Vol. CXLVI.] [Part 865.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
HELD NOVEMBER 19TH, 1906, AND FOLLOWING DAYS.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE,
TAKEN IN SHORTHAND BY
Shorthand Writer to the Court.
POINTS OF LAW AND PRACTICE
R. F. GRAHAM-CAMPBELL, ESQUIRE,
OF THE INNER TEMPLE.
[Published by Annual Subscription.]
THE ARGUS PRINTING COMPANY, LIMITED, CORNER OF TUDOR STREET AND TEMPLE AVENUE, LONDON, E.C.
On the King's Commission of
OYER AND TERMINER AND GAOL DELIVERY
The City of London,
AND GAOL DELIVERY FOR THE
COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, AND THE PARTS OF THE COUNTIES OF ESSEX, KENT, AND SURREY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,
Held on Monday, November 19th, 1906, and following days.
Before the Right Hon. Sir WILLIAM PURDIE TRELOAR, Bart., LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir WILLIAM GRANTHAM , Knight, one of the Justices of His Majesty's High Court; Sir DAVID EVANS , K.C.M.G., CAPTAIN W. C. SIMMONS, Lieut.-Col. FRANCIS STANHOPE HANSON , Sir. J. KNILL, Bart., Sir J. POUND, Bart., J. HOWSE, Esq., Aldermen of the said City; Sir FORREST FULTON, Knight, K.C., Recorder of the said City; FREDERICK ALBERT BOSANQUET , Esq., K.C., Common Serjeant of the said City; His Honour Judge LUMLEY SMITH , K.C., Commissioner, 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.
THOMAS BOOR CROSBY, Esq., Alderman
HENRY RIDGE GREENHILL, Esq.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
TRELOAR, MAYOR. FIRST SESSION.
LONDON AND MIDDLESEX CASES.
OLD COURT; Monday, November 19.
(Before the Recorder.)
RICE, Blanche (31, married women) pleaded guilty, at last Session see preceding volume, page 583) to larceny. She was now sentenced to one month's imprisonment, as from the first day of last Session, entitling her to be discharged immediately.
STEHR, Emily Edith (17, servant) pleaded guilty at last Session (see preceding volume, page 573) to endeavouring to conceal birth of a child. Arrangement having been made through Mr. Prance, the Court Missionary, for prisoner to be cared for in a home, she was released in her own recognisances in £50 to come up for judgment when called upon.
WARRINGTON, John (18, sawyer) pleaded guilty , to breaking and entering a place of Divine worship, the Barton Court Mission Hall, Shoreditch, and stealing therein two blouses and other articles, the goods of the Rev. Robert Surtees Thornewall ; he also confessed to a conviction at this Court of a similar felony on February 6 last. Sentence, Six months' hard labour.
KING, Henry George (40, traveller) pleaded guilty , to forging and uttering an order for the payment of £1 5s.; to another indictment for forgery and uttering an order for payment of 15s. he pleaded guilty, and the charge was not proceeded with. Sentence, Three months' imprisonment in the second division.
HUCKER, Albert (38, soldier) pleaded guilty , guilty to forging and uttering three orders for the payment of £3 15s. 6d., £3 5s. 2d., and £3 15s. 6d., with intent to defraud; also to stealing six blank cheque forms, the goods of Gordon Franklin Hepburn . Sentence, Three months' hard labour.
DAVIS, Frederick Montagu (29, piano finisher) pleaded guilty , to feloniously receiving three postal orders for £1, 10s., and 9s., the property of the Postmaster-General; also to forging and uttering two receipts for the payment of £1 and 10s., with intent to defraud.
Sentence, Each nine months' hard labour.
Sentence, Nine months' hard labour; certified for expulsion under the Aliens Act.
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Cecil Fitch prosecuted. Mr. Travers Humphreys defended.
ROBERT FROGLEY , lighterman. I was deck-hand on the steam-tug "Queen," belonging to prosecutors. On October 9 we tugged some barges down to Beckton; they were moored there safely at 9.30 p.m., with four tow ropes and two headfasts. At 7.30 next morning the barges were found adrift and the ropes had been taken. On October 17 I went to Wapping Police Station and was shown the three pieces of rope produced—one tow rope and two headfasts. They are Messrs. William's ropes, and were taken from these barges. On October 18 I was shown a fourth piece (produced). It is William's rope, but I cannot identify it as having been with these barges.
Cross-examined. I identify the rope by the tape running through it and by our whipping; we have a particular way of whipping.
CHARLES HAWKS , lighterman, another deck hand on the "Queen." I assisted to moor the barges at Beckton on October 9. On the 17th I went to the police station and identified the three pieces of rope produced as part of what we moored the barges with. On the 18th I was shown the fourth piece; it is Williams's rope, but was not used to moor the barges on the 9th.
Cross-examined. I am certain this is Williams's rope. We all know our own rope by using it so often. We know our own whipping.
JOHN NEWMAN , foreman to Barnett, marine store dealer, Limehouse. I knew prisoner as a customer. He is a marine store dealer at East Street, Greenwich. On October 13, about seven o'clock a.m., he called at our place. He had 26 cwt. of Manilla rope in a van. This we weighed and bought of prisoner at £15 a ton. This rope we kept separately from our other stuff. On October 15 the police came and took away three pieces of the rope. I did not know whose rope it was when I bought it. It was coiled up with the other Manilla rope brought by prisoner and was in a wet condition.
Cross-examined. Barnett is in a large way of business and employs several hands. We buy from other marine store dealers, and from
different shipping lines. Quarter of a hundredweight is the lowest lot we purchase. We buy about 20 tons of rope a month. When rope is brought in to us we put it in a drying house and hang it up to dry. Prisoner has been in the habit of selling us rope for four or five years. In the rope hole, or drying house, we should often have five tons at a time. When he called on the 13th prisoner had one of hit men with him; he helped to unload the van and scale the rope. Prisoner brought altogether 20 or 30 coils rope. These three pieces were in the different coils; some of the stuff was dredge rope. I am certain Freak's rope was kept separate.
