5s. 3d. and that Cheeeman quoted 5s. 9d.

Cross-examined by MR. DICKENS. It was understood what we charged to Webber was on the basis of what we paid ourselves—Mr. Archer may have said before that it was a clerical error that the plugs were charged at 7s. 9d.; he did not remember.

Re-examined. It was about a week after Leslie told us that the plugs could be obtained at 5s. 3d. that I ascertained from the Electrical Accessories Co. that they were 5s. 9d.—I had been there several times before I could find them and when Leslie came into the shop once I told him I could not find it and he said, "You ought to be able to find it; it is at Terminus Chambers"—I went there again and found it.

ALBERT REGALDI . I am the accountant to Strode & Co.—my firm had some correspondence with the Electrical Accessories Co. at the end of June with regard to their account—on June 27th I went to Terminus Chambers with a blank cheque, which I filled in there—I saw Cheeeman there—she gave me no name at the time, but she signed a receipt in my presence in the name of "A. Morton" or "Norton"—I explained to her that I had called in reference to the account and that we were surprised at the way in which they were pressing for payment; that we

had a definite promise from our own clients for payment in a few days, and I asked her to let the account stand over till the following Monday—I also asked to see the principal—she said that the principal was a Mr. Cheeeman and she could not let the account stand over, and he was going to issue a writ against us—on that I made out a cheque, she making up the statement for me, making it payable to the Electrical Accessories Co., and crossing it" Account of payees only"—I appended my signature—she said there was no such account at all for the Electrical Accounts Co., and all cheques had to be payable to" F. Cheesman" as marked on the top of their invoices—I took back the cheque and on the following day I posted this cheque (Ex. 34) of June 27th—that cheque was passed through our account—on June 29th I went to see Webber and explained that we had been unexpectedly called upon to pay for these goods and asked him under the circumstances to let us have a cheque on account—I pressed him very hard for one, but he said he could not do so under any circumstances then, but he could fully rely on getting his own cheque from the theatre people on the Saturday following, and he would post us a cheque to reach us on the Monday morning for certain—he said in all probability he would see them on the Friday instead of Saturday, and we should then have our cheque on the Saturday—the Saturday following would be July 1st—I called again on July 5th and expressed surprise that we had not had a cheque, and he said he would see his bank and try to arrange it, and he promised to telephone us through whether we should have the cheque or not—we got no message from him whatever—on July 8th we received a cheque from him.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. On my asking Cheeeman whom the business really belonged to, she said, "Mr. Cheeeman"—I swear that she said the proprietor was "Mr. Cheesman" and the manager "Mr. Knight"—on my asking to see either of them she said they were both out.

Cross-examined by MR. DICKSONS. I am absolutely certain that Webber said he was expecting a cheque from the theatre people—he said he very often saw them and generally in the evening—perhaps I have not said that before, but I certainly remember it.

JOHN DUNK . I am a carman in the employment of Carter Paterson—upon looking at this delivery sheet (Ex. 42) I find that I took a parcel of goods on May 23rd consigned from Strode & Co. to George Webber, of 63, High Street, Putney, and the receipt for those goods was signed by G. Webber—on May 24th I delivered goods from Strode's to George Webber, of the same address, and they were signed for by "H. Evans"(Ex. 46)—on May 27th I took goods from Strode's to George Webber and the receipt is signed by "H. Evans" (Ex. 45).

Cross-examined by MR. DICKENS. The record on my delivery sheets does not give any description of what the parcels delivered contained.

GEORGE JAMES EVERED . I am managing director of Evered & Co., Limited, gas and electrical fitters, of Drury Lane—about the 15th to the 19th April Leslie called upon me, bringing orders from Webber, amongst them

being orders for sparking plugs—I should like to correct, if I may now, a statement that I made at the Guildhall, which was hardly correct; I see I am supposed to have stated that I had orders for sparking plugs; they were not sparking plugs, I never heard on the term "sparking" at all: they were always "Pognom plugs"—these are the documents which followed on this visit, and show the transactions which arose out of his interview (Produced)—they commence with the letter of April 20th which I wrote to Webber (Ex. 104, read: Stating that a messenger had called with orders from him (Webber) amounting to over £300 which he wished to take away with him; that the greater fart was for patent articles which they had not in stock, and in view of the amount, they thought it better that he (Webber) should obtain these direct himself)—I received a reply to that letter from Webber on April 25th (Ex. 105, read: Saying that he would be glad if they would accept his orders; that he had a big job at the Fulham Theatre and the goods must he had in order to complete the work; that he did not wish this to be on his usual account, but to be treated as a special account, and he would undertake to settle it some time in May)—this is an order for four gross of plugs, as selected, and twenty-four plugs, as selected, and a number of other things—we ultimately executed that order—in regard to the earliest order, Webber paid £100, which was succeeded by another payment of £125—the credit was considerably extended after that—other things were supplied out of my own stock, the payments by Webber being only in relation to the goods supplied by the Electrical Accessories Co.—I am hardly in a position to say whether those payments left over all other things which we had supplied at that time; some of them at any rate—the last payment was made on June 10th—on June 14th we got an order for eight gross of plugs, with adapters, four dozen stage plugs, as selected, four dozen batteries, and four dozen plugs, as selected—I sent an order to the Electrical Accessories Co. for two gross of Pognon plugs, two gross of plugs, four dozen plugs, two dozen plugs, two dozen six-way plugs and four dozen 100-ampere 6-volt batteries, which amounted in the aggregate to £661—Leslie told us that the Electrical Accessories Co. was the only place where the goods could be obtained—he gave us to understand that the batteries were a very small matter of a shilling or eighteen pence a-piece, but we found that by our invoices they came to something very much higher than that—that order was executed as far as we knew by the company—we presented our invoice to Webber on June 15th and it totaled to £873 12s.—it was not paid—on the same day that we sent that, he wrote to us (Ex. 110, read: Requesting them to supply to bearer fifty lamp holders and fifty-six plugs complete)—whenever the orders were to bearer Leslie was invariably the bearer—on June 16th I wrote to him (Read: Stating that the amount of the orders was rather more than they cared to take the responsibility of; that one portion delivered yesterday amounted to £700 or £800 and as they had to pay cash for these goods they would rather not accept any further orders until the first one ran off; and asking him (Webber) to run up and see them on Monday next)—to that Webber replied on the 19th (Read: Regretting that he was unable to call upon them that day and thanking them for the delivery of part of

the goods; that if they could see their way to give him a delivery of the rest of the order they could rely upon him letting them have a great portion of the balance of orders, and that they need not have any hesitation in completing the total amount)—on the 20th I wrote to him (Read: Stating that they were rather surprised at not having heard from him as arranged, and that they understood that the arrangement made was that they should receive either a cheque or a guarantee from Mr. Webber, senior, and they trusted he would not fail to tend them one of these)—it might have been a few days before that that I went down and saw him and said, "Do you quite realize the magnitude of the business you are doing? It is very unusual, I should say, for a man in your position"—he practically repeated what was told me in the first instance: that I had no need to fear; the matter was all sound business and there was a lot more to follow—I said, "I ought to have some guarantee for it. Mr. Webber, senior, whom we know to be a responsible gentleman, should either be your guarantee or the theatre company"—he said very little to the point, but that he would consider it over, and I told him I would leave him to consider which he should do; either let me have a guarantee or a cheque—he did not mention to me that there were a number of other persons with whom he was doing business in plugs—I cannot remember the exact date of the visit—three days after Leslie came with the orders, Webber called on me because I refused to execute them until I had seen him, as I had told Webber I mistrusted the man who was bringing me the orders, the reason for that being that he (Leslie) had asked what he was to get out of it in the shape of commission and he was rightly told by my secretary, "Nothing at all"—I told Webber exactly what had taken place, that Leslie was asking for commission and that I had told him that I would see that he was looked after to the tune of 50s.—Webber said, "Did he?"—he did not seem very much astonished—he said on that occasion I need have no fear at all; the orders were perfectly right—he said distinctly, "I am doing very large work for the Robert Arthur Theatre Co."—I understood that to mean that he was doing work for many theatres, and I rather gathered from the bulky orders that it was not this one theatre, but probably it was going to the other too—I looked upon Webber to get the money for the work from Robert Arthur—he assured me that was where it was coming from, and said that he was getting his money at the end of the month—I never got paid anything with regard to my £800 account—I think I may say I paid him three or four visits to his shop at Putney after that, at all of which interviews he reiterated what he had said before; in fact, he assured me from start to finish that there was nothing but what I might be perfectly satisfied with—he had been on our books for many years and I believed him—the account we previously had had with him may probably have been £100 a year, such as we would expect from an ironmonger of that sort—he wrote to me on June 30th (Read):"In reply to fours of the of 29th instant I will write you in the course of a few days stating the very earliest I will remit a cheque on account. You must admit the arrangements you suggest are not quite in keeping with the circumstances, considering the matter from every point"—that is the answer to the request that I

should have one of the two alternatives, either letting me have a guarantee or some money—the Electrical Accessories Co. were very peremptory in asking for payment; they had a most substantial claim against us—the first payment we made was one for £225 and the next one was for £661, we believing that the goods bad been supplied.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I placed no reliance on what Leslie said; I looked to Webber—Leslie is the person I alluded to when I said "messenger" in letter, Exhibit 104—we bought the plugs at 5s. and sold them to Webber at 7s.—I never saw Cheesman, nor did any representative of mine go there—I made no inquiries with reference to the Electrical Accessories Co. at all—I did not test any of the statements made to me by Leslie; I do not think I had the means to.

Cross-examined by MR. DICKENS. We invoiced the articles supplied by the Electrical Accessories Co. in our own name to Webber, but he knew—when I saw him in the first instance I said, "You know where to get these things from; why not get them direct?"—he never asked me, "Where do you get them from?" and I certainly did not say that I did not know—I should not like to pledge my word that he said he was doing work for the Robert Arthur Theatre Co.—I said that the quantity of goods ordered suggested that to me—he might have said he was doing work for Robert Arthur at the Fulham Theatre.

Re-examined. Our letter of April 20th to him implies that he knew where to get these things from—I also asked Leslie why he did not go direct to the Electrical Accessories Co., and he told me that Webber got a good profit on the transaction and wanted to get the use of our credit and could afford to pay for it—Webber said the same thing; not in so many words, but that is the conclusion I came to—I cannot say definitely that Webber said he was working for theatre or theatres.

W. HY. ARCHER (Re-examined). I said in answer to Mr. Dickens that since I have been before the Magistrate I have had an opportunity of referring to my books and a reference to a figure enables me to say in the first place that 5s. 3d. was the price Leslie quoted—in this order book at page 19, against the original order for Pognon plugs, occurs a note in pencil," 7s. 3d. "in my handwriting—we altered that selling price because we had to pay more.

Cross-examined by MR. TRAVERS HUMPHREYS. You will find nothing in the books with reference to Leslie saying I could get them at 5s. 3d.; that was simply verbal—the entry would be made on May 12th, but I cannot say how long afterwards the pencil note was made; it may be a day or two—I did not discuss with Leslie on May 12th about the prices, but my assistant did—it was a day or two afterwards that I did that—May 12th may have been the date when Leslie told me that the plugs mentioned were Pognon sparking plugs, as I said before the Magistrate, but I will not swear to it—if I said before that Leslie told us the plugs could be obtained for 5s. 9d. I must have got the figures confused; Leslie told me that they could be obtained for 5s. 3d.—at some date I said we had better charge Webber 7s. and Leslie suggested we should charge 7s. 3d.

FREDERICK JAMES NOTLEY . I am showroom manager to Escare and

Dennelle, Limited, electrical engineers—about the middle of May Leslie came and asked me if we could execute orders for Pognon plugs and various things connected with electricity, and he wanted to know if we could arrange a little something for himself—of course I told him he would have to speak to my principal about that, and no doubt probably be could arrange it—he said the order would emanate from Webber, of Putney—that was a strange name to me—I mentioned it to my principal, Mr. Escare and had some conversation with him with reference to it—at Mr. Escare's request I went down to see Webber at Putney about ten days after Leslie came; I think it would be about the third week in May—at that time I had this order dated May 20th for lamps, coils, switches, and "four gross of plugs; two dozen ditto, and twenty-four batteries, "signed by Webber (Ex. 87)—I told Webber it was rather a strange order, and of course we should require references; I meant strange in regard to the amount—he gave me two references and said the order was for some experimental work that the London County Council required at the Grand Theatre, Fulham; something in connection with the stage, some new display they were going to give, and they wanted these particular plugs for that purpose—he said that his account would be paid at the end of the month following the order by Mr. Henderson—I am quite certain he said Mr. Henderson—I do not think he mentioned for whom he was doing the work, but he said he was getting his money from Mr. Henderson either the end of the month or the month following the date of the account—on his references being inquired into they were found satisfactory—on June 20th we got this letter from him (Ex. 89: Stating that with reference to the order 927, he had been awaiting the completion of the same and that the delay had caused him a great deal of inconvenience)—upon that I went to see the Electrical Accessories Co. at Terminus Chambers, where I saw Miss Cheesman—I asked her for a quotation of the plugs to be sent on—she said they had got a quantity of them in stock, but she did not say where—she showed me one plug—no price was mentioned at all; the quotation was to be sent on—no order was given to them then—I think the price quoted was 5s. 3d.—I did not care about the Electrical Accessories Company—we made inquiries elsewhere because I wanted to get a lower estimate for them, and I got them through an ordinary trade firm—I supplied the goods as per Webber's order to Putney—there were 352 plugs ordered, but I fancy I only delivered about 248 at Webber's place, invoicing them at £104 7s. 6d.—I got them all on ordinary trade terms, the firm from which I got them not requiring prompt cash—I think I paid 5s. 3d. charging Webber 7s.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I only saw Leslie once—I saw him two or three years before this in our show rooms, with reference to an order for the theatre, I think—he looked at some brackets—I cannot say whether he had been a customer—I cannot say what name he came in then; it was some minor matter that he came about, probably a repair—when he came on this occasion I had not the slightest idea what plugs he was alluding to; he did not show me any—I understood him to come on behalf of Webber—Cheesman showed me a sample when I went—on showing

her a copy of Webber's order, she said she could not then quote for a quantity, but would send it on—I said before the Magistrate that she sent on a quotation the next day at 6s.—I cannot say the exact price—6s. was my idea of the price at the time—we eventually got the plugs from the Sun Electrical Co., in Charing Cross Road—I am not certain whether they quoted us 5s. 3d.—I have no doubt if the Electrical Accessories Co. had quoted 5s. 3d. we should have ordered the plugs from them.

Cross-examined by MR. TRAVERS HUMPHREY. I had heard the term "Pog non plugs" used by engineers before—I know what the ordinary adapter to a plug is—it is to put in an ordinary B. C. holder—I took a rough drawing of the plug Cheesman showed me—I am not certain whether it had an adapter on—I should say it was like this (Pognon plug, Produced) without the adapter—the adapter would be a sort of safeguard; in a motor it is supposed to ignite, which would ruin it for the purpose that it was said it was required for—I see now that the actual quotation from the Electrical Accessories Co. was 5s. 3d. with the adapter—I cannot say whether the plugs supplied by the Sun Electrical Co. were with adapters—I cannot remember everything of the conversation I had with Webber—it is true that I said at the Guildhall, "I cannot call to my mind exactly what was said"; I meant "All that was said"—I said also at the Guildhall that Webber said he was to be paid by either Mr. Henderson or Mr. Arthur, and that I was pretty certain it was Mr. Henderson—my recollection is a little clearer to-day; I thought of it directly I left the Court—I knew that he said Mr. Henderson afterwards—I was not certain whether Mr. Henderson or Mr. Arthur was the proprietor of the Grand Theatre—I did not know the name of Arthur when I saw Webber—I was not certain as to who was the proprietor when I gave evidence before; I was a bit flurried, I suppose, at the time—Webber did not tell me that he was to be paid at the end of the job—I will not say that I did not say at the Guildhall, "I think Webber said he was to be paid at the end of the job"; if I did say that, I must, have misunderstood the question—I say now that he said Mr. Henderson paid at the end of the month or the month following the date of the invoice, I am not certain which, and that we should have a cheque then—of course, I should not have accepted the idea that we were to be paid at the end of the job; the job might have lasted twelve months—probably what Webbed meant was that he would pay when we had completed the order—I am quite clear that he did not say he was to be paid at the end of the job.

Re-examined. We received this letter from Webber, dated June 29th (Ex. 90, read: Stating that he would forward cheque to balance the account next week; and that when their representative called he (Webber) particularly mentioned that payment was to be thirty days from date of invoice)—I gathered from Webber that he was going to pay in accordance with the terms out of the money he was to receive from Mr. Henderson.

CHARLES MORRIS ESCARE . I am managing director of Escare and Dennelle, limited, of 119, Ward our Street, electrical apparatus manufacturers

—Notley told me of Lewie's visit—on receiving Webber's references and making inquiries we executed his order (Ex. 87), amounting to £104 7s. 6d.—we have not yet received payment for that—on making application for payment we got the letter (Ex. 90) from him saying that the terms were thirty days from the date of invoice—we received the invoices from the firm from whom we obtained the plugs, and we caused them to be delivered—each plug had a separate distinguishing number—the police have since shown me some plugs which I have identified as mine, they bearing the numbers of the invoice given us.

Old Court, Monday, November20th.

JAMES KENDALL . Up to a short time ago I was employed as the stage doorkeeper to the Fulham Theatre, where Leslie was employed as electrician, Rosenberg being one of his assistants—I have seen Cheesman on one or two occasions waiting outside the stage door for someone—Webber was a very frequent visitor to the theatre when Leslie was working there; he was there pretty nearly every day when I was there; I went on April 10th and left in the middle of September—he generally asked if Leslie was in and went downstairs if he was in, and if he was not he waited for him—between April and July considerable quantities of electrical goods arrived at the theatre, the majority being addressed to Webber—Webber had a track connected with his ironmongery Business and I have seen that arrive at the theatre with, as far as I could see, electrical goods upon it—if Leslie's men were not there, I stood them in the corner just inside the stage door until Leslie, Jamieson or Rosenberg arrived, and then they were taken down to the stage, and that was the last I saw of them—I do not know exactly where they went to—I had no instructions as to them, but I signed different papers four or five times for them—as far as I can remember, there were Pognon plugs in nearly all the parcels—before I signed for them I made the man tell me everything that was in the parcel; I did not examine them—on one or two Sundays I saw the men engaged rewiring the stage, and on one Sunday I saw them making a box for Loie Fuller's performance on the Monday following—I think it was some time in June—she came for six nights—this is the only work I saw done—engaged on it were Leslie, Jamieson, Rosenberg, Johnston, who, I think, used to work at Webber's, and another man named Newman—on several nights I saw parcels taken away, sometimes by Leslie, sometimes by Jamieson, and sometimes by Rosenberg, in their arms—I only saw one truck load of stuff taken away—Jamieson and Rosenberg took that—it was not Webber's truck—that was a solid brass rod—it was towards the end of June—the parcels taken away were of the same description that came; they did not look as if they had been opened at all—the last delivery to the theatre came about 9 and 10 a.m. on about July 19th; they came from Webber's, and Leslie and Webber were at the stage door when they came—during my time I never heard of any great electrical display which was contemplated at the theatre—any such change of programme would be known to the employees—I never saw anything like this (Pognon plug, Produced) being used at the theatre.