Detective ALEXANDER MCHATTIE, Thames Police. On October 13 I saw prisoner at his place in Crane Court, Greenwich. I told him I was making inquiries about some rope that had been stolen from Williams's Roads at Beckton between the 9th and 10th and handed him a written description of the rope. I asked him whether he had bought anything like that. He said, "No, I have not bought anything like that, but I have heard it was stolen and it went up to Brown's. (That is another dealer.) You need not say I said anything. It was taken there by Armitage, the waterman. I am only telling you this because I do not like to see honest men like these dredgermen—pointing to some men outside—get the blame for it. I do not expect you will find it now as he sent some rope away the other morning." I went to Brown's and looked over his stock and found no rope answering the description. Prisoner did not offer to show me his book.
Cross-examined. I did not ask him for the book. I have since seen the book. It is kept as required by the Act. I know then prisoner, besides being a marine store dealer, lets out boats for hire, and has a raft. He told me something about having himself lost some rope. It was not in answer to my question, "Have you seen any rope like that described here?" that he spoke about Brown and Armitage. This conversation was on a Saturday; I made my note on the Monday following.
JOSEPH REYNOLDS . I am a labourer and work for Barnett. On October 13 prisoner came to Barnett's with a lot of rope in the van. I helped to unload it and put it on the weighbridge, and after the sale I helped, with prisoner's man, to put it in our rope hole. On October 15 the rope was still where I had put it. Prisoner came again on that day and sold us some more rope, which I put with what we had bought on the 13th.
Cross-examined. I am sure all this rope was put in a separate place;--was mixed rope, but all in one condition. We have different stacks for Manilla rope and hemp rope. This was all Manilla. The 26 cwt. bought on the 13th was all Manilla; that bought on the 15th included 1 1/2 cwt. of hemp rope. Prisoner has been bringing rope to us for the last five years, generally dredge rope, and very wet and dirty. I am sure no other rope wit mixed with this between the Saturday and Monday.
books. On October 11 I had bought some Manilla rope, an old "fender," from a waterman named Armitage; that deal was entered in my book. I had disposed of that rope before the police came.
Cross-examined. Prisoner cannot have known of my deal with Armitage; he may have seen Armitage go down the street to my shop.
FRANCIS HARTLAND , Detective, Thames Police. On October 15 I went to Barnett's premises and found there the three pieces of rope produced; they were taken to the station sad identified by the witnesses.
ALBERT HELDON , Detective, Thames Police. I was with last witness on October 11, at Burnett's premises, when we found the three pieces of rope. On October 17 I went to prisoner's store; I told him I should arrest him for stealing and receiving three ropes, two headfasts and one tow-rope, the property of Williams and Son, and that he had been found dealing with them. He said, "There it my book; all my purchases are entered there." He asked me when the rope was stolen, and I told him on the 10th. He said, "I have not got it; I only buy dredge rope." I looked at his book; it was regularly kept; there were entries between the 10th and 17th, but not of this rope. Later on he said to me, "Well, if I bought it it was disguised." On searching the premises I found the fourth coil (produced). Prisoner said, "Does Barnett say that I sold this rope?" I said, "Yes"; he then said, "Yes, I get 15s. a cwt"; I had not up to that time mentioned Barnett's name. I took him to the station, where he was shown the three pieces of rope; he said, "I have no recollection of that rope at all."
Cross-examined. I had not mentioned Barnett's name before prisoner said, "Does Barnett say that I stole this rope?" I had told him that the rope had been traced to him; I am not aware that he always sold his rope to Barnett.
(Tuesday, November 20.)
ALBERT HELDON , Detective, recalled. I have weighed the three coils of rope and they come to 3 qrs. 17 lb. in their present dry condition. At the time we got it it was heavier because there was a certain amount of moisture in it; it was damp.
Cross-examined. When damp it would have weighed 8lb. or 10 lb. more—perhaps about 1 cwt.
ERNEST FREAK (prisoner, on oath). I carry on business at 4, Crane Street, Greenwich. I am a licensed boat proprietor, a lodging house-keeper licensed under the London County Council, and a licensed marina storekeeper. I have a number of boats which I let out on hire and which I keep on a raft. As a marine store keeper I have dealt in rope, buying it and selling it again for about five years. I have sold
Barnett the whole of my rope for five years. In Addition to the book in which I enter purchases I keep a private book (produced), in which I enter sales showing the weight, description, and price of everything I tell. On October 13, 1906, there is an entry of the sale of 26 owt of Manilla and on October 15 11 cwt. 2 qrs. Manilla, and 1 cwt. 2 qrs. of hemp sold to Barnett. Memorandum (produced) from Barnett shows a total of 39 cwt., and the price £28 16s., which was sent me the same day by Barnett's cheque, which I paid into my bank. That is the usual way; sometimes they pay me in cash but very seldom. I have had about seven of those memorandums in the course of a year. If I take a small quantity of rope they pay me in cash there and then. There have been times when they have paid me too much, and I have refunded it or they have not paid me enough, and I have gone over to them and been paid the difference. Referring to my book, I sold Barnett on October 6 19 cwt 1 qr. white Manilla rope and I owt. of hemp. On October 1 10 cwt. white Manilla rope and 1 cwt. 0 qr. 21 lb. of hemp, and there are, previous similar entries. I first saw the three coils of rope, the subject of this action, at Thames Police Station when I was in custody on October 17. I said I had no recollection of purchasing such rope; it was not old rope; that is was too useful for me to buy, and if rope of that description had been brought to my premises I should have refused to purchase it. I said "It is not dredged rope." On October 13, when I sold the 26 cwt. for £19 10s. to Barnett, I took with me Henry Merritt, my foreman, who has been working for me several years. The rope was in a small four-wheel van. Newman, Reynolds, and Merritt took it off the van. Newman weighed it on the weighbridge, I took a note of the weight, and it was carried by those three persons from the weighbridge to the rope hole or stack on the left side of the weighbridge and put with a quantity of other Manilla