Cross-examined by MR. THORNE. Rosenberg was employed at the theatre in day work up to June 26th.

Cross-examined by MR. DICKENS. I was the stage door-keeper and I had nothing whatever to do with the stage—I know nothing about electricity—I occasionally visited the stage—Webber could see that there were large quantities of goods there; he would see them when he went down on to the stage.

Re-examined. I dare say he would have an opportunity for seeing whether they were used.

By the COURT. If there were going to be a performance of any magnitude there would be a rehearsal—there was no such rehearsal and electrical effects—Loie Fuller bought her own men and most of her apparatus except the asbestos box.

ALFRED RUDHAM . I live at 180, Minster Road, Fulham, and am the property master at the Grand Theatre, Fulham—I know all the prisoners—since Mr. Arthur took over the theatre I have seen Rosenberg and Jamieson doing electrical work—on one Sunday I was there when I saw them getting ready for Loie Fuller—I know what a sparking plug is; I have never seen one used in the theatre—there has been no electrical display at the theatre during the last year.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I have only seen Cheesman outside the theatre.

By the COURT. I have seen boxes come to the stage door and I have seen a load of brass come in to the theatre, but I had nothing to do with that.

OSCAR THOMAS BANKS . I carry on business as an electrical engineer at 49, Mortimer Street, Cavendish Square—somewhere about the beginning of June Leslie called upon me with an order from Webber for 600 "plugs, with adapters" and other goods (Ex. 114)—he said that it was a patent plug of which the London County Council had approved, and it would save bother if I went to the Electrical Accessories Co. for them, and he gave me the address—we wrote to them and eventually gave them the order—at 12 a.m. on June 17th he came and asked why we had not attended to the order, we having not yet sent the goods—he said he had a rehearsal on the Sunday morning and so I gave him an order to take to the Electrical Accessories Co. to get the goods ready and said that I would send my carman along to pick them up—my carman followed within five minutes of Leslie leaving—I did not see anything more of Leslie that day—I saw my carman later, when he made a communication to me—it subsequently came to my knowledge that Leslie had taken away the goods, or said ho had, from the Electrical Accessories Co. on that day—on June 19th I had this letter from Webber (Ex. 115, read: Thanking him for prompt delivery of plugs and batteries)—Leslie had represented to me that it was Webber who wanted the goods, and I had made the usual trade inquiries, which I had found satisfactory—I had a doubt about the goods having arrived so I sent a representative to Terminus Chambers but he came back—I called myself three times before I was successful in getting access to the office—on the third occasion I saw a lady, who to

the best of my belief was Cheesman—I asked Her who took the goods away and she said that it was someone of the name of Leslie—I asked her to show me the signature for the goods, but she could not do it then, because she said the books were at the works, promising to send it on to me—she said they had stores in Mill wall and Farringdon Road—I asked her to show me what the plugs were like and she showed me a large stage plug or a portion of a large stage plug—I was rather suspicious about the size of the office, it being only about eight feet square and divided into two parts—there was nothing of any value that I could see, the value of the goods I had ordered being £337—I told her that I thought it was very funny that these goods had been delivered to Leslie when my carman was sent for them—I think I pointed out the quickness with which my carman had followed Leslie—she did not say anything about having seen my carman; it simply passed off in general conversation—a few days afterwards I received this letter requesting payment and threatening to issue a writ—on referring to their letter I found it was payment within seven days—I declined to pay—the day before they started pressing me, about three days after I saw Cheeeman, Rosenberg called, giving the name of Knight, and saying he was from the Electrical Accessories Co.—as the billhead of the Electrical Accessories Co. bore the name of Knight I assumed he was the manager—he said he wanted payment of the account—I said I was not satisfied that the goods had been delivered and I should have to make further inquiries—he did not say very much, but simply that it would have to be paid, on which he left—I forget what was said about a signature—the next day I received a writ, dated July 1st, claiming £337 10s.; setting out the goods that had been sold and delivered (Produced)—Richard Knight was the deponent—I placed the matter in the hands of my solicitors—proceedings were taken against me under Order 14—my defence was that there had been no delivery And I swore an affidavit to that effect, alleging conspiracy to defraud—the action was put back and I did not hear any more of it—I did not pay anything in respect of their alleged claim—I have lost in all about £30 worth of goods which I supplied from my own stock—this sparking plug is used for igniting charges in gas or combustion engines—one plug would be required for each cylinder.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I saw Cheeeman between 12 and 1 p.m.; I swear it was not 6 p.m.—I did not see anybody in the office beside herself—I do not remember telling her that I had received Webber's Acknowledgment of the goods; I may have done—on second thoughts I do not think I did say anything to her about Webber—we talked About motor cars, and so on—I suggested to her that we might arrange it as a bill in payment, £160 the first month and £150 the second month—I have not been asked that before—I did not say to her that mine was not a large firm and I wanted to arrange so as to get a little time for payment—my object was to delay payment as long as possible—I had a motor car, and I should think I went to the theatre to see Leslie on it three or four times after the Electrical Accessories Co.'s invoice came—on the last time I saw him at the theatre I said, "Is Webber

likely to pay this account?"—this was about a fortnight after I had the conversation with Cheesman and after the writ was served—each time I went to see Leslie I asked him to let me see the goods, and he said he could not show me them as they were being used for a secret purpose that would be before July 18th—the first time I saw him I questioned him why he took the goods away, and he said, "If I had an order of yours, I could get it anywhere in London/, and I said, "It is a most extraordinary business"—certainly I made a complaint that the goods had not been delivered before the Electrical Accessories Co. started pressing for payment; I went on the Monday after the Saturday the goods were supposed to have been delivered, to see Leslie at the theatre, and it was then that I asked him to let me see the goods, as I was not satisfied that they had been delivered, and he said, "If you have not got Webber's acknowledgment you will have it"—I only asked Cheesman to let us give bills to delay payment, as I was not satisfied that the goods had been delivered—if they had accepted those terms, I should have accepted the bills—if they had been discounted I should have had to pay them, but luckily I did not give them.

Cross-examined by MR. THORNE. I am quite clear that I said to Rosenberg on June 26th that I was not satisfied that the goods had been delivered—I offered him a bill for the whole amount for a month—on June 19th I still had doubts whether they had been delivered—Webber was a separate firm, and I thought he understood that the goods were being delivered by us, so I could not bring the Electrical Accessories Co. into it; I could not say, "I obtained the goods from the Electrical Accessories Co. Is the thing all right? Have the goods been delivered?"—I was satisfied that the goods from our show-room had been delivered, because I had Webber's signature for them.

Re-examined. I should say my interview with Webber was a fortnight after June 19th.

ALBERT EDWIN RULE . I am a clerk in the employ of O. T. Banks and Co.—on June 17th I went from my firm to deliver to Webber, at Putney, some electrical goods—before going to him I went to the Grand Theatre and made some inquiries—from there I went to Webber's shop and saw him—I handed over the goods to him and he signed for them—I asked him if he would let me know Leslie's address, as I was anxious to see him, and he said, "I do not know"—on June 19th I went to Terminus Chambers, the office of the Electrical Accessories Co. and saw Cheesman—I asked her if she could let me know who signed for the goods which were supposed to have been sent away on the Saturday—she said she had not the receipt for the goods there, but that the books went round from their various offices, and that they had stores in Mill-wall and Blackfriars, but the receipt book was not at present in her office—she said she thought the signature was "Leslie."

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. This conversation took place between 12 and 1 p.m.—nobody else was there—I went back and told Mr. Banks about it.

Cross-examined by MR. DICKENS. I told Webber when I delivered

the goods that I came from Mr. Banks—I did not tell him I had made inquiries for Leslie at the theatre; I believed that to be his business address—I am positive Webber did not say Leslie was always to be found at the theatre—I said, "Can you give me Leslie's private address?" and he said, "No."

EDWIN JAMES TAYLOR . I am managing clerk to Mr. J. A. White, solicitor, of 41, Holborn Viaduct—Rosenberg came to the office on July 1st, giving the name of Knight—at the end of June Mr. White acted for the Electrical Accessories Co., and Rosenberg used to come to the office to give instructions in reference to that company—amongst other matters, I remember acting for the company against a firm of O. T. Banks—this is the writ (Produced) and this is the original affidavit made by Knight, that is Rosenberg (Produced), and this is the affidavit of Mr. Banks used on the application for a summary judgment sworn on July 18th—they appeared by solicitor; it was an application before Master in Chambers—Rosenberg was not there when the affidavit was used, but I saw him on the afternoon of the same day—the result of the application was that the Master gave leave to defend; he stated that if I could get further documentary evidence I might go back and re-open it—I had been supplied with a copy of the affidavit made by Mr. Banks, and I said to Rosenberg afterwards that an affidavit had been made in which a very bold charge of conspiracy had been made, in which the name of Leslie had been used—he laughed and said that that was nonsense; that he did know a man named Leslie and he would make it his business to go to Fulham that night—I never heard the name of Leslie; before, and Rosenberg never told me what he was—I explained to Rosenberg the leave I had from the master to go back again if I could produce any documentary evidence and could show a clearer case, and he said he would try and get me some documentary evidence the next morning, such as proof of delivery and so on—I told him that there would have to be an affidavit—the following day, July 19th, he showed me this letter headed "G. Webber, July 18th, 1905 (Ex. 139, read):"G. Webber to William Leslie. I acknowledge having received all the goods as per the invoice from Messrs. Banks & Co., dated June 17th, 1905, being my order No. 983. Yours faithfully, G. Webber"—he handed it to me and asked me if that was sufficient to enable me to go back to the Master—I said it was not and I explained to him, the best I could from recollection the affidavit, that Mr. Banks had made, and I told him that the matter, in my opinion, was so serious that he ought to work the whole thing out in detail, and he was to come back and see me—he left me and I never saw him again until this case—I had never seen Webber, Leslie, or Cheesman.

HENRY CLAYTON . I am a clerk to Messrs. Gent & Co., of 3a, Upper Thames Street—at 3 p.m. on July 19th I was in Ludgate Circus, when I saw Leslie and Webber in company, going towards Ludgate Hill.

WILLIAM HERBERT BOWLEY . I am manager to Bowley & Co., dealers in electrical fittings, of Hatton Garden—on June 9th Webber and Leslie came to the office; I have known Webber for about fifteen years and I

have dealt with him in a small way for eight or nine years—he said, "Good-morning," and passed on—when they had got about six yards away they turned and came back—at that time I aid not know it was Leslie who was with him; Leslie stood two or three yards off—Webber asked me if I could supply some Pognon plugs; he really did not say at that moment what particular sort of plugs they were, but he would give me a sample if I would send down to him the same evening—he said he wanted fifty dozen for some stage effect which was a secret only known to himself and the electrical manager at the Grand Theatre, Fulham—he said they were wanted on Mr. Robert Arthur's account—I knew Mr. Arthur to be a very sound man—he said they were wanted for electric lighting effect and they were to be put into a slate bed—I sent in the evening to the theatre and got a sample, which I found to be a Pognon sparking plug—he said that the price he could afford to pay would be 7s. 6d. or 7s. 9d., each, but he did not tell me where they could be obtained—he said I should receive Mr. Robert Arthur's cheque within thirty days, out of which I was to allow him 5 per cent.; I was to debit him in my books with these goods—following that, he said his father, whom I know to be a responsible man, would guarantee payment—I agreed to supply them—Leslie, who was within hearing, took no part in the conversation—I found out in the trade where to get the plugs from, and I sent to France and got 600 plugs; they are a patent thing, only made by one small man—I tendered them at Webber's shop and he signed for them—he then sent a lad with my carman in my van and they were absolutely delivered at the theatre by his direction—this card is signed "G, Webber," and dated June 17th, 1905, charging the plugs at 5s. 9d. each (Ex. 103)—they were then minus the adapters, which I supplied within seven days, charging him 1s. 6d. each: 7s. 3d. was the price of the plug complete—the value of the plugs as invoiced was £215—I have paid the French firm from whom I got them, but I have never been paid by Webber, and there is a small current account outstanding besides this—all the plugs I supplied were each separately numbered; I got an invoice with the numbers from the French house—I have been shown some plugs by the police, and by the numbers I have identified them as mine.

Cross-examined by MR. DICKENS. They came from France in a case which was delivered intact to Webber; they were tendered at his shop—I should like to explain the plugs are handled two or three times before they get into motor people's hands in this country, whereas I get them from the actual producer—I paid 3s. 4d. each for them without the adapters, which I got from John Bolding & Sons, paying 8d. or 9d. each for them—Leslie must have heard part of the conversation; he walked about and stood still; he might have heard a few words; he was within three yards—I said to Webber after he had passed, "Well, Webber, how are you? You have not done much lately. Cannot you give us an order to-day?" but that referred to his ordinary business—after he returned he said to me, "I do not suppose you go in for small fittings, do you?"—he came back immediately and said that—he had only got about six yards away—I said, "What sort?" and then he mentioned electrical

fittings, afterwards mentioning that they were sparking plugs—he said they were used for the Grand Theatre, but he did not understand how they were used—I cannot remember whether he said they were a French made article—I do not think he did say so—Mr. Tremmer, who is my principal, came up—I never heard Mr. Tremeer say that he was going to Paris for his Whitsun holidays and he could find out where to get them—Mr. Tremeer was going to Paris for his Whitson holidays, and he did go, as a matter of fact, and obtained the plugs—I really did not hear any conversation between them, nor did I hear Webber say to him that they were a French-made article and in consequence of that Mr. Tremeer saying he was going to Paris and would make inquiries where to get them—Mr. Tremeer obtained the knowledge where to get them from Webber and another man at the theatre in the evening when he went there—it was in consequence of that information that Mr. Tremmer went over to Paris and got the plugs—there was nothing mentioned about the price in the morning; it was arranged that the transaction was to be talked over in the evening between Webber and my principal—Leslie had nothing to do with that transaction in the morning and took no part in the conversation at all—my principal gave me a sample which he brought away from the theatre—the price was mentioned in the morning, but we could not fix the exact figure—with reference to Mr. Arthurs cheque and Webber's father giving a guarantee, that was all in the evening—I was not there in the evening and it is really hearsay on my part—Webber in the morning said that he was not at liberty to tell me how they were to be used—he gave me to understand that part of the apparatus for use of these sparking plugs was in his workshop, and he invited me to call and inspect it, which I did—he also said that I was not to tell anybody in the trade about this secret stage effect—to the best of my belief he gave me to understand that he was not at liberty to divulge; he told me he was not at liberty to divulge—I cannot swear that he said he did not understand how they were to be used—he knew for what purpose they were, but he did not understand the adaptation of the sparking plug for electrical lighting purposes—he did not quite understand the action of the electricity—the emphasis would be on the word "quite"; he understood some of it, but not altogether.

Re-examined. He spoke as though he were a man embarking on a first transaction in connection with sparking plugs—he said he had just secured a contract from Robert Arthur, the proprietor; a contract which involved the use of these plugs—a few days later I went to High Street, Putney, to see Webber, and he showed me two slate beds with 600 holes drilled in them to receive 600 plugs—nothing was said to me about his having received a number of plugs from the Electrical Accessories Co.—I was given to understand that this was the first transaction—there was no written order whatever.

Further cross-examined by MR. DICKENS. I have never been asked before whether I was given to understand that this was the first transaction—he did not say that people were charging him 7s. a plug, and I most not make the charge more; neither did he say, having regard to what

other people were charging him, that he could not pay more than 7s. 3d. nor anything of the kind; he said other people were quoting, but there were no other plugs to be got in London for immediate delivery—I think now that I have said the whole of the sentences—if I had been asked questions on these other points I should have answered, but it is impossible to give every word—I understood he had just secured this contract for the lighting of this theatre in this particular manner, but ultimately more would be required for the remainder of Mr. Robert Arthur's theatres, whatever they were; I do not think he mentioned what theatres they were—I understood that if this was a success, the same contract might be obtained.

FRANK SUTER . I am the managing director of Frank Suter & Co., electrical engineers, of 66, Berners Street—we had a number of orders giving the name of Webber to supply goods to the aggregate of £300 on the personal instructions of Leslie—we have ordered £215 worth of goods from the Electrical Accessories Co., and we have paid them—with regard to the debt incurred by Webber, we received a cheque dated July 10th (Ex. 144) which was dishonoured—I have been through the whole of the invoices for goods supplied by the whole of the contractors, and I have also been through the whole of the invoices from Webber to Mr. Henderson, and I have made summaries of both—I have had for the purposes of comparing the invoices the orders given to the contractors in this case by Webber, and find 42,999 plugs were invoiced by contractors, of which, according to Webber's books, I found 2,400 were sold to Mr. Arthur—1,271 accumulators were supplied, and invoiced none, not in his books even; and nine electrical fans invoiced by contractor, none sold; 827 small switches invoiced by contractors, none invoiced by Webber; 909 stage plugs invoiced to Webber, none invoiced by him; 843 lamp-holders invoiced to him, none invoiced by him; 6,115 yards of flexible wire invoiced to him, 1,296 invoiced by him; 37.12 electric cable, none invoiced by contractors to. Webber, 999 invoiced by him; of 61 12s. another thickness, he purchased none, but sold 1,100 yards; 37.14s., purchased none, sold 550 yards: 19.22's, purchased none; sold, 660 yards: 19.12's, purchased none; sold, 440 yards: 19 14's, purchased none; sold, 600 yards: 19. 15's, purchased none; sold, 550 yards: 7. 16's, purchased none; sold, 1,430 yards: 3.20's, purchased none; sold, 110 yards: 1.18's, purchased none; sold, 220 yards—he bought one 4 h.p. electrical motor and one 5 h.p. electrical motor, and invoiced neither of them—there were 7.317 electric lamps invoiced to him, and 4,200 invoiced by him—some of these lamps are described in his books as of 600 volts, which is quite an imaginary lamp; no firm could ever supply 600 volt-lamps—at page 442 in his journal in the account to Robert Arthur there is entered up a coil of cable, 37.12, at £50; and lower down, "two coils, 61.12 at £125 a coil. £250"; and again "two coils, 6112, £150," which shows, although they were the same size, there is a difference of £100 in the price—the matter of quality would only affect it to the extent of £8 a coil—I find charges to Mr. Henderson vastly in excess of what purport to be the cost prices—on March 7th a cable is charged to Mr. Henderson at £19 16s., the net cost of which was £8 11s. 3d.—in

getting out these prices I took the medium quality from the catalogue which was in use at this date, and I took off the trade discount, so that is the net cost—on March 14th two coils charged at £50 cost him £17 2s. 6d.; March 16th he charged £25 for a cable costing him £3 10s.; on March 23rd he charged £27 to Mr. Henderson for a thing costing him £9 12s.; March 28th he charged £16 10s. for a thing costing him £8: April 1st charged £26; cost, £2 8s.: April 3rd the same thing occurs: April 6th charged £38 10s.; cost, £8 16s. 9d.: April 7th, charged £135; cost, £70: April 8th two items charged £54 each; cost £4 16s. each—I have prepared a grand summary of the contractors' invoices. (Ex. 142), and a document setting out more in detail the items in the grand summary (Ex. 143).