rope which was already there. It was not put separate. There is a separate stack for hemp. They give 15s. for Manilla and 9s. for hemp, and they are kept separate. The main portion of what I took was dredged rope—odds and ends of rope—all old rope that I purchased off barges and ships from time to time. I had dried it on my raft. Barnett's generally knock off a bit of the price for damp. If it was very wet they would pay me about two-thirds of the price, and I take it as dry as possible. That delivered on October 13 was fit to be made up into shipping coils, and there was no reason why it should be kept separate from other rope. I have seen at Barnett's quantities hanging up to dry. Mine was not in a condition which made that necessary. On Monday, October 15, I went to (Barnett's with the same man and van, and delivered 11 cwt. 2 qrs. of Manilla rope, 1 cwt. 2 qrs. of hemp, which was put on the stacks. Reynolds and James Barnett were there. The business of Barnett is carried on by the two brothers, old Mr. Barnett having retired five years ago. There is a third brother who is a workman. Nearly every time I have been there, which is about twice a week, I have seen people come and sell small quantities, which are put on the stacks at once. I have never seen
rope put separate. On October 13, shortly after noon, after selling the 26 cwt., Police-constable McHattie came to see me and showed me the written description of the stolen rope. He often comes to make inquiries. I told him I had not purchased any rope of that description, and invited him to look over my book, which he did. I pointed to one or two little purchases that I had made of other than dredged rope, notably one from John Blewer, captain of a sailing barge. I said rope like that described I should not buy under any condition whatever, and he appeared satisfied. I said I had seen some rope I should not purchase taken up East Street by Jack Armitage, which he took into (Brown's. I mentioned that name because, on September 29 I had refused to purchase from Armitage about 4 cwt. of rope which I thought he had not come honestly by. On September 24 I bought a small amount from Armitage, and I had a bad character of him from a friend, so the next time he came I examined the rope very carefully and refused to purchase it I saw Armitage on Thursday walking past my premises in Crane Street. I have premises at Crane Court, where I keep a boat builder at work. Armitage had about 1 cwt. of coiled rope. I did not tell McHattie I knew that to be the rope which had been stolen from Williams and Sons. I told him I knew that there had been a theft of some rope. I was told by a fisherman named John Short, whom I have seen in Court, that come rope had been stolen from the Lower Derrick, which would be three or four miles from Beckton.
Cross-examined. This is the first time I have given this explanation. I was represented before the magistrate, and I stated I reserved my defence. I only object to Newman's and Reynolds's evidence in their saying that my rope was wet when delivered, and was placed separately from the stack. The major portion of the rope I delivered on the 13th and 15th was dredged rope. Rope will dry in 24 hours if there is a favourable wind. When it is wet I put the rope under cover on the raft. I cannot suggest any reason why Newman and Reynolds should say it was put separate. McHattie has not stated the whole of the conversation. I told him I had seen Armitage going up to Brown's with same rope and that I had heard some rope had been stolen from the Lower Derrick, which is four or five miles away from Beckton. That did not refer to Williams's rope or anybody else's. McHattie asked me if I had seen any decent rope. I did not volunteer any information to him. This was after he had shown me the description and gone through my book-a subsequent conversation. He was with me half an hour. I told him I expected him round that day; I heard some rope had been stolen from the Lower Derrick, and he asked me if I had seen any of this rope about. The rope I sow on Armitage had not been used as a "fender." I do not know whether Brown bought rope from Armitage. I know McHattie looked through my book that day. I always show the police officers my book when they come to make inquiries. I said, "I have bought nothing like that." The three pieces of rope the police took off my premises on October 17 I purchased
on the 16th. When the detectives arrested me on the 17th they said, "There is some more rope here," There were two pieces of rope. [Questions on the subject of other rope disallowed as not relevant to the charge.] I did not tell Heldon I only bought dredged rope; the police know different to that. They looked through my book and could not find any entry of the rope I am charged with. The police jeered at me, and I said, "If I bought it it must have been disguised." I have known rope to have been stolen and soaked with mud to make it appear like dredged rope. The rope in question has not been disguised. I first mentioned Barnett. I have no entry in my book of any other sales of rope except to Barnett.
Re-examined. I have only sold rope to Barnett for five years. My book contains records of sales of iron and other metals. The police have seen the book and other books of mine about three months ago and since. I always make a practice to open my book in front of them. I buy rope other than dredged rope sometimes and enter it accordingly.
HENRY MERRITT , 105, Commerell Street, Greenwich. I have worked off and on for prisoner for five years, and continually for the last eight months. I was with him when he sold rope to Barnett on October 13. I helped to take it off the van and put it on the weighbridge. It weighed 26 cwt. and was dredged Manilla rope. There is hemp rope, tarry rope, and white Manilla. Alter it was weighed I helped Barnett's man to put it on the rope stack on the top of other rope. I went on October 15 with 11 1/2 cwt. of Manilla and 1 1/2 cwt. of hemp, which was put on the rope stack with other rope. I have frequently gone to Barnett's with rope from prisoner, sometimes with him and sometimes without. I have never seen his rope put separately, but always on the rope stack the same as other people's. While at Barnett's I have seen other people come and sell rope, which is always put on the rope stack.
Cross-examined. There might be a bit of rope damp which would be put on one side. Dredged rope would usually be damp. I was first asked about this by the solicitor about two days' after the arrest. I had a good recollection of it, and I said the same thing was always done with our rope.
Re-examined. If prisoner's rope had been put separate I should have noticed it. There was no reason for it to be put separate; it was in just the same condition as the rest of the rope. It was pretty dry.