Cross-examined by MR. DICKENS. I swore an information before the Magistrate on July 21st in which I swore, "The said G. Webber cannot now be found at his usual place in Putney. I went there and he could not be found there"—when I went there he was not there, and there was nobody there to say when he would be back—I swore that because we wanted to get hold of him—I did not suggest anything, only that he was not to be found—42,999 represents the number of plugs that were invoiced; there were thousands more ordered—the invoices begin about March and end in July—the invoices found on Webber, when arrested, to Mr. Arthur go down to the end of April—I cannot accept the statement that the accounts to Mr. Arthur in the books go down to July 20th, without seeing them—Mr. Henderson's invoices go down to April 10th—on looking at Mr. Henderson's account in the ledger, I see the accounts go up to May 20th—the invoice of April 10th is entered up in the ledger under May 20th—the invoices are entered up all over the shop—there are two separate folios—all the invoices in Exhibit 10 are entered up in the book—Mr. Arthur's account goes to April 9th—in the day book there are items against Mr. Arthur for goods which have not been carried out against him in the account up to July—I find amongst these invoices an account for 600-volt lamps as in the journal—a 600-volt lamp would cost a lot of money—an ordinary lamp would cost Webber about 1s. 1d.—I see this 600-volt lamp is invoiced at 1s. 6d., but I am not talking about the price, but as to the fact that 600-volts are never made—any electrician would know that—it is to Mr. Henderson that the largest amount over cost price is charged, an item charged at £18 which cost £112s.

Re-examined. The journal purports to relate to Webber's business up to July 20th, and I find folio numbers in the entries in the journal purporting to connect those entries with the folios in the ledger—I find that the dates of the entries in the journal do not correspond with the dates of the entries in the ledger—in the ordinary course the dates would be posted from the journal into the ledger and would coincide—I find an item May 29th, in the day book is March 3rd in tie ledger, and they are mostly right the way through like that, a later date appearing in the journal than in the ledger—I do not find any index at all of the account in the ledger, folios 1043-44-45, nor of Mr. Henderson's account, 1069-72.

ARTHUR BEAVER . I am manager to the Sun Electrical Co., Limited, of 118, Charing Cross Road—about the end of March Leslie called upon me stating that he was the electrician to the Fulham Theatre, and he referred to Webber and mentioned Pognon plugs, saying that they could be got from Sinclair & Co., of Terminus Chambers, Holborn Viaduct—after that I received orders from Webber, including orders for these plugs which I ordered from Sinclair & Co.—I also got some Pognon plugs from the London agents of the Pognon patent, but Leslie stated they were not the correct article and I got the remainder from Sinclair & Co.—this is an order signed by Webber, dated March 7th (Ex. 151)—later on I got this order for a 4-cylinder petrol engine (Ex. 153), dated May 1st—Leslie visited me with reference to it and said he wanted it at once—he said that the Middlesex Motor Co., of 731, Fulham Road, had got an engine of the type which would suit him and I could get immediate delivery from them—I communicated with the Middlesex Motor Co. and purchased an engine for £97 8s. 6d.—I paid a cheque for that amount in favour of "F. Walker & Co."—I got delivery of that engine and delivered it to the Fulham Theatre in accordance with Leslie's directions—I sent in my account to Webber in the usual way—he owed me up to the end of July £286 19s. 2d.—I brought an action against him and got judgment on July 19th, which judgment, of course, is unsatisfied—I have since seen the engine at the garage in Dryad Street, Putney, which was shown to me by the police.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. In light of subsequent events, I should think Leslie has deceived us—I have a complaint to make against him since he has deceived us in bringing orders for which he had no use—the goods that he ordered from me I actually delivered to Webber—I got fourteen Pognon plugs from Sinclair then and the others I got elsewhere—we did not get the fourteen ourselves, but Leslie told us that he had taken delivery of them—we paid Leslie a commission—we treated Webber as the principal—we did not care the least about Leslie's references.

Cross-examined by MR. THORNE. We received the 4-cylinder engine from the Middlesex Motor Co. and we have no complaint to make against them.

Cross-examined by MR. DICKENS. When we supplied the plugs from the Agents of the Paris people, Leslie said we were not supplying the genuine plugs—in consequence of that we ordered Pognon plugs from Sinclair—we were paid two sums by Webber, first about £77 and the next about £60.

By the COURT. We paid Sinclair for the plugs, they charging us the first time 6s. each—we paid perhaps in all £30, or something like that, to them—in consequence of Leslie saying that the plugs we were supplying were not the genuine plugs we ordered 12 dozen from Sinclair.

Re-examined. The police have shown me some Pognon plugs bearing the same numbers as those we got from the French agents.

FREDERICK WILLIAM WALKER . I am a steam and electrical engineer, of Fulham, and have known Leslie for some five or six years as the electrician of the Grand Theatre, Fulham—in May he spoke to me about a 4-cylinder petrol engine; he asked me whether I would allow him the use of my name, as I was renting a part of the Middlesex garage, and he said it was rather a good address—I rent pact of the

Middlesex Motor Co.'s premises, 731, Fulham Road—I agreed to let him do so—after that letters came there from the Sun Electrical Co. to my address: "Messrs. F. Walker & Co., 731, Fulham Road," which I handed to Leslie—I did not answer them—I remember a cheque coming from the Sun Electrical Co. for £97 8s. 6d., which I also handed to Leslie—I had nothing to do with the sale of the petrol engine—I never wrote those five letters purporting to be signed "F. Walker," and I have no knowledge of their contents; they are on letter paper with the heading "Middlesex Motor Co."—I know Rosenberg as having worked at the Middlesex Motor Co.—he had left previously to my renting part of this place, which I took at Christmas time—he worked there six weeks before Christmas, I should say—I never saw the motor taken away—there were several motors there.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. I have nothing to do with the Middlesex Motor Co.—I lent my name to Leslie because he said he was rather in straightened circumstances and he was expecting a writ for £100, and it would enable him to pay this account if he could have the use of my name, as he had a chance on the Sun Electrical Co.—I knew him as an honest man and had thorough confidence in him, so I thought I would help him out of his difficulties—I said before the Magistrate, "I agreed to Leslie using my name and writing it, if necessary, and if they (the letters) were written by someone under Leslie's directions I make no complaint; I should have done it myself if asked. I should not have taken the paper, but I should have signed the letters," and that is correct—I saw Cheesman many times in the house adjoining the workshop, 22a, Bangalore Street, in the presence of Mrs. Leslie—she assisted in little jobs in the shop—she was always under the direction of Leslie or Mrs. Leslie—she lived there, to my knowledge, as a lodger; she was not supposed to have any occupation as far as I know—from beginning to end Leslie has always told me that she was the sister of his wife.

Cross-examined by MR. THORNE. On this letter paper above the words "Middlesex Motor Co." there is "F. Walker & Co."—on looking at the last letter I see that the words "Middlesex Motor Co." have been run through, with the pen.

HENRY WILLIAM FIGG . I am a metal trade accountant, of 128, Queen Victoria Street, City, and I am the trustee in the bankruptcy of Webber—Webber's books are in my possession and are here under my direction if they are called for in any way—I have made out a list of creditors in his bankruptcy over the sum of £10 (Ex. 141)—the total amount of the liabilities, as shown on the statement of affairs, is £31,523 excepting the debts under £10, which would be ordinary trade debts—of that account there is owing to the electrical contractors in this case £25,358—I have had no dealings with the Cheesman banking account; it does not touch the bankruptcy—the ordinary trade debts come to £600—apart from these stupendous liabilities to the electrical contractors the business was solvent.

By the COURT. Of the debts £4,100 was for two promissory notes given to a man named Rohls, and there is £1, 400 for money advanced by the bankrupt's father for the purpose of buying the business ten years ago.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. In the whole list there is no name of Cheesman and nothing in reference to the Electrical Accessories Co., of Terminus Chambers, neither as creditors or debtors to the estate—I have gone into the whole of the book debts and there is no mention any-where of the Electrical Accessories Co.

Cross-examined by MR. DICKENS. The £4,100 lent by Mr. Rohls was with regard to electrical matters—there are four receipts amounting in the aggregate to £1,300 to Mr. Rohls—I have taken no statement from Mr. Rohls with regard to this transaction, but I have written to him—the lease of Webber's house in High Street, Putney, was sold privately for £650; it had eleven years to run—there was no good-will, because we could never retain that for an ordinary ironmonger's business—the rent of the house was £75—I sold the business ten years ago to Mr. Webber, senior, and it was then doing £40 a week—I should say at this time it was worth £60 a week.

Re-examined by MR. MATHEWS. Mr. Rohls was examined at a Private flitting in the Bankruptcy Court.

PERCY WILLIAM BROOKING . I am a clerk at the London & County Bank, 152, High Street, Putney, where Webber had an account—I produce a certified copy of that account from March 1st, 1905 (Ex. 99), going up to August 18th—from time to time from June 1st there were large sums in notes paid in—I produce another certified extract showing the numbers of the notes—a sum of £4,000 came in in that way—from July 4th until the close of the account, August 13th, a number of cheques were presented against the account which were dishonoured, as is shown by Exhibit 102 (Produced)—there are thirty of those cheques and they come to about £7,700—the names of the payees' cheques are Croggon, Evered, Emmanuel, Brush Electrical Co., Verity, Suter, Sperati, Chandler, Purcell Nobbs, Smith, Hales Bros., and others—I also identify the pass book of Leslie at the same branch, where he kept an account—it shows that he opened it in April, 1902, giving as references G. Webber and J. H. Blake—the bank advanced £200 on May 3rd to Webber on the security of his lease of 63, High Street, Putney, and this is the document of charge.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. Leslie's account was opened with £60 and it goes on with small payments in and small drawings out—in 1905 all the payments were very small, apparently many drawn for household expenses.

Cross-examined by MR. DICKENS. I have got a signed document here from the manager that Leslie opened his account, being an electrical engineer, of 22a, Bangalore Street, Putney, in April, 1902, references being George Webber and J. H. Blake—this document does not show that Webber gave any reference at all—I cannot say whether Leslie's references were applied to—this list of returned cheques starts with a cheque of Phillips, £116 9s.—going down lower, on June 21st there is the same cheque—Croggan, £250, is there twice, as is also Verity, £397 9s. 3d., and Emmanuel, £200 0s. 4d., is three times over—I was asked what the total of these documents roughly come to; they are treated as returned cheques each time they are returned and I added them all up as different cheques—

the cheque to Chandler is repeated three times over; a cheque for £250 twice; £107 twice, and £397 twice—between June 1st and the 19th Webber had paid in £4,000 and he paid out about the same time £4,320 to different electric contractors, including Croggon, Sun Electrical Co., Verity's, Emmanuel, Bolding, and others.

Tuesday, November 21st.

HUGH MACLAIN (Detective-Sergeant, City). About 8 p.m. on July 21st I was in High Street, Putney, when I saw Webber—I said to him, "Are you Mr. Webber?" and he said, "Yes, that is me"—I told him I was a police officer and should arrest him on a charge of conspiring to defraud, and I should take him to Putney police station, where he would be detained pending the arrival of Mr. Willis with a warrant—on the way to the police station he said, "Have you got Leslie!" and I said, "Not yet"—he said, "That is the man you ought to have got first; he has been doing them all. In fact, he has done me as well, and I am going to file my petition on Monday"—he was detained at Putney police station, and I was present when Inspector Willis arrived—the warrant was read to him and he said, "Where am I mentioned?" and later he said, "All right"—his name was mentioned in the warrant for conspiracy with other persons—he was afterwards taken to the City, where he was charged, and he made no reply—I afterwards searched the room, which was pointed out to me as Leslie's room, at the Grand Theatre, Fulham, and I found among other things the exhibit in this case, No. 170, which purports to be the cost of material for work of an electrical character to be done—under the head of "Lantern" it works out at £30, and under the head of "Switchboard" it works out at £20; £50 altogether—it is headed, "Cost for putting right the following items, as per the requirements of the L.C.C."—there is a memorandum at the back as to the cost of the cable—I also found Exhibit No. 171, which is headed, "Must come in," and contains a number of names, including a number of electrical firms: Bolding, Dawson, Emmanuel, International Electrical Co., Evered's, Croggon, Purcell & Nobbs, Verity, Banks, etc.—on the bottom in pencil are the names of Messrs. Weston, Clements, Clarke, Chapman, and some other electrical firms in the neighbourhood of Fenchurch Street—on this document (Ex. 172), which I found, there is another list of names, some of which have given evidence in this case, Bolding, Gent, Dawson, Suter, Emmanuel, and Strode being amongst them, and with amounts., against them amounting to an aggregate of £2,418 1s. 6d.—on the back of them there is an abstract in which the names are put—I also found there five separate sheets (Ex. 173) in which the electrical firms in different parts of London are allocated into districts under the head of "Cannon Street," "E. C.," "Finsbury," "Bond Street," "Oxford Street," "Victoria Street," and so on—I should say they have been taken from the directory and put down into districts, so they could easily be got at—I also found Exhibit 169, which is a letter from Rosenberg, dated October 31st, 1904, headed "Platt Motor Car Co., Gardner's Lane, Putney," which is crossed out, and the address as it stands is "The Middlesex Motor Co., 731, Fulham

Road (Read): "Dear Sir,—If the theatre opens and you require anybody, I should be only too pleased to come, as this place is not good enough for me. I have no regular wages and some weeks get none at all, so you can guess it is not very satisfactory"—I should say that was addressed originally to Leslie—he ceased to be an assistant to Leslie on July 18th or 19th—I found Exhibit 174, which purports to be a list of the prices of Pognon sparking plugs, ranging between 5s. and 7s. each, and then there is a memorandum there as regards the electrical firms in the Fleet Street and Strand districts—Exhibits 175 and 176 are letters in the writing of Webber—they were torn up when I found them, and I have caused them to be pasted together—they are dated June 9th and 15th (Read): "Please find enclosed small cheque on account. Receipt in due course will oblige. Yours faithfully, G. Webber"—that is to Messrs. Edison & Swan—the other is to the International Electrical Co., and has the same contents—I found these two memorandum blocks (Ex. 177 and 178) and this envelope with some letters and figures upon it, and an examination of Webber's books has enabled me to discover that it is a code which is used to mark goods privately—I also found similar signs in Webber's cheque books and invoice books—the key is written above the private mark on the envelope—I found a number of blank invoices of the Middlesex Motor Co., 731, Fulham Road, and an order in blank so far as it was addressed to anybody, signed by Webber, ordering twelve sheets of woven wire, dated December 2nd, 1905—I also found a label addressed to the Electrical Accessories Co., 83, Terminus Chambers.

Cross-examined by MR. THORNE. I have made no inquiries respecting Rosenberg's character.

Cross-examined by MR. DICKENS. On Exhibit 171 amongst the other firms there is "The Accessories Co., £200"—the Accessories Manufacturing Co. are creditors against Webber for about £29—I do not know of my own knowledge whether "Accessories Co., £200" on Exhibit 171 refers to the Electrical Accessories Co. or some other firm dealing with electrical accessories. [It was agreed that this item had reference to the Accessories Manufacturing Co., creditors of Webber's for £29, and not the Electrical Accessories Co. of Holborn Viaduct]—a duplicate order book was found on his premises with the other books—it contains an entry on June 6th to "Messrs. The Accessories Manufacturing Co., Oxford Street," ordering lamps, plugs, with adapters, stage plugs and batteries—I had not the slightest difficulty in finding Webber.

By the COURT. When I met him he was going towards his own place—his shop was not closed.

JOHN WILLIS (Detective-Inspector, City Police). I received a warrant for Rosenberg's arrest on July 21st and a further warrant from the Guildhall Police Court on August 1st—on August 2nd I went to Little Haseley in Oxfordshire, where I saw Rosenberg at 9 a.m. in a door of one of the houses—I said to him, "Your name is Knight?" and he said, "It is Miller"—I said, "Whether it is Knight, Miller or Rosenberg, I hold a warrant for your arrest for conspiring with a man named Leslie and others to defraud"—he said, "I know nothing about it"—I said, "It is no

use saying that, as you "have Bank of England notes now in your possession, the proceeds of the alleged fraud"—he said, "I have got five £5 notes; Leslie gave me £50, £25 in notes and £25 in gold"—he then handed me five £5 notes, numbers 97489-93, dated January 19th, 1905, and £5 4s. 7d. in coin, saying, "That is all I have left of it"—I said, "What have you done with the other notes you received in exchange at the Bank of England?"—he said, "I gave them all to Leslie," and he then continued, "I did not know it was fraud; my work was to collect the debts, on which Leslie promised me 2 1/2 per cent commission; what I did was under Leslie's instructions"—I subsequently read the warrant to him, in which the name of Strode is mentioned, and he said, "What name is that—Strode?"—I said "Yes," and he said, "I do not know them, and with regard to the months May, June and July, I was only employed at the offices for three weeks"—I brought him to London and he made a statement voluntarily (Ex. 1, read): "I, Richard Thomas Rosenberg, have worked for Mr. Leslie for about six years at the Grand Theatre, Fulham. I was away from the theatre working at motor car work last year for about ten to twelve months and went back to work for him about last December at the theatre at wages 25s. a week, which was increased by Mr. Leslie to 32s. 6d. a week. He then suggested to me that he had some work for me to do in the city which I heard no more of until about six or seven weeks ago, when he took me to Holborn to buy me some clothes so as to appear well-dressed, because he said I should have to see some people in London to collect money off of them which they owed him for goods supplied, which I have done, calling on them for the money owing. The solicitor was Mr. L. White, of Holborn. I was calling on these people and the solicitor for about three weeks, representing myself as Mr. Knight, the manager, by Mr. Leslie's instructions. He told me to do so because he did not want anybody to know that he was connected with the firm, because he did not want the theatre people to know he had other business to attend to besides the theatre work. This work went on to last Thursday week. Then I went up to London to meet Mr. Leslie, as arranged, at 10.30 a.m. at the Monument. Then he gave me a cheque to change for £300, which I changed for him at a bank in the Borough. Then he gave me, I think, two £50 notes to change for him at the Bank of England, which I did. I got five £10 notes, five £5 notes, and £25 in gold. He gave me five £5 notes and £25 in gold and told me I could go away for a holiday and suggested Clacton-on-Sea, but I would not go because my wife was in delicate health, expecting a confinement, so I told him I would go away to my wife's sister at Little Haseley. He told me to stay away until I heard from him, which would be in a week or two, and then I should go back to him and start work for him at his motor-car works which he proposed opening in Putney. The reason he gave me for me going away so suddenly was that he owed some money and there was a writ against him, and he thought it best that he should shut up the office until he had come to some arrangement for paying this money back. He always gave me the impression that everything was honest and straightforward,

and I had not the slightest idea that it was otherwise. I have always placed the utmost confidence in him, and done what he told me. Signed, Richard Thomas Rosenberg, August 21st, 1905"—in that statement he makes reference to a cheque which he cashed at the instance of Leslie and, as he says, for £300 at the London & County Bank, Southwark; this is the cheque (Ex. 96) and it is payable to "Mr. H. Stanley," dated July 20th and indorsed, "H. Stanley"—I am able to say from having seen him write that statement that that indorsement is his writing—between July 21st and September 16th I had been searching for Leslie and Cheesman, but I was not successful—on September 16th I was in Aberystwith, when about 9.40 p.m. I followed Leslie into the Aberystwith railway station—I had never seen him before—I was with Detective Thorpe—I said to him, "Your name is Leslie"—he said, "You have made a great mistake"—I said, "I have not; anyway, we will discuss that at the police station"—I took him to the local police station—on the way he attempted to break away—at the police station he again said, "You have made a great mistake"—I pointed out to him that his hair was dyed red and said, "You have dyed your hair and you have had your moustache shaved off"—originally his hair was black—I then said, "I am satisfied that you are William Leslie. I hold a warrant for your arrest for conspiracy to defraud, and I shall take you back to London with me on that charge—Thorpe searched him in my presence, when he found two three-stone diamond rings, one single stone diamond ring, one single stone diamond pin, a gold watch, number 38121, a gold chain, and sovereign purse, and some buttons that he had evidently removed from his trousers, with a name of a Putney firm on them—in company with other officers I went to a house in Smithfield Road, where I saw Cheesman—she was sitting in the front sitting room on the ground floor—I said to her, "Good-evening, Miss Cheesman"—she said, "You are mistaken"—I said, "Well, what is your name; is it Alice Norton?" and she made no reply—I said, "I have reason to believe you are Francis Cheesman. I am Inspector Willis, of London, and hold a warrant for your arrest for conspiracy to defraud. Leslie is already in custody and you will be taken with him to London on that charge"—I then questioned her as to the notes and gold, the proceeds of the fraud, and she said, "I shall say nothing"—I saw on the mantelpiece this bag (Produced)—I said, "Is this yours?" and she said. "No"—I opened it and found a small purse with a sovereign in it, which Cheesman said belonged to her—I also found two diamond cluster pins and a receipt for luggage left at the Aberystwith railway station in the name of "Bond"—they occupied a bedroom and sitting room in the name of "Mr. and Mrs. Bond," and they had been there for some considerable time—in the bedroom I found two canvas bags in a box wrapped in rags—the bags contained £1,982 in gold and £330 in Bank of England notes in a piece of paper—I went to the railway station and presented the receipt, and I was given that large basket (Produced)—on opening it with a key I found on Leslie, I discovered, wrapped in old clothing and straw, a small bag which contained

two canvas bags containing exactly £4,000 in gold—the value of the jewellery found was £1,500 and it was bought at different places in London prior to the prisoner absconding—altogether there was £6,330 in notes and gold, and jewellery to the value of £1,500 found at Aberystwith; on Rosenberg was found £30 4s. 7d. and there is £4,000 which has passed into Webber's account, making altogether £11,880 odd—the amount unaccounted for is the difference between that and £18,650—I find that over £7,450 in Bank of England notes has never reached the Bank of England—I have not been able to find out in whose custody they are—at 83, Terminus Chambers, I found two copy letter books containing copies of different invoices sent to different firms for these Pognon plugs, these three books from which the leaves had been torn out, another book with orders, apparently from some firms, in Cheesman's writing, some receipts apparently signed by Leslie, and a receipt in blank (Ex. 91) on a memo form of the Electrical Accessories Co. signed by Leslie, a stamp of the company, and a counterfoil delivery book—I found no bank book or pass book nor any book showing any account of Pognon plugs supplied to the Electrical Accessories Co., nor any receipts showing the receipt by the company of any such plugs—I found in the office a box containing about 150 Pognon plugs and in the basement fifty dozen plugs and some batteries behind a door; they had no right to put them there so far as I am informed—those plugs have been identified—the Sun Electrical Co. supplied eighteen dozen, and out of those I have recovered thirteen dozen and two—Escape and Denelle supplied twenty dozen and eight, and identified fourteen dozen and five; Bowley supplied fifty dozen, and identified twenty-eight dozen and six; making a total supplied of eighty-eight dozen and identified fifty-six dozen and one—they were all found at Terminus Chambers with the exception of seventeen which I found at the garage in Dryad Street, Putney—I have fourteen dozen and five still unidentified—of the enormous numbers of plugs which were supposed to be delivered by the Electrical Accessories Co. I have found no trace whatever—I found a number of documents where the delivery form in ink is filled up in the handwriting of Miss Cheesman, addressed to a firm, and at the foot of which the name of Leslie is written in pencil—I found three letters from Webber addressed to Sinclair & Co. (Ex. 117), one of February 15th enclosing cheque for £20; one of August 24th, 1904, enclosing cheque for £15; and one of September 7th, 1904, with another cheque for £15—these letters are long before Cheesman's account was refreshed by the large sums—I went to the garage in Dryad Street, Putney, and made this list (Ex. 93) of the goods I found there, amongst which were seventeen Pognon plugs—subsequently a number of these things were identified in my presence by the owners of them—roughly they are worth £2,000—amongst other things there was a lathe and a 4-cylinder motor, which has been valued at £100—this letter (Ex. 155) is in Rosenberg's handwriting, as is also the signature of "Knight" to this affidavit (Ex. 116)—on three Bank of England notes there is indorsed "R. Knight 34, Coniger Road, Parson's Green," which I identify as Rosenberg's handwriting—I have made inquiries and find that he was not living at that address—Exhibit 158, the reference from

"S. Wenlow, of East Hill, Wandsworth," is also in his handwriting, as is also Exhibit 169, dated October 31st, 1904, from the Middlesex Motor Co., 731, Fulham Road, and signed in the name of "R. Rosenberg"—I was present when Webber was searched on July 21st and a number of invoices were found upon him (Ex. 118)—they relate mainly to Pognon plugs, which seemed to be charged at 10s. and they are addressed to "Robert Arthur, Esq., debtor to George Webber"—there was a card found upon him also, on which, ranging between July 10th and 20th, there were a number of names of electrical firms, including Strode, Dawson, Evered, Edison, etc. (Ex. 119), with a number of figures carried out against each of those names, totalling to £7,000—on Webber's premises, 63, High Street, Putney, I found a number of counterfoil cheque books, amongst them being some Counterfoils showing payments to Cheesman and to Leslie—where those names do not occur I find counterfoils with other names upon them, but with a reference to Leslie on the counterfoil as indicating that he was the person for whom the sum was being drawn—they begin as far back as September 6th, 1901—I have prepared a list of those cheques which were drawn in 1901 down to August 22nd, 1903, which relates either in name to Cheesman or to Leslie, or to sums expended upon their behalf by Webber; those payments include a gas company and a payment to G. W. Rosenberg, a tailor at Putney—all these payments to Leslie and Cheesman, added together must amount to some hundreds of pounds—there are twelve counterfoils which show payments apparently direct to Cheesman which come to £95, roughly, the last being on May 4th, 1903—I have not only the twelve counterfoils, but the twelve cheques—I know her writing—they are cheques dated respectively October 3rd, 16th, 21st, November 3rd, 22nd, and 29th, 1902, January 6th, 22nd, one in April, one in July, 1902, and one in December, 1902—one of them is indorsed by Leslie and another, of May 4th, 1903, appears to be indorsed by Cheesman, in her natural undisguised handwriting in the name of "W. Leslie"—they are made payable to "A. Cheesman" and two, I think, have been apparently made payable to "Mr. A. Cheesman," which has been afterwards altered to "Miss A. Cheesman"—I found all the cheques in the condition in which they are now; they have not been altered—the largest amount of any individual cheque is £12—on searching 22a, Bangalore Street, I found seventy-one of Webber's orders, blank so far as the name of any firm to which they are addressed is concerned—they are signed by Webber and in Webber's handwriting, to the best of my belief—there are about fourteen of December 30th, 1904; I have not counted them—the latest date is May 1st, 1905, and the earliest in December, 1904—there are seventeen other orders which had the names of firms upon them, but with that exception they resembled the others—the first appears to be dated December 23rd, 1904, and the last May 20th, 1905—I found a number of letters and invoices to Webber from various firms—there is an invoice from Croggon & Co., relating to some accumulators, dated May 13th, and others—Leslie and Webber banked at the same branch of the London & County Bank—I seized a number of Leslie's cheques, many of which were drawn in

the name of "Miss A. Cheesman"—this is one of Webber's cheque books with counterfoils from June 3rd, 1905—there are small sums, such as £5 and £10, according to the counterfoils paid to "Les.," "Fielding, Ltd.," "Fielder," and others—Fielder, I believe, was a manufacturer, but Fielding I do not know—"Les." I take to refer to Leslie—in consequence of information received I went to 12, Wymond Street, which is a matter of three or four minutes' walk from Webber's shop—a man lives there of the name of Meadows, who was very friendly with the prisoners and with Jamieson—Jamieson, who is now living at 22, Bangalore Street, used to assist Leslie at the theatre as an assistant electrical engineer—I found at Wymond Street two promissory notes, one for £4,000 dated July 4th, 1905, and another for £100 of the same date, in a carburettor; they are not addressed to anybody, but are both stamped and signed by Webber—I also found four documents purporting to be receipts in Webber's handwriting for different sums of money purporting to be received from B. Rohls, amounting in the aggregate to £1,300 and dated respectively June 8th, 17th, 19th and 23rd, 1905—I found them in enclosed envelopes, which I opened; there are no receipt stamps On any of them; they are on Webber's forms—I found them on October 31st at 12, Wymond Street—I received the information which led to the search warrant after the last hearing at the Police Court—the prisoners had not then been committed—there was a formal remand for the purposes of the committal, and they were committed on November 3rd—I have not been able to ascertain to whom those promissory notes have been given.

Cross-examined by MR. GRAIN. The first cheque to Cheesman is September 22nd, 1904. and the last May 4th, 1905—the whole of the payments to her would work out less than £2 a week—I did not ascertain before arresting Leslie that he had been living at Watford—he left Aberystwith, I understand, for several days at a time and returned—I have not ascertained whether the basket left at Aberystwith station had come there from another station and was not taken straight there—at the cloak room they were not positive who had left it—they were under the impression it was left by a man—as to Leslie's attempting to break away, Thorpe had his right arm and I had his left, and he suddenly stopped and tried to throw us away from him—there was not another young lady staying with Cheesman when I went there, but I ascertained there had been, and that she occupied another bedroom—I did not ascertain that there was another bedroom used by Leslie when he was there.

Cross-examined by MR. THORNS. I was searching for Rosenberg a fortnight before I got his warrant—I should hardly call his a good hand-writing—it is very clear—Leslie's writing is not nearly so clear as his—I said before the Magistrate, "I have made inquiries as to Rosenberg and find he is a very respectable and industrious man. I know nothing against his character. To the best of my belief he has given me every information and has offered to give me any assistance. I searched him and his effects and found nothing beyond the bank notes. He was willing to be searched. I have heard he has gone by the name of Miller.' His

wife's maiden name was 'Miller' "; and all that is correct to the best of my knowledge and belief—he afterwards showed me this pass on the Canadian Pacific Railway, dated January 1st, 1900, and it appears to be signed by Rosenberg in the name of "R. Miller"—in all the specimens of his handwriting that I have seen I should say he has not endeavoured to disguise it.

Cross-examined by MR. DICKENS. The envelopes in which I found the four receipts were addressed to Mr. Rohls—I found them in the arm of a stitching machine; I had to unscrew the plate to find them—"Cheesman" is spelt in two or three different ways on the cheques—in some counterfoils of cheques made payable to Cheesman there is the name of Leslie as well.

HUGH MACLAIN (Re-examined). Amongst the documents in Leslie's room at the theatre I found this paper, which appears to be in Leslie's handwriting (Produced)—it says: "Paid out Cheesm. £3,300; Webber £3,500," and there are the figures"£4,226" beneath—there is drawn out the"£3,500," which appears to have been subtracted from the £4,226, leaving a balance of £726—beneath that again is £726—"Cheesm., paid out £3,300," has been scratched through with the pen, as though it had been paid, but "Webber, £3,500," remains intact. [A statement made by Leslie the day before his committal (November 2nd) was then read (Ex. 182)]: "Sir,—Will you please allow me to make these few remarks with regard to the notes to the value of about £6,000 which you state are somewhere in connection with this case? I want to assure you honestly that I have not had them, neither do I know where they are. There have been many remarks made against me, especially previous to my arrest, which are absolutely untrue and most unfair. Up to the present I have made no attempt or endeavour to defend myself. All I hope is that I may be given the opportunity of speaking the entire truth in this somewhat remarkable case. Before this case leaves the Court I desire to truly and earnestly state Rosenberg and Miss Cheesman are absolutely innocent of any wrong whatever. It is with the greatest regret that I have seen these two innocent persons suffer as they have done in this case. I would have told you all I knew of the affair long while, but was requested to say nothing until the trial. Yours respectfully, W. Leslie" [Another statement made by Leslie (Ex. 183) was then read]: "Sir,—I wish to again apply to you and ask if you will kindly allow the notes which are at present held by the police to be handed over to my wife. I wish to state she is quite without means, and having a little child to look after and both being in very delicate health her present position is a very sad one. I want to strongly point out the absolute proof there is that these notes are not in any way connected with this case. These notes were paid to me by a man named Mr. Jamieson, who bought two motor cars from me. His name is indorsed on the back of them, and in addition to this proof, there is also the name of the bank stamped on them showing where they came from. I must respectfully submit that more absolute proof than this surely cannot possibly be required. If there is any question of the rightful ownership of the property sold, I can produce

the cheques by which I paid for the same two years ago. I beg to remain, Yours respectfully, J. W. Leslie."

Rosenberg, in his defence on oath, said that he had first met Leslie in 1899 of the Grand Theatre, where he was employed as a gas-engine driver, receiving 25s. a week, Leslie being the electrician; that after travelling abroad he returned to the theatre in 1902 as odd man at night, working in the day for the Platt Motor Co.; that in 1904, whilst employed at the Middlesex Motor Co., Leslie requested him to copy a reference in the name of S. Wenlow (Ex. 118) because his handwriting was clearer than Leslie's, which he did; that being unsatisfied with his position at that company Leslie employed him at the theatre for both day and night work at a salary of 25s., which rose to 32s. 6d.; that in consideration of being paid such a small wage Leslie promised to pay him a lump sum at the conclusion of the work which was then being done at the theatre in connection with the London County Council's requirements; that Leslie asked him to write some letters (Ex. 154-168) purporting to come from the Middlesex Motor Co., to which he signed the name of "F. Walker & Co.," Leslie saying he had authority from Mr. Walker for his doing so; that he did not suspect in any way that there was any fraud connected with the engine to which that correspondence had reference; that in June, 1905. Leslie told him that he had work for him in the city collecting debts on behalf of a firm, which he subsequently learnt was the Electrical Accessories Co., saying that people were financing him, mentioning the names of Cheesman and Webber, his (Leslie's) being the brains; that his instructions were to take the name of "Knight" as the manager of the company; that he was to receive nothing but the money, failing which he was to issue a writ; that in swearing the affidavit against Banks (Ex. 116) he believed it to be true; that as regards the cheque for £300, he had cashed it under Leslie's directions, signing it "H. Stanley "in the belief that that was Leslie's banking name; and on the same day Leslie instructed him to change two £50 notes at the Bank of England, which he did, indorsing them with an address which he had left for some time, and that in spite of the cashier's knowing this he changed the notes; that Leslie soon after told him that his creditors were pressing him; that he was not to go back to the theatre, as his presence there would lead to inquiries about himself (Leslie), he (Leslie) not wishing it to be known that he had business outside the theatre; that he (Leslie) gave him five £5 notes and £25 in gold, being the lump sum promised and also 2 1/2 per cent. Commission on money collected, as agreed; that he then went to Little Haseley, Leslie telling him he would let him know when to return to work at his garage in Dryad Street; that in using the name of Miller, which was his wife's maiden name, he was only doing what he had done on occasions before, he having found his own name from its foreign sound handicapped him in obtaining employment; that although it was true that he had had a motor car accident he did not mention it to the people at Little Haseley as the reason for his presence there; and that throughout the whole of the transactions with Leslie, who had always given him a helping hand and whom he implicitly trusted, he had not the slightest idea there was any fraud.