JOHN HOLLIDGE , 61, East Street, Greenwich. Up to about four months ago I worked for prisoner and used to take rope regularly to Barnett's. They put the Manilla rope in the left hand corner on the white Manilla stack and there used to be a small heap where they put the hemp.
To the Judge. If it happened to be wet it used to be put on one side.
there, but only on that particular occasion. If he brought dry rope I should put it with other rope.
Cross-examined. The rope brought by prisoner on October 13 and 15 was not in a condition to be made into shipping coils by itself. It could be put with other dry rope on the outside so that it would get the air and dry.
Verdict, Not Guilty.
NEW COURT; Monday, November 19.
(Before the Common Serjeant.)
AVEY, Thomas Frederick (62, labourer) pleaded guilty , to feloniously possessing a mould and a part of another mould for making counterfeit coin. Uttering counterfeit coin twice within 10 days, well knowing the same to be counterfeit. Possessing counterfeit coin, with intent to utter the same.
Sentence, Eighteen months' hard labour.
Mr. Wilkinson prosecuted.
Detective-Sergeant WILLIAM BURNHAM, New Scotland Yard. On November 6, at 8.30 p.m., in company with Detective Yeo, I arrested Thomas Douglas, both prisoners having been under observation for some time past. He was taken to the police station, and Yeo and I went to 24, Arnott Street, Newington, where in the first-floor back room I saw the prisoner James Douglas. I said, "We are police officers, and we suspect you of having implements for making counterfeit coin. We are going to search the room." He said, "There is nothing here; I do not know what you mean." I said, "Do you occupy this room?" He said, "Yes." I then searched a chest of drawers, which were partly open, and found some grain tin in a piece of paper. This is the chief ingredient for making counterfeit coin. In the cupboard, which was open, I found a large piece of charcoal, two triangular pieces of moulded plaster of paris, a piece of glass in paper, such as is used for making a mould, two tins of blacking, and a piece of Bath brick; that is used for scouring coin. Hanging on the wall were two pairs of scissors. Whilst I was searching the cupboard Yeo found the mould (produced), and I showed the prisoner that with the other things. The mould is for making sixpences of 1906. I said, "You will be charged with being concerned with your brother Tom, who is now in custody, in feloniously possessing this mould and other implements of coining." He said, "I did not know they were there. I am a painter and work for my living, but I am out of work now. Tom came in to-night and put something in the drawer and went out. I did not know what it was." He was then taken to
the station, and the whole of the things were again shown to the two prisoners, and they were charged together. James Douglas made no reply. Thomas said, "All right." On the following day after the hearing at the police court Yeo and I made a further search at 24, Arnott Street. I had previously locked the door of the room and taken the key. Mrs. Turner, the landlady, was there, and I took her into the room. In the same drawer that I found the tin in, I found some small pieces of silver in a piece of tissue paper and the rasp (produced), having plaster of paris on it, and apparently used to shape the mould. On the mantelpiece I found a paper containing very small pieces of nitrate of silver.
Cross-examined. I have made inquiries as to James Douglas's character, and found he has been working as a painter on odd jobs down to about seven weeks ago.
Detective-Sergeant ALBERT YEO, New Scotland Yard. With the last witness I arrested the prisoner Thomas, and then accompanied Burnham to 24, Arnott Street. While he was searching the chest of drawers I found mould (produced) for making sixpences of 1906 underneath the chest of drawers; three mould shapes lying on the mould corresponding with the triangular pieces of plaster of paris (produced), and on the top of the drawers two pieces of glass used for making a mould. The prisoner James was then taken to the station, and the articles were shown to him and Thomas Douglas. Thomas said, "Do not wrap it up for my brother. He does not know anything at all about It." On November 7 I took pert in the further search of the room, and found in the table drawer a metal spoon with metal adhering to it, showing it had been in the fire, and on the top of the drawers a brass blow-pipe, a small file, and a book on electro-plating (produced).
MARGARET TURNER , wife of Charles Turner, 24, Arnott Street, New Kent Road. I have known James Douglas since nine months ago, when I let my first-floor back room to him at 3s. a week. His brother, the prisoner, Thomas Douglas, occupied the same room with him for about three months, then left, and returned about three months afterwards, and has lived with him down to the time of the arrest. I was present when the officers searched the room on November 7. Prisoner told me he was a painter.
Cross-examined. Prisoner used to go out every morning and return about two p.m., and go out again in the evening about seven or eight. This was his usual course for about seven or eight weeks up to the" time of the arrest.
WILLIAM THOMAS WEBSTER , Inspector of Counterfeit Coins to His Majesty's Mint. The mould produced is of very unusual form, and is the first of that shape I have seen, the obverse being made to drop in. It has also a charcoal channel for the metal. The triangular piece of plaster of paris is made as a mould for a florin and also for a shilling, tapering towards the end. These are pieces of real silver. The charcoal can be used for many things—it is the first time I have had charcoal produced. The grain tin is the basis of bad coin. The
mould appears to have been erased by this rasp. Looking at these things, there is nothing to show skill in coining, as I have not seen the results. The book produced is a "Cassell's Handbook," dated 1905, a guide to plating, giving directions how to use different metals and chemicals, and useful to an honest or dishonest person.
JAMES DOUGLAS (prisoner, not on oath). The two tins, one of blacking and one of blacklead, are my property, and also the Bath brick. That has only been used for cleaning knives. The rasp was shown to me, and I was asked what I used it for, and I told the constable it was used for removing rust in painting by me. The white was not on it when taken from the drawer. As regards all the other things, I know nothing of them, only that my brother came home and put something in the drawer and then want out. Two or three minutes afterwards I was playing with some children in the room, when the constables came in. As far as the mould was concerned, I know nothing whatever of it. My brother used to clean the place up. I used to go out the first thing in the morning, return in the afternoon, and go out in the evening, returning about 11 or 12 at night. I am entirely innocent of the charge brought against me.