Webber, in his defence on oath, said that he first started supplying goods to the theatre on its opening in 1887; that he first met Leslie in 1899, from

whom he received the orders as to the electric and gas apparatus at the theatre tendering invoices for the same headed to Mr. Henderson and addressed to Mr. Merer; that he had neither seen nor heard of Rosenberg or Cheesman till at the Guildhall; that for Oscar Barrett's pantomime in 1902 Leslie had ordered from him some electrical goods, recommending him to go to Sinclair & Co., of Holborn Viaduct, where they could be obtained cheaply; that he (Leslie) personally on his order took the goods from that company; that he could show letters and items in different books proving the genuineness of the transaction and that he still owed the company a portion of the debt he incurred, for which they had not applied nor had they proved in his bankruptcy; that he had no knowledge that Leslie was Sinclair & Co.; that in December, 1904, Leslie informed him that there were going to be considerable alterations and repairs to the electric installation at the theatre; that there were to be several requisitions of the London County Council satisfied; that there was to be a large switchboard controlling the lighting of the whole theatre, necessitating a large number of sparking plugs; that he (Leslie) had the sole management and control of all this, and at Leslie's request he undertook to supply the materials necessary; that the first list of orders he received were in blank as far as the name of the firm was concerned; that he signed it and gave it to Leslie, who said he knew where the goods could be obtained at the most advantageous prices; that the orders growing in amount, he became dissatisfied, but was reassured by Leslie showing him letters from Mr. Arthur and Mr. Henderson, authorising him (Leslie) to spend large sums on the work; that he continued sending in invoices to Mr. Henderson addressed to Mr. Merer, when in March one was disclaimed by Mr. Henderson, which fact was afterwards explained by Leslie; that to April 10th such invoices amounted roughly to £1,700; that after that date he made the invoices out, but did not send them in, as he wished to ascertain from Leslie, to whom they were to be sent in, Mr. Arthur or Mr. Henderson, a bundle of such invoices to Mr. Arthur being found on him when he was arrested; that he believed the goods for which he was receiving invoices from different firms, now totalling to large amounts, were being delivered straight to the theatre; that his electrical creditors beginning to press, he borrowed £200 from his bank and £100 from a friend, with which he paid some of their accounts, believing from Leslie that he himself would be paid at the completion of the delivery of goods; that his creditors becoming more pressing, at the instance of Leslie he borrowed from Mr. Rohls, whom he believed to be a capitalist, £4,000 in all, this sum being paid to him in several installments through Leslie; that for this sum he gave promissory notes brought to him by Leslie to sign, not noticing at the time that the name of "Rohls" was not filled in; that the whole of the £4,000 he paid away to his electrical creditors; that as regards the letter to Mr. Arthur asking him to return the letter authorising him to pay Stanley Evans & Co. moneys due to him (Webber), that was written at the instance of Leslie; that he first heard of the Electrical Accessories Co. on July 20th; that he did not know Leslie had any connection with that company; that as regards the cheque for £100 he had paid to the Accessories Manufacturing Co., it was in part payment of an account for other goods he had ordered from them at the instance of Leslie, and that they

were still his creditors for £29, for which they had proved in his bankruptcy; that as regards his dishonoured cheque to Strode & Co., he had paid it in the belief that he would be getting a further loan from Mr. Rohls; that he never told Mr. Archer that he knew where to lay his hands on the goods and that he was dealing with people who had paid him thousands of pounds; and when promising him a cheque he was relying on Mr. Rohls' further loan, which failed; that he never told Rigaldi he was expecting a cheque from the "theatre people"; that Rigaldi must have concluded that when he said he was expecting a cheque from "his people"; that it was in consequence of his saying to Mr. Bowley that he believed the Pognon plug was a French-made article, that Mr. Tremeer went to Paris and obtained them; that he did not say to him that he did not understand how they were to be used, nor that he had just secured the contract, nor that should it be successful contracts might be obtained for other theatres; that he did not tell anybody that he was seeing Mr. Arthur with reference to getting a cheque; that he mentioned nothing to Mr. Dawson about the plugs at all, nor did he lead Mr. Evered to believe that he knew where they were coming from; that he did not see them being fixed on the several occasions he was at the theatre, in explanation of which Leslie informed him they were not yet ready for fixing; that he wrote to Banks, saying that the goods from him had been received at the instance of Leslie, believing at the time that such had been the case; that he knew of no action taken against him by Banks in which fraud was alleged until he was in Court; that as regards the cheques paid to Leslie by him or on his behalf, he did so as a friendly act, Leslie asking for them on the ground that it would be safer than postal orders, and giving him cash for them; that as to the payee, "Mr. A. Cheesman," he was only one of the payees whom Leslie requested him to make the cheques payable to, and that he did not know anything of him.

Cheesman, in her defence on oath, said that Webber had known her for the last six years, meeting her at Leslie's house, where he used to visit very often; that in 1900 she used to help him by making out invoices and making lamp shades, and until 1904 she used to do such odd jobs, receiving cheques in payment; that in 1904 he asked her to open an office and a banking account in her own name, saying he was opening another business and that he did not wish his father to know that he had another business; that she opened a banking account accordingly on July 12th; that eventually she took the offices at Terminus Chambers in her own name, "Sinclair & Co." being on the door on her first arrival, which was afterwards altered to "The Electrical Accessories Co." by his instructions; that she was paid 30s. a week in cash, for which sum she used to copy all the letters from drafts generally supplied by him; that she visited the offices about once or twice a week; that all money she paid into the account was given her by him and that she not had a penny of it; that all money she drew out she gave to Webber; that he said he wanted cash because he was dealing with a French firm, to whom he had to pay cash; that he told her ever since May that she should have a holiday, and that in July she went to Aberystwith with Miss Jamieson, a lady friend, where she was afterwards joined by Leslie, but that there had been no previous arrangement as to that; that Webber, with whom she had

left her address, said he would write to let her know when to return; that Leslie had obtained apartments for his wife and child in the name of Mr. and Mrs. Bond, and on their non-arrival she joined him with her friend to save the expense; that she said to Inspector Willis that her name was not Cheesman, as Leslie had told her that Webber had told him he was in trouble with some creditors, and he did not want him (Leslie) to be known to any of them, that being the reason for his having given the name of Bond, and that if anybody was to ask her if her name was Cheesman she should say it was not, and previously Webber had told her he did not want her name known in the office or out of doors; that she had no idea of the contents of the boxes which contained the gold, and that Leslie had asked her to take charge of the luggage ticket and diamond pins while he went to the railway station about some other luggage; that when she said to the inspector that the small bag containing those articles were not hers she meant the articles themselves and that the bag was hers; and that when she saw Leslie disguised she suspected something must be wrong about debts, but nothing of a criminal nature.

The Judge directed the Jury to disregard Cheesman's evidence as against Webber. LESLIE, CHEESMAN and WEBBER GUILTY ROSENBERG, who was recommended to mercy by the Jury, GUILTY of conspiracy to defraud. LESLIE and WEBBER— Five years' penal servitude each. ROSENBERG— Nine months' hard labour. CHEESMAN— Twelve months in the Second Division. The police were commended by the COURT for their conduct of the case.

ESSEX CASES.

Before Mr. Justice Walton.

Old Court, November 18th, 1905.

Reference Number: t19051113-49

49. TOOTEE AMITGUL (30) , Maliciously wounding Feroze Yussuf. Second count. Assaulting him.

MR. FITZ-GERALD Prosecuted; MR. WARDE Defended.

(The proceedings were interpreted where necessary.)

FEROZE YUSSUF . I am serang on board the steamship Palawan—the prisoner is a fireman on board the same steamship—he works under me—on October 27th he came off duty at 6 a.m.—shortly after 6 I went to the water closet on shore, which is further than the length of this Court from the gangway—the prisoner came straight to me, and with a knife in his hand struck me on my left shoulder twice—these are the clothes I was wearing—then he ran away and went to the go-down—I live on the ship—the prisoner worked on the ship, but slept in the go-down, which is about two minutes' walk from the water closet, and in that direction going from the ship—the water closet is on the way to the go-down—we were not on bad terms—there was no animosity between us and no particular friendliness—he did not complain about the work, or say anything about it; he knew he had to do it.

Cross-examined. There were a large number of coloured men about the docks—it was about 6.30 a.m.—seeing what I did, you would know I went to the water closet because we take certain things.

Re-examined. I know the men who work under me well by sight—I have not a particle of doubt that this is the man who struck me; I have known him three months—when he struck me he used a very offensive term; he called me the son of a pig—it was daylight; about as it is now.

By MR. WARDS. I was in a bad state of health, and in much pain, and it may be I did not think of saying anything about the offensive term at the Police Court.

ARTHUR WILLIAM CLIFTON (Detective, Royal Albert Dock). On October 27th, about 8.30 a.m., I went on board the steamship Palawan in consequence of information I received—I saw the prosecutor in the fore-castle—he appeared in great pain, and was bandaged up—he handed me these clothes—about half an hour afterwards the prisoner came on board—I took him to the police office at the dock—I afterwards conveyed the prosecutor to the Seamen's Hospital—he was charged through an interpreter and in reply said, "You cannot prove I done it"—I had been on board at 7 that morning—it was daylight at 6.30 a.m.

EDMOND GEORGE HARRISON DOCK . I was house surgeon at the Sea-men's Hospital at the Royal Albert Dock—on October 30th, about 11 a.m., I examined the prosecutor at the hospital—I found he had two stab wounds over the left shoulder blade, skin wounds about one inch deep in each case—a knife had penetrated to the depth of about an inch—in one case the instrument had been deflected by the bone, had penetrated an inch, and had pursued a parallel course under the skin; in the other case the instrument had gone straight in—both had been stopped by the shoulder blade—the wounds were quite serious, but not dangerous—he was dressed, and the intention was, I believe, as the ship was leaving shortly, that the case should be tried at once, so he was taken into the hospital and left under the charge of the ship's doctor—the following afternoon the case was tried at Petty Sessions and the following evening he was taken back to the hospital, and remained there some days—the wounds were consistent with having been inflicted when the prosecutor was sitting on the water closet.

ARTHUR CHALLIS . I am an interpreter, of 80, Compton Avenue, East Ham—on October 27th I acted as interpreter at the North Woolwich Police Court and correctly interpreted the charge to the prisoner—he replied in his own language, "The prosecutor has no witnesses," or literally, "He has no evidence against me:"

The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said he was not there, and denied all knowledge of the assault. On the deposition he said, "I am not guilty of the assault."

Evidence for the Defence.

TAWASS KHAN . I am a fireman and deputy officer to the serang—at 6.15 a.m. on October 27th I was in the go-down with fifty-three other men—I was not working on the Palawan and do not know how many men were from that vessel—the prisoner was there—he had his clean clothes in his hand—he washed, changed his clothes, and had his food—he did that every day—he left the go-down that morning about 8.10 or 8.15—I was with him all the time, and he did not leave me.

Cross-examined. I know it was 6.15 when the prisoner came to the go-down, because I had just woke up, and looked at my watch, and I had to arouse the men at 6.30—it was between light and dark—in the go-down it was dark, but outside it was getting light.

MIA AMMAN . I am a fireman—I belong to the go-down—at 6 a.m. on October 27th I was inside the go-down—I saw the prisoner come in about 6.15—he left about 8 a.m. or a few minutes after—all the time he was with me sitting close to the fire place.

NOT GUILTY .

Before Mr. Recorder.

Old Court, November 13th, 1905.

Reference Number: t19051113-50

50. GEORGE KRAMER (22) , Feloniously breaking into the shop of Alfred Lamartin Shaw and stealing two boxes of butter and other goods, his property (See Vol. cxlii., page 1528).

MR. METCALFE Prosecuted.

JAMES BOWLES . I am manager of Alfred Lamartin Shaw, provision merchant, of 328, Green Street, Upton Park—on Saturday, August 12th, I left the premises safe at midnight, locked the doors and took the key—I was called on Sunday evening and found that the back doors were opened and the place in disorder—a large quantity of provisions were shown to me, most of it stored in a court—eight boxes of margarine and a quantity of butter and a large quantity of provisions were all gone—a man named Holmes was captured that day; he had been on the premises before—I do not know anything about the prisoner—I do not know how the thieves got in unless somebody got in during business hours and then withdrew the bolts and let the others in.

ERNEST HUBBARD (822 K.) On Sunday night, August 13th, I was on duty in Green Street, Plashet Lane, and I saw two men in a mews near Shaw's premises—I saw a horse and cart and two other men at the other end of the mews, one of whom I recognise as the prisoner—I knew him before—he and one of the other men named Bailey walked out of the top of the mews—three of the men were captured that night, but the prisoner escaped—I next saw him when he was arrested, and I have no doubt about him.

REGINALD MANWILLING (627 K.) At 9.15 on October 13th I was off duty in plain clothes near Green Street, when I saw the prisoner—there was no warrant out against him, but I knew there was a charge, and I told him I was a police officer and should take him in custody on suspicion of house-breaking with three other men in Green Street in August—he said, "It is quite right; Holmes has put me away. I do not know much about the job; I was the 'lob greyhound'"—that means he was watching for the other men who were doing the job—I took him to the police station.

HENRY RUSSELL (Inspector, K.) At 11.30 on August 13th, in consequence of information. I went to Mr. Shaw's premises and found the whole shop and the back of the premises in confusion and that a lot of goods had been destroyed—apparently somebody had secreted them

selves in the premises and then let the others in—the doors were already bolted inside by the police—there were no locks except one to the front door—the first floor is an office and the remainder empty—on October 13th I was in charge of the station when the prisoner was brought in—I took the charge against him—he said, "I was with the three on the Sunday; I did not go in. I was 'lobbing' for them. Holmes asked me to 'lob' out."

The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I am not guilty of stealing the provisions."

The prisoner. "The other men went in and I was 'lobbing' out."

GUILTY . He then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at West Ham on December 11th, 1903. Five other convictions were proved against him. The police stated that he was a very daring thief and associated with bad characters. Eighteen months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19051113-51

51. ARTHUR BAKER (39) PLEADED GUILTY to stealing an over-mantel and other furniture, the property of the Great Eastern Supply Co., Limited; also to stealing a suite of furniture and other articles, the property of Ernest Christopher Wright; also to stealing a suite of furniture and chair, the property of Francis Freadman. Nine months' hard labour upon each indictment, to run concurrently.

Before Lumley Smith, Esq., K. C.

Fourth Court, November 14th, 1905.

Reference Number: t19051113-52

52. WILLIAM COCKHEDGE (42) PLEADED GUILTY to assaulting James Edward Wright, and thereby occasioning actual bodily harm to him. One summary conviction was proved against him. One month in the Second Division.

KENT CASES.

Before Mr. Recorder.

Old Court, November 13th, 1905.

Reference Number: t19051113-53

53. JOHN WRIGHT (63) PLEADED GUILTY to a burglary in the dwelling house of George Ross and stealing therein an overcoat and other articles, his property, having been convicted of felony at Croydon on April 2nd, 1901. Six other convictions were proved against him and it was stated that he was a dangerous and violent man and had one year and ninety days to serve. Four years' penal servitude.—And

Reference Number: t19051113-54

(54.) ALFRED HILL (17) , to attempting to have carnal knowledge of Dorothy Mabel Gray, a girl under the age of thirteen years. Six months' hard labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

Before Mr. Justice Walton.

Old Court, November 14th and 16th, 1905.

Reference Number: t19051113-55

55. HENRY PHILLIPS (64) , Feloniously demanding from Mary Lewis £200 with menaces and with intent to steal the same.

MR. HUTTON Prosecuted.

MARY LEWIS . I am the wife of Thomas Lewis, who is employed in the Mint, and we live at 16, Wall button Road, Brockley—from September 19th to 23rd I employed a girl named Constance Phillips—she smacked my little girl, aged three, so I gave her notice through my husband to go at once, and she left on September 23rd—I told her about it and then I spoke to my husband and gave him the money to give her—he told her, as I was not very well—before leaving she made no complaint of any kind, but she cried—she had scarcely seen my husband—on October 19th the prisoner called with a man named Egan about 1.15 p.m.—my char-woman opened the door and they stayed in the hall and I went to speak to them—Phillips said, "Are you Mrs. Lewis?"—I said, "I am"—he said, "Mr. Lewis is not at home"—I said, "No"—he said, "Your husband is employed at the Royal Mint"—I said, "He is"—he said, "We have come upon a very serious charge. Will you take us into a room where no one will overhear us?"—I opened the door of the dining room and took them in there, and Phillips said, "Now I almost think I will write it; will you fetch me a sheet of writing paper?"—I said, "Cannot you tell me? I am his wife"—he said, "If you will fetch me a sheet of paper we will decide what we will do, whether we will tell you or write it," so I fetched a sheet of writing paper and when I took it in Phillips said, "We have decided to tell you now. Sit down, take it calmly; we have no wish to punish you, only Mr. Lewis"—I then said, "Who are you?"—they said it did not matter; what they had come about was about a young woman named Constance Phillips, who had been in my employ as mother's help for five days, and had left though the improper conduct of my husband—I said, "It is a lie; I gave her notice myself, through my husband, for smacking my child, and I also gave him the exact money to pay her the 3s. 8d.—Egan then said, "There is a slight discrepancy here, as Constance acknowledges receiving 5s."—Phillips said, Oh, that is of small consequence; that does not matter. The serious thing we have come about is your husband's improper conduct"—I said, "It is a lie, because when she was discharged she cried and said that she wished now she had accepted the engagement to go on the stage and play the violin, only she would have to wear tights"—Phillips said, "She is not that style of girl at all; it is an illusion, but your husband is the biggest blackguard on the face of the earth, and it is not the first time There was a similar case at the Mint some years ago, but we are content not to put it into the hands of the Public Prosecutor for the matter of £200"—I said, "But we have no money," and then they both laughed and Phillips said he knew better than I did what money my husband had—I then said, "I will send for my father," and I was trying to go to the door to fetch him, but they both stood in front of the door and would not let me go out—I had a speaking tube, which they could not see, on the other side of the fireplace, and I rushed across the room and blew down the tube and told the charwoman to go at once for my father—they said they did not wish a third party to interfere, as it could be settled

between Mr. Lewis and them—they still kept on repeating about my husband being the biggest blackguard on earth and the best thing for me would be to get a separation—I said, "Cannot you wait until my father comes; don't you see you are killing me?"—just then I saw my father coming down the garden and I went to the door and let him in—I said to him in the prisoner's presence, "You remember that girl, Constance Phillips?"—my father said, "Yes"—I said, "These men, I do not know who they are, they won't tell me, but they say that they have come about Constance leaving at a minute's notice herself on account of the improper conduct of my husband, and you know quite well that I sent her away for smacking baby, because I told you all about it and you gave me the exact money to give her, as I had not change, but these men say that my husband is the biggest blackguard on earth, but they are willing not to put it into the hands of the Public Prosecutor for a matter of £200, and I have told them we have no money"—my father then asked them who they were, but Phillips said that it did not matter, as they had the proofs in their pocket as my husband had written to the girl making appointments and had also been to see her at her lodgings; that he had sent letters to the girl's landlord and that this letter had got into the hands of the girl's landlord's governor, and that he was likely to lose his situation through it for keeping a girl of immoral character—my father asked them to show us the letters, as we both knew my husband's writing, but they refused, so my father and myself ordered them out of the house—Egan then turned to my father and said, "If you would only be reasonable," or something to that effect, but I was listening to Phillips, who was saying that my husband was the biggest blackguard on earth and that he was going to the master of the Mint, who was a personal friend of his, and that he was already in communication with him—after they left I did not see them again that day, but I next saw them about 10.30 next morning, when my husband was present, as well as my father and the charwoman—I was watching to see when they came up the road and also for a detective—as soon as the door was opened to them by my husband, Phillips said, "Are you Mr. Lewis?"—my husband said, "I am," and took them into the dining room—they said, "Mr. Dawson?" (that is my father), and Mr. Lewis said, "Yes, he is coming in a minute or so"—Phillips said, "What are we waiting for? We have been here nearly three minutes now," and I called out, "You are waiting for the detectives. I am going to have you both locked up," and with that they went to the door and went off as fast as they could—my father had come then and he and my husband went after them—before that we had communicated with the police.