Verdict: James Douglas, Not guilty.
Thomas Douglas was proved to have been convicted of several coinage offences, the first in 1885, and sentenced to 18 months hard labour, five years' penal servitude, and seven years' penal servitude in 1900, being liberated on ticket-of-leave on May 6, 1905.
Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.
DAVIS. George (23, musician) pleaded guilty ; to breaking and entering the dwelling house of Herbert Scamwell and stealing therein a coat and a pair of trousers, his goods, and feloniously receiving same; breaking and entering the shop of Anderson and Company, Limited, with intent to steal therein.
Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.
MORRISON, Donald (61, traveller) pleaded guilty ; to having received from Arthur Hole the sum of £3 0s. 5d. for and on account of Thomas Hill Jones, did fraudulently convert the said moneys to his own use and benefit.
Three short sentences of fraud and embezzlement were proved against prisoner in 1885, 1886, and 1889.
Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.
OLD COURT; Tuesday, November 20.
(Before Mr. Justice Grantham.)
Mr. Wilkinson prosecuted.
AMY BARLOW . I am prisoner's wife, and lived with him at the "White Lion," Central Street, E.C.; the landlord there is Mr. Taylor, my brother-in-law (at least, he married my sister, "to all appearances "). I was housekeeper, and looked after the business; prisoner is a labourer. On Sunday morning, October 21, I got up and downstairs before the prisoner and went into the kitchen; Nason, the barman, and Simmons, the potman, were there. When prisoner came down he started rowing with Nason, and used filthy language; I told him to shut up in front of his children. I asked Nason to fetch me some milk, and went upstairs to get the money. As I got upstairs I heard the children scream, and turning round I saw prisoner coming after me with the table knife (produced) in his hand. He knocked me down and said, "I mean to kill you." I begged him not to. He tried to get the knife across my throat; in trying to prevent him I got my hands cut very bad; he made three scratches at my throat with the knife, but not very bad. I saw Taylor coming upstairs to my help, and I remember no more.
Cross-examined by Prisoner. When you came downstairs you accused Nason of misconduct with me; I denied it; I did not say to you, "You can b——off now, I hate the b——sight of you." It is not true that over two months ago you accused me of misconduct with Nason; nor that I had been taking pills and drugs to bring on a premature confinement. You have not caught me with Nason in the kitchen with the gas turned down; It is a lie to say that Nason and Taylor "know as much about me" as you do. I have not been in Taylor's bedroom. I have not been in the bar drinking with him till two in the morning. I did not get rid of Mrs. Mansfield because she told you tales about me and these two men. It is not the fact that my conduct had become the talk of customers in the bar. It is true that Nason once kissed me in the bar. You were kissing another woman, and Nason said, "If you do that, Jack, I shall kiss your old woman." You have been indecent with other women in front of me. I swear that I have never misconducted myself with Nason or any other man.
LOUIS NASON . I was barman at the "White Lion." On October 21 I was in the kitchen, when prisoner came downstairs. I was talking to Mrs. Barlow, when prisoner came and swore at me. I said to him, "I will see you later," and walked out of the kitchen into the bar. Then I heard the children screaming out that their father was killing their mother. I rushed upstairs and saw prisoner struggling with his wife. I did not see anything in his hand. I tried to pull him off her, but he was too heavy for. me. I ran downstairs and went to the other part of the house to fetch Taylor, and the two of us went back together, Taylor in front. I heard Taylor say, "Christ, he has got a knife!"Taylor got prisoner away from Mrs. Barlow, and I took her downstairs. Then I returned and helped Taylor to hold prisoner down until the police came.
Cross-examined by Prisoner. You did not have words with me two years ago about my conduct with your wife. Your son told me you had been saying something about it, and I went to you at once, and
you said to me, "I think too much of you to accuse you of anything like that." You did not catch me a week before this occurrence in the back room with your wife with the gas turned down. You were not ordered out of the house because of the row you made about her conduct with me. I have never been with her in her bedroom. Once I took up a cup of tea and left it outside her door. I have not made her presents. I have not heard Taylor threaten you, except that once he said he would put you out of the bar.
WILLIAM ALBERT TAYLOR . I am licensee of the "White Lion." On the morning of October 21 Nason called me out of bed, and I went with him to prisoner's bedroom. I saw Mrs. Barlow lying on the floor and prisoner kneeling over her with a knife in his hand cutting at her throat. I grappled with him, and in the struggle I got a nasty knock with the handle of the knife. Eventually I got him on to the bed and held him until the police came.
Cross-examined by Prisoner. It is not the fact that on the night of the 20th I put my fist in your face and tried to aggravate you into striking me. I have sometimes interfered to prevent you using violence to your wife, and I have called you a cowardly scoundrel for hitting her. She has not been in my bedroom for half an hour at a time, or at all. Your quarrels with her were not about her misconduct, but about your not giving her money to keep the children. I got rid of Mrs. Mansfield because I was told you used to take her round the neck and go about with her to different public-houses. I deny that I have been drunk and had to be put to bed; there is nothing against me or the character of my house.
CHARLES COOK , Police-Constable, 308 G. On October 21 I was called to the "White Lion." I saw Mrs. Barlow in a downstairs room; she was bleeding very bad from both hands, and her face was smothered with blood; she was sent to the hospital. Upstairs I saw prisoner being held down by two men. I told him I should arrest him for assaulting his wife; he said, "I will come"; on the way to the station he said, "I meant flopping her out" In the room I found the knife (produced) lying in a pool of blood. Prisoner was sober, but very excited.
Police-Sergeant THOMAS HARRIS, 38 G. I was at the station when prisoner was brought in by Cook. I asked the latter, in prisoner's hearing, whether it was serious, and he replied that he did not know Prisoner then said, "I mean to flop her out; I wish I had cut her b—head off." In reply to the charge prisoner said nothing. He was quite sober.