Crass-examined by the prisoner. There was no one else present at the conversation between Egan, yourself, and myself, but I repeated it to my father—my statement that certain things were said to me is absolutely uncorroborated—I told my father the tale that you had told me in front of you—I did not say that I would do anything to screen my husband—I said I had nothing to screen him from—I asked you if you were a police officer, not if you were a solicitor—you did not say, "No, I am not a

solicitor and I may as well tell you that I have not consulted a solicitor, because if I had done so he probably would have taken one or two courses. It might have taken the form of a Magisterial inquiry or it might have taken the form of an action for damages for libel, the libel being contained in a third letter in which the writer made serious charges against my daughter and threatening that if she were not turned out from the apartments she was staying at, the police would be informed that the landlord was keeping a disorderly establishment and that the damages which might be given by a jury might be assessed at £50, £100, or £200, according to the view they took of the matter"—the only sum I heard of was £200, and there was nothing about a claim for damages—I have not made a mistake and I have always been credited with a wonderful memory—you had no claim upon us—you were not threatening me, but you told my father you would sell us up and make us bankrupt and that my husband would lose his situation and be sent to prison—I did not hear you tell my father that—the Magistrate discharged Egan—you could not judge from the appearance of the room what money we had, because the painters were in and there was simply a table and chair left there—this letter "A" is in my husband's writing with the exception of the word "Affectionately"—I say that that word is not in his writing because I have known him for ten years—he is a Welshman and he has never spelt that word out in his life—he always puts "Affect," and he never puts "Affectionately yours"—I believe that this letter has been traced or copied, as he wrote the letter on paper from the Mint—I believe this letter "Al," dated from the Mint, is in his writing.

Re-examined. Apart from the word "affectionately," I believe the whole of this letter "A" is in my husband's writing.

JOHN GEORGE DAWSON . I live at Asked Schools, Pepy's Road, New Cross, of which I am the caretaker—the schools communicate with 16, Wallbutton Road, where my daughter lives, through the garden—on October 19th, between 1 and 2 p.m., a message came to me and I went across to my daughter's house—I went into the dining room, where I saw Phillips, Egan, and my daughter—she told me in their presence that they had demanded £200 on account of her husband having assaulted a young lady, named Miss Phillips, and said that they said that her husband had been writing letters and making appointments to meet the young lady in the evening, that he had also written letters to the landlord where the young lady was lodging, and that a letter unfortunately had dropped into the hands of the landlord's governor and was likely to get him discharged—that is what my daughter told me Phillips had said—I asked Phillips what authority he came from, and who he came from, and who he represented, and who they were, and their names; also if they were police officers—to that he said, "No," but he refused to say who he represented or who had sent him, or give his name—I told him I did not believe there was a word of truth in anything that he had said—he said he had the evidence in his pocket in the form of eight or nine letters written by Mr. Lewis to the young lady—I asked him to let me see them, but he refused—I then told him he must leave the premises, as I did not believe there was any

truth in what he had to say—he said, "What cannot speak cannot lie, and I have the letters in my pocket"—I again asked him to let me see them, and as he again refused I opened the door and turned them out—as they were going, Egan, in Phillips' hearing, said, "You had better come to business in this matter, Mr. Dawson; we are reasonable men and we are willing to meet you honourably and make a compromise with you"—I did not say any more, but turned them out—about 3 p.m. the same day they came together to my house, which is a lodge belonging to the schools—Phillips said, "You asked to see these letters?"—I said, "Yes"—he said, "We have been talking this matter over and have decided to let you see them on one condition, and on that one condition only"—I said, "What is it?"—he said, "That you ask the headmaster of these schools to come into this room and read the letter and hand it back to me"—I said, "I shall do no such thing, as the headmaster of these schools has nothing whatever to do with this case; neither have I, any more than what it concerns my daughter"—he said, "One of the other masters who holds a responsible position we will accept"—I refused to call in any master in connection with it, and refused that the master should be brought into it in any way—I then said, "I have been caretaker of these schools between seventeen and eighteen years; if you like to let me read the letters or lay them on the table I will pledge my word of honour that I will not touch it or destroy it or do anything to the letter, but you shall take it up and do as you like with it without injury"—with that he laid one of the letters on the table, which I read—this (Produced) is similar to the one I read, but it is not the same; it was on a half sheet of blue paper—the contents are practically the same, but the paper is not—the handwriting is similar to this, and I took it to be Lewis's—the contents were exactly the same as far as I can remember—I cannot remember seeing in that letter the word "affectionately"—I asked him to let me see the other letters, but he said that that one was quite sufficient, so I said, "Well, you had better see Mr. Lewis himself about this matter. It is his affair, not mine"—Egan replied, "Mr. Dawson, you had better come to terms. You will find us very reasonable men; it is a very serious matter, but you will find we are able to meet you in a reasonable manner and make a compromise with you"—Phillips then said, "If you do not, we shall sell your daughter up, we shall make a bankrupt of her, and we shall put Mr. Lewis in prison and throw him out of his situation"—I said, "I will send for Mr. Lewis at once; I will send a wire for him if you like to wait or call again a little later and see him, and let him speak for himself"—Egan said he could not come again—I said, "Will you come this evening?"—he said, "I have another appointment; I cannot come"—Phillips said he could—I said, "Well, you had better both come together"—Egan replied that he could come any time in the morning before 12—I said, "Can you make it 10?"—they said, "Yes," and we agreed to meet at 10, and I said that Lewis should be present—the following morning, between 10 and 10.30, I went to my daughter's house about half-a-dozen times, but they had not arrived—at 10.30 I saw Lewis, my daughter, Egan, and Phillips there—I said, "Good-morning," and I turned to speak to Lewis and my

daughter, to tell them that I had sent for a policeman—Phillips and Egan could not hear that—Phillips said, "What are we waiting for, Mr. Dawson?" We have been here very nearly three minutes"—I replied, "I have asked a friend to come in to hear the evidence on both sides, so that we shall have something to work upon"—my daughter was a little excited and called out, "He has sent for a detective"—they heard that and laid hold of the door and bolted as hard as they could.

Cross-examined. When I first came into the room Mrs. Lewis told me you had demanded £200 and then she burst out crying—you never promised to give us your name at all—you did not say to me in my room that my daughter was very hysterical and not responsible for what she was doing—I may possibly have said that she had been upset owing to the death of a friend and that she was very highly strung—I never said that I was disappointed about my son-in-law, and I did not tell you that he was out of a situation when they were engaged and had afterwards received a permanent appointment at the Mint—you said that you wanted an apology and an undertaking that these abominable proceedings must stop and that you had been put to such an enormous expense in sending this young lady away to the country that the money must be paid—you did not say, when I read the letter, that that was sufficient for your calling upon me, because it was improperly signed, "Affectionately yours"—when I said that I should be present at the interview with Lewis you said you would be very pleased to see me—you did not say to Egan in my presence, whilst we were waiting, "It seems to me, Mr. Egan, that these people are acting very rudely to us; we have come in accordance with their appointment and I don't propose to wait any longer"—when my daughter said that we had sent for a detective you said, "That is right; if you had not we should," and at the same time bolted—I had to run to catch you up—letter "A" was not shown to me until the last hearing before the Magistrate—my daughter told me in your hearing that you wanted £200 in addition to the apology, and you told me the same thing in my own house when you said that you must claim something on account of the enormous expense you had been put to—after I had been cross-examined at the Police Court I did not add this alleged demand of £200 because I had discovered that my daughter had told a cock-and-bull story which was unsupported—during the whole of the interview I was calm and collected; I showed no indignation or surprise—I was calm because I wanted to know the truth, and it was not because that statement had never been made by you.

By the COURT. I mentioned to the Magistrate that one letter was shown to me in the afternoon.

THOMAS LEWIS . I live at 16, Wallbutton Road, Brockley, and am employed in the Royal Mint.—I remember my wife engaging a girl named Phillips in September—she remained with us for five days—in consequence of what my wife said I discharged her for beating my child—I paid her—she made no complaint about my conduct or anything—she did not sleep at my house; she left at 6 p.m. and came at 7.30 a.m.—on October 20th, about 10.30 a.m., I saw the prisoner and a man named

Egan with my wife and father-in-law—I had previously communicated with the police—I opened the door for the prisoner and Egan—when they came in nobody but myself was in the room—they asked where Mr. Dawson was—I said he was just coming in—my wife also came in, but for about a minute nobody spoke; then my wife said, "I wish that police inspector would come"—Phillips said to Egan, "What are we waiting for? We have been here now nearly three minutes, so I am off to the Mint," so they hurried off and went outside—this letter "A" is in my writing with the exception of the word "affectionately"—I also wrote this letter "Al."—"R.M.E." means "Royal Mint East" (Part read): "Please don't write to the above until you hear again; I am going away for a few days. Yours truly"—that was written, I think, on Wednesday, October 4th, a week and a day after the girl had left—I wrote that to her letter because I had to send her a reference and she had promised to send me an apology to the Mint for smacking my child.

Cross-examined. This is not the actual letter which I wrote—it is my writing, but it is a tracing—I say that "affectionately" was not written by me, because I remember almost all that was in my letter—I wrote the second letter because I was at home with a poisoned finger and was not at the Mint to get her apology—I sent her her testimonials in another envelope—I said in the first letter, "I shall be pleased to hear from you at any time"—that was to get her apology—I did not say anything in my letter about an apology, because the less said to a dangerous woman the better—I called at the girl's house once after the letter to get the apology—before I went to the Mint I was employed in an engineer's shop—Mr. Rigg is the head of my department now. [At the prisoner's request the witness wrote down the words, "The Coachman, Hilly Field's Crescent." "Affectionately yours."]

Re-examined. Letter "A" was written on blue paper supplied at the Mint—I wrote a letter exactly like No. "A," but on blue paper.

By the COURT. I know nothing at all about these other letters (Produced)—while the girl was under my roof I was at work—I go out at 7.15 a.m.—I have to be at the Mint at 8 p.m. and I leave there at 5 p.m.

By the prisoner. On the Saturday that the girl left my house my wife was at the Crystal Palace—I was not alone with Miss Phillips—there were people upstairs and I was at Mr. Dawson's place all the afternoon until 5 p.m., and I went back then to send her away—she left about 5.5—I sent her away and paid her, to save my wife trouble, and because she was afraid of her.

JOHN ROBERTS (332 R.) I arrested the prisoner on October 20th, about 11 a.m., in Old Kent Road—Dawson was following him—I told the prisoner that I should take him to Brockley police station for demanding money by threats—he said, "He has only got one witness, the same as me. I called there with reference to a young lady whom he had ruined and to put a stop to same"—on the way to the station he said, "He has only one witness, the same as me. I do not think it right to be taken without a warrant, but I decline to give any account of myself"—at the station he was charged and made no reply.

Cross-examined. I was present at the station—I made my note on the way to the station—you said to Dawson, "What do you mean by this, Mr. Dawson?" and he said, "I am going to give you in charge for black-mailing," and I think you said, "Mr. Dawson, you know it is a monstrous charge, and I can only look upon you as being as big a blackguard as your son-in-law."

JOHN BLACKMORE (Detective-Sergeant P.) I was present during the hearing of the charge against the prisoner and Egan before the Magistrate—by the directions of the Magistrate I went with the prisoner to his house on October 28th, and the prisoner found these three letters underneath a book in the first floor front room—I saw him take them from that place—he had every opportunity of searching for and producing any other letters—he told me where the letters where on the way to the house.

Cross-examined. You made straight for the letters when we got to the house—the house is a large one and is full of furniture and a quantity of papers and books—probably a stranger would not have found the letters.

The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that about three weeks ago his daughter, Constance Phillips, called upon him with a friend and told him that she had a complaint to make against a man named Lewis; that he and Egan called at Lewis's house next day and told Mrs. Lewis that her husband had been behaving improperly to the girl and writing letters to her in affectionate terms, and that an anonymous letter had been sent to her making serious reflections upon her character; that Mrs. Lewis said it was all a lie and asked if he were a solicitor; that he said no, and had not consulted one, and that if he had he would probably suggest either proceedings before a Magistrate or an action for damages, in which case a jury might very easily give a verdict for £50, £100, or £200; that he made no objection to her calling her father; that when he came she told him the exact tale that he (the prisoner) had told her; that there was not a word said about his demanding £200 or any other sum; that he told Dawson that he had letters in proof of what he said in his pocket; that he and Egan were not turned out of the house. He denied that he told Mrs. Lewis that they wished to have any further person present; that either he or Egan prevented her leaving the room; that she said they were killing her; that he ever uttered any threat; that he used the words "Public Prosecutor"; that Egan said they were reasonable persons and could come to terms; that he demanded £200 or any sum in addition to the apology; that they would return at 6 o'clock; that he said he would show the letters to Mr. Dawson on one condition only; that he suggested or asked for the headmaster to be present, or referred to him in any way; that he said he had sent his daughter away at vast expense that she might not be molested by Lewis; that he said he would ruin Mrs. Lewis or make her husband bankrupt, or get him turned away from the Mint; that he said he knew the present master of the Mint; that the letter shown was the blue letter, but it was the letter subsequently marked "A"; that the time fixed for the interview was 10 o'clock, but was 10.30; that he said he had waited three minutes, when he had waited fifteen to twenty minutes; that anything was said about detectives or previous meetings; that he and Egan

had been turned out of the house by Dawson; or that they ran away, but that he was a naturally fast walker and was anxious to get to the British Museum on business.

Mrs. Lewis was recalled and at the request of the Court wrote, "I shall acquaint the police of what sort of a house you keep. Also I shall not fail to write to your master. Trusting you will not compel me to do this. Well Wisher."

Evidence for the Defence.

GEORGE EGAN (By the prisoner). I have been in the employment of the Post Office over twenty years—I remember calling upon you as to some letters which you said your daughter had received of a very serious nature—I believe it was on Wednesday, October, 19th and as to letters which she had received on the 18th—I had told her that it was necessary that she should see you, and after a great deal of persuasion she accompanied me to your house, and we discussed the matter—one letter was written in pencil—I arranged to go with you to Mr. Lewis's house and see what truth there was in them—when we got there Mrs. Lewis asked us our business—as the matter did not concern me I left you to open the matter after we had gone into a private room—Mrs. Lewis appeared to be very much upset, and said, "What is the nature of your business?"—you said you had come to see Mr. Lewis, and somewhat hesitated to state the nature of your visit, seeing that it did not concern her—Mrs. Lewis seemed very agitated, and asked if her husband had done anything wrong at the Mint, whereupon you said you would like a sheet of paper to write to him—Mrs. Lewis went to get some notepaper—upon her return you said you might give her an outline of what you had come about, or some words to that effect, and you commenced by saying, "We have come here on a very serious charge against your husband in connection with Constance Phillips. Your husband has been writing letters to Constance Phillips; he has tried to blacken her character, and has threatened to do her irreparable damage"—Mrs. Lewis seemed excited and hysterical—she sank back in a chair and demanded to know what it was—you then proceeded to tell her the object of your visit—you said, "Mrs. Lewis, your husband has written a note to a young lady, Constance Phillips, and has written a very damaging letter with regard to her; she was lately in your employ, and I should like to see Mr. Lewis"—Mrs. Lewis asked to see the letters, but you declined to show them, and said that they would be shown at the proper time—I think you said that your view was that he had been trying to damage the girl's character in a very serious way, and that a jury might consider the letters a defamation of character, and might assess damages of £50, £100, or even £200—Mrs. Lewis said, "Will you wait a minute, and I will call my father?"—we waited—her father appeared, and you briefly told him the nature of your visit—the father appeared very agitated, and said, "It is a lie; get out of my house"—after that there was a slight altercation, and we left the place, after arranging to come the next day, with the object of seeing Mr. Lewis—I do not recollect the exact words, but you did not seem satisfied with the way we were met, and suggested

that we should go and see Mr. Dawson at the school house, with the object of calling an independent witness, a man not connected with the family—when we got there we were ushered into a small room by Mr. Dawson, and the object of our visit was again gone into—you said that you would show Mr. Dawson one of the letters on condition that an independent witness was brought into the case—you suggested one of the junior teachers, or anybody who could be an independent witness—Mr. Dawson objected to that very strongly, and I then suggested that you should show one of the letters, to show the cause of our coming there, whereupon you produced one of the letters, and Mr. Dawson seemed perfectly satisfied that it was in his son-in-law's writing, but he made no comment on the letter—there were three letters, but I do not recollect which of them you showed him—the paper was white—we left after arranging to see Mr. Lewis the next day—when we kept our appointment the next morning Mr. Lewis opened the door at half-past 10, and we were taken into a dining room—as I was not very interested in the case I said nothing, thinking you would open the object of the visit—you asked to see Mr. Dawson, said that you had made an appointment, and that you thought it would be more satisfactory if I was there to hear what was said—Mr. Dawson appeared to hesitate a few minutes, and something was said about an independent witness, a detective, I think, who had arranged to be there, but he had not kept the appointment—after this nobody said anything at all, and nothing was done in the matter, as we were waiting for this independent witness—after fifteen or twenty minutes you said, "What are we waiting for? We had better go, and we will consider the matter"—we had gone about a mile, when Dawson followed us, and we were arrested—we were given in charge—we did not run away, or anything of that kind—we walked leisurely away—I was locked up, and I have felt my position ever since, for of course I have been disgraced in the Post Office—I had positively no idea of any attempt to get money out of Lewis—nothing of that kind had been suggested to me—I had known the girl Phillips three or four years; she has been lodging at my father's house, and of course I have known her, and her father, and her name—both she and her mother lodged at my father's house—I had known the girl a little while before she had lodged there, but not intimately until she lodged there—I lived with my father partly—I am positive we did not say anything to Mrs. Lewis demanding money—you made no threat whatever—I do not recollect your laughing on Mrs. Lewis stating they were not worth 200 pence, or anything of that kind—I was not in a laughing humour; I thought it was a very serious affair—Mrs. Lewis asked if you were a solicitor, when you mentioned the possibility of what a jury might think—your conduct was exceptionally gentlemanly—the serious part of the matter I thought was the damaging letter, and that the girl had left the coachman's house in consequence of it—you insisted on that (The letter written in pencil, and addressed to The Stables, 9, Hilly Fields Crescent, Brockley, S. E., was then read as follows: "Sir,—Not knowing your name, I am not able to address you by same, but this note is intended to warn you that you are laying yourself open to very serious things by allowing such a woman as you have staying at your

house to lodge there. You must know the character of her by this time, and I am surprised that such a man as you, would allow such a woman as her, to associate with your wife and children. I do not wish to do you any harm, but I hereby give you notice that unless you get rid of that objectionable and low woman I shall acquaint the police of what sort of a house you keep. Also I shall not fail to write to your master. Trusting you will not compel me to do this, I am, Well Wisher"—I regarded that letter as serious—the language you used at the interviews was calm and temperate and it is not true that Mrs. Lewis called out that you were killing her, or that we prevented her leaving the room, or calling her father—there is a speaking tube from her house to her father's house some eight or ten yards away—he came in and asked, "What are you come about, and who are you?" or something like those words—I am positive you never said that you would make the Lewis's bankrupt, sell them up, or make Lewis lose his situation, or anything of that sort—I did not hear you tell Mr. Dawson that you had eight or nine letters—I did not say that we were reasonable men, or anything of that kind—the Magistrate discharged me—it is an absolute falsehood to say that we both bolted from the house—we were arrested early in the morning, and it was not till 4 or 5 o'clock before we could see anybody—I do not recollect a large book being brought in, but we were asked our names—I had given my name before that to the policeman—I had refused to give my name before, because I did not want to be mixed up in the case, but I did not think it was going to be so serious—you said at the proper time you would give your name, but that it was not necessary "just now"—you said you were the father of the young lady, when we gave our names at the police station, and Lewis withdrew the allegation—the name of the Public Prosecutor was not mentioned at all.

Cross-examined. Nothing was said in the way of demanding money—it was said that a jury might possibly give damages of £50, £100, or even £200—I knew that the prisoner's daughter was living at 24, Embleton Road, Lewisham, where the coachman was employed, but I do not know how long she had been living there—she was there before she went to Mrs. Lewis's, where she was employed only a few days—I saw her when I went to see her landlord, the coachman, about once in three weeks—I was not there on several occasions, nor even on one occasion in each week—I swear that—I never heard that she was to leave in consequence of my visits—I never heard that the people talked about my coming there—I did not visit the mother, because she lived a long way off—the girl was living with the coachman's people—she had a sitting room of her own—I was a friend of the coachman—I went home with him, visited him and we enjoyed music together—he is a married man—on the 20th Mrs. Lewis mentioned about a detective after we had been there about a quarter of an hour—we walked leisurely away—nothing was said about our going to the police station when we left Lewis's house—no letter on blue paper was shown to me by the girl—I went to Lewis's on the second occasion because I had been on the first, and I wanted to see the outcome of it—I refused my name because of exposure; I did not want them to

know who I was, and as Phillips did not give his, why should I?—he alluded to the girl as "the young lady"—he did not then say that she was his daughter—that did not surprise me, because I thought he knew what he was about—I did not take a deep interest in the letters, except the anonymous one, but I thought there was another letter from Lewis—I have said that Mr. Dawson seemed satisfied that the letter shown to him was in Lewis's writing—I did not know that Dawson gave information to the police at 6 that evening—I was surprised at being arrested—I absolutely deny that anything was said about our being reasonable man, and coming to terms—I merely went to hear what was said, though it did not concern me—I never said, "You had better come to business in this matter, as we are reasonable men, and do not want to punish either you or your husband too severely," or any words to that effect—I went there merely to see what was done about the letters, and to get an apology—we did not get an apology—we went away because Mr. Dawson would not call an independent witness, when an arrangement was made to go and see Mr. Lewis the following day—on the 20th Phillips said, "We have been here quite twenty minutes, and won't wait any longer"—we came away because the independent man did not turn up, and they did not say anything—I supposed that Lewis had written the anonymous letter by what the girl had told me, and the way she had been treated at the coach-man's place—that was the idea I formed.

In reply to the COURT the prisoner said he did not intend to call Constance Philips. The Jury, being unable to agree, were discharged without giving a verdict, and the trial postponed until next Session.

Before Lumley Smith, Esq., K. C.

Fourth Court, November 16th, 1905.

Reference Number: t19051113-56

56. ERNEST WHITE (24) , Uttering a counterfeit florin, knowing it to be counterfeit.

MR. MORICE Prosecuted.

LUCY MAJOR . I am an assistant to Mr. Workman, a tobacconist, of Evelyn Street, Deptford—at 11.30 a.m. on October 17th the prisoner came into the shop and asked for a penny bottle of ink—I served him—he also asked if we kept toy trumpets, as his little boy was outside crying for one—we told him we did not sell them—he also wanted a pennyworth of stationery—he tendered 2s.—I gave him change—this is the 2s. piece—I kept it in my hand—he left the shop—after he did so I noticed the coin was very light—I went outside and told a constable, who went after the prisoner and caught him, and I gave him into custody.

Cross-examined by the prisoner. I pointed you out to the constable—a little boy pointed you out afterwards—he is not here.

WILLIAM COUSINS (134 R.) On October 17th, at 11.30 a.m., I was spoken to by the last witness—in consequence I went after the prisoner, caught hold of him and took him back to the shop—when I got there the last witness said, "He has passed a bad 2s. piece on me"—I took it from the counter—the prisoner said, "That is a good one"—I said, "Have

you got any mote of them?"—he said, "No"—I asked him to turn out "his pockets, which he did—he had two half-crowns and 5d. bronze—I took him to a pawnshop to have the coin tested—while being tested he ran off—I chased him for 300 yards and caught him—he said, "That was my bluff"—I took him to the station, where he was charged—in reply he said, "That is right; that is all, miss, is not it?"

Cross-examined. You did not at the station give an account of how you came by the coin—you were not drunk—you appeared to have had a glass—a boy pointed you out—Miss Major did not do so—she said you had just gone round the corner—I do not know where the boy is now—I have not looked for him—there was nobody by you—that I am positive of.

GEORGE CUSHWAY . I am a pawnbroker at Blackheath Road, Green-wich—this florin was brought to me by a policeman—I tested it—it is very light in weight—it is bad—the coin was sent in to me by the Magistrate.

The prisoner, in his defence on oath, said that he was passing a stationer's shop when he saw a little boy outside crying; that he asked him what was the matter, when a man standing by said, "He wants a trumpet"; that he (the prisoner) said to him, "Why don't you buy him one?"; that the man replied, "I do not care to go in for one myself"; that he (the prisoner) said, "Give me the money, I will go in for it"; that he did so; that he asked the man if he wanted anything else and he replied, "Yes, a bottle of ink and some stationery"; that he (the prisoner) went in and gave a 2s. piece and received 1s. 10d. change; and that he went away, when a constable came up and arrested him.

GUILTY . He then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of uttering counterfeit coin at this Court on April 18th, 1904, in the name of Arthur White to George Long and Agnes Kimber, so that he feloniously uttered the counterfeit coin to Lucy Major. Five other convictions were proved against him. Three years' penal servitude.

Fourth Court, November 17th, 1905.

Reference Number: t19051113-57

57. FREDERICK BAKER (30), ALFRED RICHARD SINGLETON (39), and MARTHA NEAL , Feloniously breaking and entering the dwelling house of Wilfred George Robertson and stealing therein a watch, two neck chains, and other goods belonging to him, and 5s. in money BAKER PLEADED GUILTY .

MR. RAVEN Prosecuted; MR. GROSER Appeared for Singleton and

MR. PERCIVAL HUGHES for Neal.

WILFRED GEORGE ROBERTSON . I live at 71, Homecroft Road, Sydenham, and am a chemist—on September 23rd, about 2 p.m., I left my house and returned about 3.45 p.m.—I found a back window pane broken, and missed a gold watch and chain and many other articles, valued at about £65—these things now produced are all that have been recovered.

Cross-examined by MR. GROSER. I cannot say how long I had the watch—I know nothing of its value beyond what I am informed.

Cross-examined by MR. HUGHES. There is a bracelet here which was in my house—that is connected with Neal—it was in a jewel case in a drawer—it had been used a few days before by my wife—it is supposed to be a gold bracelet—I cannot say if it is hall-marked—I should not take it to be one from the Abyssinian Gold Company—my wife will speak as to the things—I should certainly say this is a gold ring.

Re-examined. I think the watch is worth about eight guineas.

ELEANOR EDITH ROBERTSON . I am the last witness's wife—on September 23rd, on returning home, I found that our front door was bolted inside and the back kitchen window was broken and someone had evidently been in the house—this is our property.

Cross-examined by MR. GROSER. I should say the watch and chain are worth about eight guineas—the watch was a present.

JANET DUNCAN STORM . I live at 97, Venner Road, Sydenham—these articles (Produced) belong to me—they consist of ornaments, watch and chain, beads, and some dress stuff—on September 22nd I left my house—I returned at 4.55 and found it had been broken into—I missed these articles and others which have not been traced.

Cross-examined by MR. GROSER. These are pearl beads—I do not know how much the watch cost; I have had it many years—I do not know the value of these things.

ADA TORY . I live at 29, Ardcott Road, Catford, with my husband—these articles (Produced) are my properly—on August 13th last I left my house—I came back about 4.30 and found it had been broken into and a number of articles taken—there were more taken than these.

Cross-examined by MR. GROSER. These plated spoons had been used in the house for some time—I do not know the value of these things, because they mostly were wedding presents.

FREDERICK PLUTTE . I live at 1, Lefrere Road, Sydenham—these things are my property (Produced)—on July 8th I found my house had been broken inot and these things, among others, were missing.

Cross-examined by MR. GROSER. I cannot say whether this milk jug and sugar basin are plated or silver.

ELIZABETH GRUNDY . I live at "Rosendale," Adamsril Road, Sydenham, with my husband—these articles are mine—they were missed from my house on August 4th—the house was burgled at 5.45 a.m.

Cross-examined by MR. GROSER. These things have been in daily use in my house—some of them are plated goods—these are all the things I missed—they are worth £3 16s.—I bought them myself—I have had these spoons about four years.

EDWARD BADCOCK (Inspector P.) On October 4th, about 1 o'clock, I went with Holford and Foster to the Man of Kent beer and wine house in Sydenham Road, Sydenham—I saw Singleton there—he is the licensee of the house—I said to him, "We are police officers; a man named Baker, otherwise Jones, has been arrested for housebreaking and stealing a gold watch and chain and other things, and he says he has sold them to you; he says he sold you knives and forks, a clock and other things"—Singleton replied, "He has left nothing here"—I said, "I shall see what you have"

—he said, "I know the man you mean; I thought he got the things from sales. My wife bought a gold watch and chain of him for 10s. when I was out, but she gave them to me when I came home"—I followed him into the bedroom, where, in the presence of his wife, he handed me the watch and chain—this is the watch and chain, which belong to Mrs. Robertson—the prisoner's wife said, "That is so; I gave them to my husband and he said I was right"—Singleton said, "I bought eight tablespoons from him and a dish, which was the first thing; that is all"—Holford went on searching and found a number of forks and knives, two rings, and other articles which have been identified—Singleton took another ring from a drawer and said, "That I bought off him; I cannot say what I gave him for it"—while the premises were being searched the prisoner said several times. "That is all I have," but other things were afterwards found—I said, "I shall arrest you for feloniously receiving these things"—he replied, "I know I have been very silly and ought to have known better"—the things were gathered together—the prisoner said, "The clock I bought for 5s., three jugs for 8s., silver watch and bracelet for 4s., two rings and bracelet for 6s., one ring for 5s.; three necklaces given to the children" (I take it they were got for nothing) "I gave him 15s. for six teaspoons, 6d. for a sideboard cloth; the other forks and spoons I bought of him in different lots; I gave him 8s. for the knives, carver and steel"—Mrs. Singleton said, "I gave him 10s. for the gold watch and chain"—Singleton said, "I bought the piece of cloth for 1s. 6d. of him"—he was subsequently charged and replied, "I did not know they were stolen"—Baker was arrested the day before—he was dressed like a common working man, very untidy and dirty in appearance—that was on October 3rd—the goods were taken to the police station and identified.

Cross-examined by MR. GROSER. I said before the Magistrate that after Singleton's first denial, he gave us every assistance and concealed nothing—I did not say to Singleton, when I first went to 3ee him, "Has a man named Baker left anything here?"—and he did not reply to that, "No"—I did not then ask him if he had purchased articles of jewellery from a customer and he did not at once say, "Yes"—he said what I have stated—Singleton and his wife both volunteered statements as to how much they had given for the things.

Re-examined. That was after the things were found there.

By the COURT. They were things from the burglaries at Robertson's, Storm's, Tory's, Plutte's and Grundy's.

HENRY HOLFORD (Sergeant P.) On October 11th last I went with Badcock to 19, Green Lane, Penge, and saw Neal there, it is a coffee shop—I told her we were police officers and that a tall young man named Baker was locked up for stealing a lot of jewellery—I asked her if she had some that he had sold to her; I also said that he had stolen two rings and other things—she replied, "My dear sir, I have not bought anything"—I said, "Let there be no mistake; have you bought anything since September 24th?"—she then said, "I bought a ring and a plated bracelet and gave him 1s. 9d. for them"—these are the ring and the bracelet—then she brought two plated metal buttons—I asked her if she had

bought anything else—she said, "I have given the bracelet to my niece, Miss Wren"—it is gold—the things were identified by Mrs. Robertson—I arrested Neal on October 18th—when charged she said, "I bought the things innocently."

Cross-examined by MR. HUGHES. I took the bracelet to a pawnbroker who valued it at £2 10s. to break up as old gold—some of the small articles recovered from Neal are of no value—this ring the pawnbroker valued at 10s.—it is marked 15-carat gold; you can see it with a glass—the prisoner told me she had bought an old plated bracelet—I have not heard that it has since been washed by the niece—Neal is a respectable woman and there is nothing against her character—she and her husband carry on a coffee house business close to the Penge police station—policemen go there every day for food and also lodge there—her husband is dying of consumption—she is herself extremely delicate, suffering from heart disease—I do not know that she cannot read or write—it was true that she had at once given the bracelet to her niece.

Neel, in her defence on oath, said that Baker came into the shop for some dinner and then asked her if she could help him in any way, as he had no work; that he had a few things to sell and would she buy them of him; that she told him she did not want anything, but that she would go and ask her husband, which she did, and came back and bought the things of him for 1s. 9d.; that she then threw them on the dresser, not knowing they were of much value; that the bracelet when she bought it was black, as though dipped in coffee, and that she simply bought the things to help the man.

Evidence for Neal.

JEANETTE WREN . I live at Forest Hill and am a servant—I am Mrs. Neal's niece—I remember going to see her one Wednesday evening, as I usually do, when she took a bracelet oft the dresser and said she had "bought it off a man in distress for 1s. 9d.—it was very much discoloured—I cleaned it with some knife polish—I did not think it was gold; I thought it was imitation—I have seen other things of this pattern that are imitation of this kind.

Cross-examined. I do not think it is very good—I wore it twice—I have no idea of the value of these things—I do not think it is worth what is said.

Re-examined. Somebody said it was valued at £12.

Singleton, in his defence on oath, said that he had been a licensed victualler for about twenty years and had never before been in any trouble of any sort; that he did not know Baker by name, only as a customer by sight; that Baker came into his bar and told him that he attended sales; that on one occasion he showed him a catalogue of a sale; that on another occasion he (the prisoner) advanced him some money to buy things, and that he had no suspicion that the goods he bought of Baker were not honestly come by.

Evidence for Singleton.

MRS. SINGLETON. I am the prisoner's wife—I have seen Baker in our bar as a customer—I once bought a gold watch and chain of him and wore it in the bar and out of doors publicly—I never had any idea that

it or any of the property my husband bought had been stolen or come by improperly.

Cross-examined. I cannot give the date of our first dealing with Baker—it was soon after we went into the house.

Singleton received a good character. SINGLETON and NEAL NOT GUILTY . (See next case.)

Reference Number: t19051113-58

58. ALFRED RICHARD SINGLETON and MARTHA NEAL were again indicted for breaking and entering the dwelling houses of Frederick Augustus Tory and Elliott Storm and receiving goods therein, knowing they were stolen.

MR. RAVEN, for the Prosecution, offered no evidence.

NOT GUILTY .

BAKER then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at the Sessions House, Newington, on August 19th, 1903. A number of other convictions were proved against him. The police gave him a bad character. Three years' penal servitude.

SURREY CASES.

Before Mr. Recorder.

Old Court, November 13th, 1903.

Reference Number: t19051113-59

59. JAMES BECKETT (33) PLEADED GUILTY to feloniously marrying Amy Frances Liston, his wife being alive. Three months' hard labour. —And

Reference Number: t19051113-60

(60.) GEORGE WEST (46) to robbery with violence on Louisa Lauder and stealing a purse and 12s. 2 1/4 d., her money. Nine months' hard labour. [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

Reference Number: t19051113-61

61. CHARLES WILLIAM GREER (33) , Unlawfully obtaining £5 from Lily Moxon and Frederick Harry Marsh by false pretences and with intent to defraud.

MR. EDMONDS, for the Prosecution, offered no evidence.

NOT GUILTY .

Reference Number: t19051113-62

62. ELIZABETH SELBY (36), ELIZABETH CHANDLER (19), ELLEN BLANE (21), and CATHERINE SMITH (20) , Unlawfully conspiring together and with other persons unknown to intimidate, persuade, and prevent Frances Ryan from appearing and giving evidence as a witness at Newington Sessions with reference to an indictment filed against Henry Jones.

MR. BASSETT HOPKINS Prosecuted.

GEORGE WATERS (Sergeant L.) On October 18th I was waiting at the Sessions House, Newington, to prove previous convictions against Henry Jones for felony—the case was waiting to come on—the prosecutrix in that case was Mrs. Frances Ryan—there were other officers in the case—I was in the lobby of the Sessions House and saw the four prisoners together—Mrs. Ryan had just left the Court and came and stood by them—a true bill had been given by the Grand Jury, but the case had not come on—I heard Selby say to Mrs. Ryan, "You f—mare, if you come here again I will have your f—liver out"—Selby had been living

with Jones—Chandler said, "Yes, if she don't, I will"—she is a daughter of Jones'—Blane said, "Give it to the f—mare now"—Smith said, "Get out, you dirty f—bastard; you ought to be lagged"—they are all friends of Jones, who is a notorious convict, and is waiting trial for larceny, and is now waiting for the finish of this case—I said to Selby, "I am a police officer"—she said, "Never mind, we will get our own back another day. You can't s—well hang us"—Chandler said, "The dirty tike wants a job," meaning me—Blane and Smith both said, "All right, get on with it"—they were taken to the Southwark police station and charged, when Selby said, pointing to Mrs. Ryan, "Look at the dirty mare," and the others laughed and jeered.

Cross-examined by Smith. I have seen you all together prior to your arrest—I arrested Selby and Chandler and called upon the other officers to arrest you and Blane.

Re-examined. I have no doubt about the prisoners—I know Jones, who is called Jubilee Jones, because in the Jubilee year he kept a coffee shop in the South of London—he was asked to clear out and would not, and bit a man's ear off.

FRANCES RYAN . I am the wife of Michael Ryan, and live at Oakley Street—I brought a charge against a man named Henry Jones of stealing my goods, and he was committed for trial by the Magistrate to be tried at Newington Sessions—I went there to give evidence and appeared before the Grand Jury—as I came out of the Tower Bridge Police Court on October 18th Selby spoke to me—I passed through into the lavatory and thought I had bolted the door, but it was not securely bolted and Selby and Smith came through and Selby pushed her face into mine and said, "What is the f—hell the matter with you?"—I said, "Nothing; what is the matter with you?"—she passed some remark and I walked out—when I passed her in the afternoon she said, "If he gets put away to-night I will have your f—liver out"—the other prisoners were there at the time and Chandler said, "If you don't, I will"—one of them said, "Go on, put it on her now," but I cannot say which one said it—several things were said, but I did not look up to see who said it and I never answered any one—I cannot say how long this went on; it may have been from 12 o'clock or dinner-time until 5—they did not actually assault me, but they called me names—I was afraid and horrified—I went before the Grand Jury, but the case has not been tried yet.

Cross-examined by Selby. You were in the lavatory when you insulted me on the first occasion—you saw me at Tower Bridge Police Court—I do not keep a disorderly house.

Cross-examined by Chandler. I had no occasion to speak to you at all—I told the Magistrate that you were there and were as bad as the others.