CYRIL SMALLHORN , House Surgeon at St. Bartholomew's Hospital. I examined Mrs. Barlow on her being brought to the hospital; she had multiple cuts on her neck and on both hands, and two scratches on the face; two of the cuts on the neck were deep, the others superficial. There were two very serious cuts on her right hand. She was in a very collapsed state. Her general condition now is very good, but her hands are not yet perfectly well; I have my doubts whether she will ever recover the full use of her hands.
To Prisoner. I examined her thoroughly; if it is the fact that two days previously she had had a miscarriage brought about by the use of drugs, I saw no signs of it; if that really happened, she must have made a very rapid recovery.
Mrs. MANSFIELD, called at prisoner's request. I have seen your wife sitting in the parlour hours and hours together with Taylor, while you have been in the kitchen. You and she have had words over it, and she has said that she did it more to annoy you. What I saw going on upset me very much; as a mother of nine children I thought she ought to know better. I know that Nason has been in her bedroom with cups of tea in the morning. She used to have her breakfast with Taylor.
Cross-examined. I was employed as charwoman, only during the daytime. Taylor discharged me because I failed once to get tea ready for him.
Prisoner said he had nothing to say, except that he was sorry for what had happened, and threw himself on the mercy of the Court.
Verdict, Not guilty of wounding with intent to murder, Guilty of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, "through great provocation." Sentence, Three years' penal servitude.
Mr. Symmons prosecuted.
ELLEN JARVIS . I am prisoner's wife; we have been living together eight years, and have five children; he works at an Indiarubber works, we have been living at 30, Royal Street, Lambeth. On the night of October 9 I went into the bedroom at 9.30 or 10. In the next room where prisoner was I heard a kind of hissing noise; I went there and I saw prisoner had something in a little earthenware cap; I asked him what it was; he said, "That is mine; taste it." I said, "No, I'm not fond of tasting things like that"; and then he threw it all in my face. (But, sir, he has been one of the best husbands to me and the best of fathers to my children.) I felt my eyes burning, and washed them under the tap; the woman upstairs helped me; then I went to the hospital. We had had some words; he thinks that my children do not belong to him; I want that cleared up; I swear that there is not the slightest truth in his suspicions. Apart from these suspicions, he has always been a good man to me and my children. I do not remember seeing this cup in the place before. I do not know of any brass stuff that he might have wanted to do up. We had been having a few words, but I really do not think he would have hurt me if he had thought for a moment; he was too fond of me.
Prisoner stated, in reply to the Court, that he was very sorry he had had suspicions about his wife, and now recognised that they were groundless.
HUGH EVELYN GOTLEY , House Surgeon at St. Thomas's Hospital for ophthalmic cases. On October 9, about quarter past 11 p.m. I saw Mrs. Jarvis; both eyelids were very much swollen; there was no excoriation of the outside of the lids, but within the eye the membrane of the lids was very much swollen, and the part commonly called the sight of the eye was very much clouded. The fluid handed to me was analysed; it contained oxalic acid, some acid sulphate, and probably some sulphuric acid. Prosecutrix was in the hospital till the 20th. She is now practically recovered; there is a very slight haze in one eye, but it does not interfere much, if at all, with her sight.
Police-Constable HERBERT GRACE, 28 L. I went to prisoner on October 10, and told him I should arrest him for throwing some kind of corrosive acid over his wife. He replied, "I did throw it over her; we had a few words; I mixed it up in a cup; it is oxalic acid; I brought it home to clean some brass; a friend of mine gave it to me; I have been expecting you; that is the cup I mixed it up in"; there was about half a teaspoon full of the stuff in the cup. I afterwards found some oxalic acid mixed up in a small soup tureen.
PRISONER (not on oath). On the night this occurred we had been having a few words. I had got this stuff to clean a lamp with that I was going to get, and I mixed it up in the soup tureen; I put that in the cup; I dipped it out and asked her to taste it when she came out to me; she said, "No, thank you"; we had been having this row. I caught hold of the cup and threw it at her, not thinking for a minute that I would do her any harm or injury; I am very sorry for it.
Verdict, Guilty, with a recommendation to mercy.
Mr. Justice Grantham read the following letter addressed to him by prisoner's wife: "I am writing this as a wife and mother. Will you forgive him as I do, with all my heart? He has always been the best of husbands to me, also to my five children. It may be the turning point in both our lives. I am writing this from my heart. Have pity on him." Prisoner received an excellent character from an employer with whom he had been for five years. He was released on his own recognisances in £10 to come up for judgment when called upon; the police sergeant being directed to go to prisoners late employer, and express the hope of the learned judge that prisoner might be taken on again.
NEW COURT; Tuesday, November 20.
(Before the Recorder.)
ROSE, William (39, collector of taxes) pleaded guilty ; to being employed in the public service of His Majesty and being entrusted by virtue of such employment with the receipt of certain valuable securities, did embezzle three orders for the payment of £57 16s., £71 3s. 3d., and £36 8s. 8d. respectively. Being employed as aforesaid, and being entrusted with the receipt of certain valuable securities, to wit, orders for the payment of £346 11s. 11d., £44 8s. 7d., and £127 10s., respectively, did fraudulently apply the same to his own use and benefit. Being employed as clerk and servant to His Majesty, wilfully, and with intent to defraud, did make certain false entries in and did omit material particulars from certain books of account belonging to His Majesty. Having received the said orders for the payment of £57 16s., £71 3s. 3d., £36 8s. 8d., £346 11s. 11d., £44 8s. 7d., and £127 10s. for and on account of His Majesty, did fraudulently convert the same to his own use and benefit.
Mr. T. C. Hedderwick prosecuted. Mr. Rayner Goddard appeared for the prisoner.