Cross-examined by Blane. I do not know if you made any special remark—I had not seen you before that day.

Cross-examined by Smith. You laughed and giggled and were really the worst of the lot—I had never seen you before—the words that I do know were between Selby and Chandler—when you were arrested I was outside the lobby at the Sessions House, and I followed you down behind.

WILLIAM FOOTE . I am a porter, and on October 18th I was at the Sessions House Newington—I saw the four prisoners round Mrs. Ryan as she was about to leave the Court—Selby used most vile language to her—I was a witness against Jones—Selby said she would have Ryan's liver out if she came there again, and one of the other prisoners said, "If she don't, I will"—the language of the whole of them was very threatening—on September 27th I was a witness at the Tower Bridge Police Court in the case, and as I left the Court Selby followed me out and told me that if I attended again I should have to go through it.

Cross-examined by Blane. I heard you use bad language—there was no difference between you when you were at the Sessions House, but I believe Selby was the ringleader.

NORMAN MACDONALD (394 L.) On October 18th I was at the Sessions House and saw the prisoners get round Mrs. Ryan—I was in the case against Jones—as Ryan was leaving the Court Selby said to her, "You f——mare, I will tear your liver out"—Chandler said, "If she don't, I will"—Blane said, "Give it to the f—mare now"—Smith said, "Get out, you f—bastard, you ought to be lagged"—the prisoners were then arrested, and Selby said, "We will get our own back; you can't b——well hang us"—Blane and Smith said, "Get on with it"—Chandler said to Waters, "You dirty tike"—in answer to the charge Selby said, pointing to Mrs. Ryan, "Look at the dirty mare"—the others laughed and jeered at her.

Cross-examined by Selby. I did not tell you when you were sitting on a form that Jones's case would not come on until next day.

Cross-examined by Blane. When you were arrested you were in the lobby in the Sessions House.

Selby, in a written defence, said that she was at the Court waiting with the other prisoners when a policeman told them that the can would not come on until next day, and that they could go; that she went to the ladies' lavatory and when she came out Waters said he was going to take all four of them into custody until Jones's case was settled; that she asked what for, and he said he would let her know in the morning, as they had insulted a witness; that she said she had never seen the witness until they were brought into the police station about twenty minutes afterwards; that she had asked Ryan what she (Selby) had said to her, and that Ryan said that it was Mr. Waters who was doing it.

Blane, in her defence, said that she went into the Court and sat on a seat, when Macdonald said they could all go, as the Court was closed for the day; and that if they had been carrying on as Waters had said, the other policeman would have arrested them.

Smith, in her defence, said that she was at the Court when a constable said it was no use their waiting any longer, as Jones's case would not come on; that she was not waiting for Jones, as she did not know him; that as they got into the square Waters got hold of Selby and Chandler; that a constable had Blane and that Waters said, "Catch hold of any of them"; that a detective Got hold of her (Smith) and when she asked him what she was to be tried for, he said she would find out.

SELBY and CHANDLER GUILTY . BLANE and SMITH NOT GUILTY . One conviction was proved against SELBY— Three months' imprisonment. CHANDLER— One month's imprisonment.

Before Mr. Justice Walton.

Old Court, November 18th, 1905.

Reference Number: t19051113-63

63. JOHN DAVID HOOPER (46) PLEADED GUILTY to uttering two orders for the payment respectively of £10. He received a good character. Three months' imprisonment in the Second Division.—And

Reference Number: t19051113-64

(64.) THOMAS CROMACK (47) , to forging and uttering a cheque for £6 5s. He received a good character. Three months' imprisonment in the Second Division [Pleaded guilty: See original trial image.]

Reference Number: t19051113-65

65. JOHN KING (22) and FLORENCE KING (26), Burglary in the dwelling house of Alexander Younie and stealing a neck chain and other goods belonging to him. JOHN KING PLEADED GUILTY .

MR. CORNES Prosecuted.

MAUD YOUNIE . I am the wife of Alexander Younie, of 14, Kingsland Road—on October 22nd a burglary was committed at our place—a silver brooch, the shape of a pig, a gold brooch, a gold neck chain, some money from my puree, and a latchkey were taken—I missed them on coming downstairs on October 23rd—they were safe the night before—I found the back door open, the kitchen window catch gone, the sitting room had been entered, and the brooches and the neck chain, which had been placed in the chiffonier, gone.

WALTER BARNES . I am assistant to Mr. Harris, pawnbroker, of 281, Battersea Park Road—on October 26th Florence King came about 8.30 or 9 a.m. and offered goods to pledge—she was crying and said she was in company the night before, and had got drunk and wanted the money for bail and to pay the fines—she gave the name of Ann Smith, of 10, Rother Street, Battersea.

ELI PRITCHARD (Detective B.) I saw Florence King detained at Batter-sea police station on October 27th—I said, "Some jewellery you pledged at Harris's has been identified as part of the proceeds of a burglary at Wimbledon"—she said, "Yes, my young man gave it to me; I am living with him"—she was then wearing the two brooches produced, one belonging to Mrs. Younie—this necklet and this brooch are the articles she pawned—I said, "You are wearing two brooches which also answer the description of two stolen from Wimbledon"—she said, "Oh, these are my own property"—if you will allow me, I will read out the description from the "Police Information" of these two brooches—she then said, "Oh, my young man gave them to me, the man I am living with"—they were taken from her—she afterwards handed me a ring and a pin—the ring has been identified as part of the proceeds of another burglary—the following morning I conveyed her to Wimbledon—on the way she said, "I have pledged all the jewellery that has been pledged, but the other man has had his share of the money"—at that time the male prisoner had made a statement about another man—she was subsequently taken before the

Justices at Wimbledon Police Court—she was charged on one charge only—afterwards she was told that other charges would be preferred against her when she was brought up on remand—she then said, "I did not steal the things, but I admit I knew they were stolen when I pledged them; I suppose I shall get eighteen months for this"—that took place at the Police Court after she had been before the Justices and when we were about to leave the Court—Sergeant Gillan was present, and both prisoners—no question was put to her except, I believe, both prisoners were asked if they would tell us where the remainder of the jewellery was—the male prisoner said he did not do all these jobs, there was another man with him, but he refused to say who he was, only that he was a tittle dark man, and that he had done most of the jobs.

VIOLET BLANCHE FORSTER . I live at 472, Merton Road, Wandsworth—a burglary was committed in that house on October 8th—we went to bed on the Sunday night about 10—my husband woke about 5 in the morning, came downstairs, and found the kitchen doors and the window open and my rings gone off the mantelpiece in the dining room—they were there when we went to bed on the Sunday night—in the morning four rings and a brooch had disappeared—these two rings are mine—the back kitchen door that leads into the garden had been locked the night before.

JOHN GILLAN (Sergeant B) In company with Detective Pritchard, I searched the male and female prisoners' house, 105, Chatham Street, Battersea, on October 27th—in the top rooms I took possession of a quantity of property, including twenty-four pawn tickets—a good deal of that property has since been identified—in consequence of what Mrs. Forster told me I visited the place—I found this tablecloth, which she has identified—both the prisoners gave the address in Chatham Street.

AMELIA BROWN . I live at 338, Merton Road, Wandsworth—on Sunday, October 22nd, I retired about midnight, having locked up the place—on coming down at 5.45 a.m. I found the scullery window open, and the scullery door had been unlocked and unbolted—when my son came down to put his boots on they were gone, also a scarf, and this tablecloth, which was out in the garden.

The prisoner, in her defence, denied pawning all the things, and said she did not know where they were taken from, and that she was innocent.

GUILTY . JOHN KING then PLEADED GUILTY to a conviction of felony at St. Albans on October 18th, 1904, in the name of John Frederick Lawrence. About thirty cases of burglary were stated to have taken place in the vicinity of Wandsworth and Wimbledon during the last three months. Five years' penal servitude. FLORENCE KING, who had been previously convicted for drunkenness and disorderly conduct— Eighteen months' hard labour.

Before Lumley Smith, Esq., K. C.

Fourth Court, November 14th, 1905.

Reference Number: t19051113-66

66. HARRY MEARS (29) , Unlawfully and carnally knowing Clara Pinnock, a girl above thirteen and under sixteen years of age.

MR. HUTTON and MR. CURTIS BENNETT Prosecuted; MR. WARBURTON and MR. METHVEN Defended.

GUILTY . Three months in the Second Division.

Fourth Court, November 16th, 1905.

Reference Number: t19051113-67

67. AMY LAWRENCE (40) , Unlawfully uttering to Elsie Eldershaw a counterfeit florin, knowing it to be counterfeit.

MR. PARTRIDGE Prosecuted: MR. MORICE Defended.

MINNIE ELDERSHAW . I live at 7, Northcote Road, Battersea, and am manageress to Messrs. Godwin & Sons, who keep a large dairy—I first saw the prisoner in December, 1903—I served her in the shop with sixpennyworth of eggs, and she tendered me a bad half-crown—I tried it and said, "This is bad"—she said, "I do not think so," and took it back again—I wanted to test it, but she would not let me have it back—she said, "I will give you another"—she did so and went away with the eggs—I next saw her on April 11th, 1905, between 6 and 7 p.m.—she spoke to an assistant in the shop—I was serving another customer—I went out of the shop and came back just as she was going out of the door—the assistant was standing at the till—she spoke to me and took out a half-crown that had been given to her—it was right on top of the silver there—I saw it was bad—I next saw the prisoner enter the shop on October 11th, about 1 p.m.—I was just going out—I waited to see what she would give the assistant who came to serve her—she asked for six-pennyworth of eggs and tendered a 2s. piece—I picked it up and saw it was bad—I said to her, "This is a bad coin and you know it; you have been here before and passed or try to pass bad money"—she said, "Oh, don't say that. Oh, do let me go; I will give you another"—I said, "I cannot; I must detain you until Mr. Godwin comes"—he came; I told him in her presence that she was the person I recognised as having passed bad money before—he asked for her name and address—she said, "I cannot give it, for my husband's sake"—a constable was called—he asked the prisoner if she would be willing for me to search her—she said, "Yes"—I did so—I found a half-crown in her purse, nothing else—I found no bad money.

Cross-examined. I say the prisoner came into our shop two years ago—she was then there about ten minutes—I took no steps with regard to the woman—the next time she came I did not myself serve her—it is a fairly busy shop—on October 11th, when I told her the coin was bad, she did not reply, "I am sure it is not"—when I said she had been there before she did say, "Not me."

Re-examined. We have not taken much bad money.

BERTHA FAIRBROTHER . I am an assistant under the last witness—the prisoner came into our shop on April 11th last and asked for 11b. of sausages, price 10d.—she tendered a half-crown and I put it in the till on top and gave her 1s. 8d. change—she went away—the last witness came into the shop from the back parlour and said something to me—I showed her the half-crown the prisoner had given ms—I have no doubt it was the same—on October 11th I was in the back room behind the shop

when I heard a voice that I recognised—I came forward and I just heard the prisoner say, "Let me go, for the sake of my four children"—I say the prisoner is the same woman who came in on April 11th.

Cross-examined. The prisoner was there previously about ten minutes—I heard the last witness tell her that she had been in before and she replied, "Not me."

Re-examined. She was speaking in a loud voice.

ELSIE ELDERSHAW . I am the sister of the manageress of this dairy—on October 11th I was there—(the prisoner came in—I went to serve her with six-pennyworth of eggs—she gave me a 2s. piece, when my sister came forward, took it up, and said, "This is a bad one."

Cross-examined. When my sister said the coin was bad, the prisoner said, "I don't think so"—she also said, I believe, "I didn't know it"—she offered another coin, which my sister refused to take.

Re-examined. I had looked at the coin and thought it was good.

DONALD GODWIN . I am one of Godwin & Sons, who keep the dairy in question—on April 12th, 1905, my manageress brought me the previous day's takings and I found a bad half-crown amongst the silver—I gave it back to her—it was destroyed—on October 11th I was called into the shop, when my manageress said, pointing to the prisoner, "This woman has tendered this bad coin in payment for six penny worth of eggs; she is the woman that has been here before"—I told the prisoner I should want to know who she was and where she got the coin from—she refused to tell me—I asked her was she a resident of the district—there was no answer to that—I said I should call a constable in—she said would I give her another chance, as she would never come there again, but she refused her name and address—a constable came.

Cross-examined. I do not know who gave the bad coin in April—the prisoner did not tell me that she refused her name and address because she had an invalid child at home and for the sake of her husband—she gave no explanation at all in my presence of how she came by the coin.

GEORGE MAIR (571 V.) On October 11th last I was sent for and went to this dairy—Mr. Godwin, in the prisoner's presence, said that she had been there and tried to change a 2s. piece—he said on three previous occasions his manageress told him that the woman had been there—I asked the prisoner if she objected to being searched—she at first said she did object, afterwards she did not—she then went into a private room with Miss Eldershaw and was searched there—Miss Eldershaw handed me a half-crown, which was good—I told the prisoner I should take her to the station and charge her with uttering—she said, "Give me a chance and I will explain"; nothing further—at the station she was asked for her name and address—she refused to give them, as she did not want her husband to know—she afterwards gave her name to the gaoler.

Cross-examined. "Lawrence" is her maiden name—she did not say in my presence that she was as innocent as I was, nor that she had not been in the shop before—she had a bag on her with certain small packages

in it—I believe she has a sister or sister-in-law in Merrick Road, near Clapham Road, whom she visits.

SUSAN TIMMINS . I am matron at the Lavender Hill police station and my duty is to search female prisoners—I searched the prisoner on October 11th and found on her a purse containing a 2s. piece, three shillings, three sixpences, and 4 1/4 d.—that, with the half-crown found, makes 9s. 4 1/2 d—it was all good money—she had also a bag containing 1/4 lb. of tea and various small articles.

Cross-examined. There was nothing wrong about those—she made no objection to my searching her.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER . I am Inspector of Coin at His Majesty's Mint—this is a counterfeit florin—the fact that the previous coin burnt is good evidence of it being a forgery, as it would run through an ordinary fire.

By the COURT. There are various machines for testing coins—you can break a good half-crown, but it would require great strength to do it—I have known half-sovereigns broken in a tester—the person breaking it has to restore it if it is a good one.

The prisoner, in her defence on oath, stated that she was a married woman; that her husband was in a good position in the City; that she was not in the dairy shop in question in December, 1903, nor on April 11th, 1905; that on October 11th last she went there to buy some eggs to take to her husband's sister in Merrick Road, who is very poor and has a number of children; that she tendered a 2s. piece in payment, but did not know it was bad. She received a good character.

NOT GUILTY .

Fourth Court, November 17th, 1905.

Reference Number: t19051113-68

68. GEORGE PARROTT COLEMAN (46) , Feloniously forging and uttering an indorsement on an order for the payment of £5 15s. with intent to defraud.

MR. KERSHAW Prosecuted; MR. J. WELLS THATCHER Defended.

THOMAS WILLIAM NEWTON CRAWFORD . I live at 10, Richmond Bridge Mansions, and am an assistant manager and also an insurance agent to the Commercial Union Company—I have known the prisoner for about twenty years—I have known him in business—I believe at one time he was employed by the Commercial Union—about six months ago he entered my service as canvasser—he was to receive half the gross commission—I paid all expenses—any proposals and money he got he was to bring to me—his commission was not due until it was earned; that is, until the insurance was completed—he had no authority to sign my name except with added initials; I mean in writing a letter he would sign my name and put his initials—he had no authority to sign my name on cheques—in July last he was acting for me—I knew there were negotiations going on as to an insurance with a Mr. Skull—on July 28th the prisoner handed me a proposal from Mr. Skull—he did not then hand me a cheque—he did not say he had received a cheque from Mr. Skull or anything to let me know he had received another premium—I forwarded

the proposal to the office and it was accepted in due course—I gave the prisoner the company's notice I had received and asked him to get the premium from Mr. Skull—he did not tell me he had got a cheque—on August 4th I again spoke to him about the cheque—I did not see him again until he was in custody—this cheque is drawn by Mr. Skull on the London & South Western Bank—this is not my indorsement—I never gave the prisoner or anybody else authority to sign this indorsement in my name—the cheque for the premiums should be made payable to the company.

Cross-examined. I have been perfectly friendly with the prisoner the whole time I have known him—I know very little about insurance business—I manage some large mansions at Richmond—I had no partnership with the prisoner—when he travelled he had some money from me, but I kept no record—he had not a large area to work over—my arrangement with him was not of a free and easy character.

Re-examined. The prisoner wrote me a letter, saying he would see me on "Monday," but he did not.

ERNEST SKELL . I am a butcher at Twickenham—in July last the prisoner called on me as to an insurance—I arranged it at a premium of £6, less 5s. rebate, on July 28th, between 6 and 7 p.m.—I gave him a cheque for £5 15s. and he gave me a receipt for £6—the cheque is made payable to "T. W. Newton Crawford or order"—the prisoner must have told me to draw it so, but I do not remember.

Cross-examined. The prisoner called on me several times about insuring—I did not know his name until the Police Court proceedings.

JOHN OLIVER KEAY . I am a J. P. for Richmond and carry on a provision merchant's business there—Mr. Crawford in July last was a customer of mine—I saw the prisoner previously to his coming to me with a cheque—on July 28th, about 9 a.m., he came and asked me to change a cheque for Mr. Crawford as he wanted the money before the bank opened—our money had not then been taken out of the safe—I gave him £2, which was all I had in the till, and asked him to come back a little later for the balance—he came back in about an hour's time and I paid him the balance, £3 15s.—I paid the cheque into my account and it was duly met—when he brought me the cheque it was already indorsed.

Cross-examined. I did not know Mr. Crawford's signature—I had never had a cheque of his before—he had a weekly account with me, but it was paid by cash.

GEORGE URBEN (Detective-Sergeant V.) On October 29th last, about 9 a. in., I saw the prisoner in the Petersham Road, Richmond—I told him I was a police officer and held a warrant for his arrest for indorsing a cheque for £5 15s. which he cashed with Mr. Keay—he said, "Who took out the warrant, Mr. Keay or Mr. Crawford?"—I said, "Mr. Crawford"—he said, "Well, I am rather surprised at that, as I have known him for about twenty years. I admit that I cashed the cheque and indorsed it"—I took him to the station, where he was charged—he made no reply.

Cross-examined. I think I saw the prisoner about Richmond previous to the time of arrest—I knew him by sight.

The prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I have been doing business with Mr. Crawford for twenty years and have had his authority to sign his name on several occasions and at the time of this transaction there was a bigger one pending which would have more than repaid Mr. Crawford the £5 15s.

" The prisoner, in his defence on oath, stated that he indorsed the cheque, but thought he was entitled to do so, as he had signed Mr. Crawford's name on several letters and he required money for travelling expenses.

GUILTY . Recommended to mercy by the Jury. Discharged on his own recognisances in £20.

ADJOURNED TO MONDAY, DECEMBER 11TH, 1905.


View as XML