Sentence, Eighteen months' hard labour.
MONTAGUE, Arthur (30, labourer) pleaded guilty ; to feloniously getting off the impression of a stamp from certain documents, with intent to use the same for other documents. Unlawfully removing from certain instruments certain adhesive stamps, and affixing same to certain instruments and using for postal purposes certain adhesive stamps which had been so removed, with intent that the said stamps might again be used.
Previous convictions proved: February 5, 1903, two months' hard labour for stealing papers; March 5,1906, fined £50, or two months' hard labour for fraud on the Inland Revenue.
Dr. SCOTT, of Brixton Prison, stated that the prisoner was weak-minded and childish, but capable of knowing right and wrong.
Sentence, Three months' imprisonment.
Sentence, Two days' imprisonment.
TIDY, Walter (17, labourer) pleaded guilty ; to stealing two pairs of boots, the goods of Abraham Cohen, and feloniously receiving same; he also confessed to having been convicted at West Ham of felony on February 20, 1906; several other previous convictions were proved.
Sentence, Six months' hard labour.
(Wednesday, November 21.)
The Recorder stated that he had reconsidered the sentence passed yesterday. He had been then informed that the prisoner, after having been birched in 1903, had been several times convicted since, although he was only 17 years of age. He had further been informed that two of his brothers were now in penal servitude. In these circumstances, he found himself confronted with a very great difficulty to know what
to do with the prisoner, because he was anxious if he could to save him from getting into the same position as his brothers. Yesterday he could not at the moment see his way to do anything but send him to a short term of imprisonment. He had, however, since given further consideration to the matter in consultation with the officers of the Court and with gentlemen interested in the Borstal system—a system by which young offenders were sent to a special form of prison, where they were not treated as ordinary convicts would be, but were taught a useful trade. It was not the slightest use to send a boy of such age and character as the prisoner to such a place for so short a period at six months; it was necessary that there should be a longer period in which to learn a trade. Having regard to the position of the prisoner's brothers, and in the hope that the result of the step he was going to take would be to make a respectable citizen of the prisoner, he proposed to alter the sentence of six months' to one of 18 months' imprisonment. That alteration was intended solely for the prisoner's welfare, and not for punishment.
Sentence, Two days' imprisonment.
STARR, Charles (37, salesman) pleaded guilty ; to forging a certain telegram and uttering same, knowing the same to be forged and with intent to defraud; attempting to obtain by false pretences from George Phillips the sum of £5, with intent to defraud. Two previous convictions were proved.
Sentence, Three months' hard labour.
BAILEY, Charles (35, traveller) pleaded guilty ; to stealing a purse and the sum of 15s., the money of Ellen Hooker, from her person, and feloniously receiving same; he also confessed to being convicted of felony at the Old Bailey on September 20, 1902, and a number of other previous convictions were proved.
Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.
BRANSON. Harry William (25, ship's steward) pleaded guilty ; to forging and uttering certain requests for the payment of £5 10s. and £1 13s. 1d. respectively, in each case with intent to defraud. Obtaining by false pretences from Frederick Green and others the sum of £1 13s. 1d. and from Charles Henry Streeting and Henry Nagel a suit of clothes and other goods and the sum of £2 9s. 5d., in each case with intent to defraud. The police proved previous good character. Sentence, Six months' hard labour.
THIRD COURT; Tuesday, November 20.
(Before the Common Serjeant.)
MCKENAN, Ernest (16, vanguard), who pleaded guilty at the September Sessions (see preceding vol., page 504), to breaking and entering, with four other boys, the Catholic Apostolic Church, Gordon Square, and stealing therein the sum of £59, the moneys of the trustees, and feloniously receiving same, came before the Court to be dealt with.
It having been stated by Mr. James Todd, who appeared for the prosecution, that the boy was now in the employment of the Vanguard Omnibus Company, and was conducting himself well, and Sergeant Scholes having endorsed this statement subject to the quailfication that he had been fined 1s. for playing football on Sunday in the street, the Common Serjeant directed that he should be bound over in the sum of £10 to come up for judgment, observing that if the Sunday football was the worst thing against him he had perhaps as good a character as a boy ought to have, but warning him against further misbehaviour.
Mr. Fisher, who appeared for the prosecution, did not propose to offer further evidence, subject to his lordship's approval.
Prisoner, an Italian, took part in a street brawl armed with, a pistol, which he fired at the opposite party, the evidence for prosecution being that this was done without provocation, while witnesses for the defence stated that prisoner acted under provocation. Under the circumstances the Common Serjeant thought the best way to deal with the case was to discharge the recognisances, and leave the prosecution on the file of the Court for further evidence.
Mr. Walter Warren, on behalf of the accused, assented to this course.
The Common Serjeant accordingly directed accused to be discharged as Not guilty, observing that he would hear no more of the matter unless for some reason or another.
KENDALL, William John (62, traveller) ; having been entrusted with the several sums of 12s., 11s. 5d., and 5s., in order that he might pay the same to John Hooydonk, did fraudulently convert the said moneys to his own use and benefit.
Dr. C. F. Lyne prosecuted.
Police-Sergeant ELSAM, E Division. On October 22 I saw prisener at the Bow Street Police Station. I read the warrant to him, and in reply he said, "I admit I had the money, but they cannot do anything with me because I was not a servant." Subsequently I called on the tradesmen from whom he had collected money, Mr. Kewley, of Highgate Hill, Mr. Ketley, Angus Lane, Kentish Town, and Mr. Sawyer, Great College Street, Westminster.
JOHN HOOYDONK , 6, Leather Lane, Holborn, manufacturers' agent. About August 13 or 14 last I engaged prisoner as traveller, and entered into an agreement with him to pay him 10 per cent. Commission on orders, but without giving him leave to receive money. After he had been in my service about three weeks, thinking him fairly
straightforward, I gave him leave to receive small accounts for me. I have received several sums from the prisoner, but not the 12s. due from Ketley, 5s. from Sawyer, and 11s. 5d. from Kewley. I first received money from prisoner on August 18, when he paid me 12s. 8d. due from Cole. I discovered by personal inquiry that the sums which are the subject of the indictment, had been received by him and not paid in. I certainly thanked him for bringing in the money he paid me, as I was very pleased to be saved the trouble of collecting it such a distance away. I think I told him at the time that if there were any small amounts he could collect I should be very pleased if he would do so. It is about a month since prisoner was arrested. He came into my office one Friday and I reproached him for having collected one or two accounts, and asked him why he had not handed me the money? First of all he as good as denied it. I told him if he did not account I should have to call in an officer. When I told him that he said, "Oh! you cannot touch me; you cannot do anything to me." I sent my manager for a policeman, and eventually we persuaded prisoner to go to the station, where we were given to understand that we could not charge him, and he was discharged for the time being. After that there was no accounting, and the matter was left where it was except that the detective took the case in hand. Prisoner overdrew his commission to the extent of about 30s. He was supposed to draw his commission every week, but one week he was rather short, and I let him have a cheque for 30s., which was about 28s. more than was due to him. When I found his orders were coming in very nicely he asked me for an advance on his commission, and I gave him an advance. The orders he gave me were genuine. I could not say what commission was. due to him at the time of his arrest, as personally I rarely look at the books.
The Common Serjeant remarked that this was not a case of an ordinary clerk who received money from his master, but the prisoner was a coupon agent, and they must see whether the case came within the statute.
Witness. I left the dealing with the agents almost entirely in the hands of my manager. I had perhaps nine or ten agents at the time.
The Common Serjeant complained that the prosecution apparently knew but little about this case, and had to pick it up as best they could. Unfortunately, cases in this Court never were prepared properly. Cases which could not be tried anywhere in this district except at this Court were always left to be done by the police, who understood nothing about it.
Witness. I was advised that it could be worked without a solicitor, otherwise I should have appointed my solicitor to take the case up.
The Common Serjeant. you were very badly advised, but, if you had employed a solicitor, the country would not have paid you, because you happen to be in the district of the Central Criminal Court of the country, where the business is done in this scandalous way. It is no use protesting against it, because it goes on for ever and ever.
CLAUDE VANZANDT , manager to Mr. Hooydonk. Prisoner never paid to me the amounts which are the subject of this indictment. Whether prisoner paid me or Mr. Hooydonk depended upon which of us was in the place. Sometimes Mrs. Hooydonk would receive money. When accounts were paid they were marked "Paid" on the slips produced. As prisoner received the orders he wrote them down. I do not know what prisoner paid Mrs. Hooydonk. I can only speak to those slips which I marked myself. I cannot speak to Hooydonk's. The slips were not produced before the magistrate; they were not asked for.
The Common Serjeant could not understand how prisoner ever came to be committed without this evidence. Under Finlay's Act, dealing with the fraudulent conversion of money received by a person who is not a servant, the prosecution must prove all the elements of larceny or embezzlement, except that the accused was a servant, what his position was, that he was not merely a debtor having a general account, that he received certain sums which it was his duty to hand over, and that he fraudulently converted not a general balance, but particular sums. On these depositions that could not be proved. The whole of the evidence really consisted in the one statement proved by the police-constable, that the prisoner admitted that he received the money, but said as he was not a servant they could do nothing.
Dr. Lyne. The three parties are here who swore that they paid him.
The Common Serjeant: That will not help us. We find what he did in the other cases, but that does not say that he fraudulently converted these particular items. Addressing the jury, his Lordship said that there could be only one finding in this case, though it was a very unsatisfactory one.
The Jury accordingly returned a verdict of Not guilty.
The Common Serjeant observed that in any other county the matter would have been taken up by a solicitor and thoroughly worked out. A solicitor would either have said there was no case, and the prosecution would not have gone on with it, or the case would have been ready at the trial. At the Central Criminal Court, which was the Assizes for about one-fifth of the whole of England, practically, no one got up a case at all, the reason being that here no costs were allowed to the prosecutor for coming forward in the interests of the public, but this had been so often pointed out that it was not worth while to do it any more.
COLLINGS. Ernest Arthur (23, clerk), WINNING, Percy (24, merchant) ; both conspiring and agreeing together to defraud the Typewriter Company, limited, and divers other persons of their goods; both obtaining by false pretences from Frederick William Burnside one typewriter; from Frank Edward Kirner 48 bags; from Moss Mendelsohn and another one sideboard and one bedroom suite; from the Remington Typewriter Company, one typewriter; from the Typewriter Company, Limited, one typewriter; from Wolfsky and Company, Limited, divers kit bags; from Michael David Marks four tea services and other goods; from James Lacey and others a quantity of silk; from Livingstone and Company, Limited, one ton of cotton Waste; from Adams and Company, Limited, one ton of cotton waste; and from William Accrington Greenslade divers brushes, in each case with intent to defraud; both in incurring certain debts and liabilities to the said persons to the said amounts, did obtain credit from them under false pretences and by means of fraud other than false pretences.
Mr. J. P. Grain and Mr. Eustace Fulton prosecuted; Mr. Louis Green and Mr. Wertheimer defended.
Mr. Grain, in opening the case, divided the charges in the indictment of obtaining goods by fraudulent devices into two periods, the first from October, 1905, to March, 1906, when an alleged business was carried on in the name of A. Collings and Co., 88, Chiswell Street, export merchants, manufacturers, etc., and the second from June, 1906, down to the time of the arrest in October, when business was carried on in the name of Winning and Co., 16 and 17, Devonshire Square, E.C., merchants and manufacturers. Other persons charged in the indictment at conspirators were Phillips, Bagnell, Pugh, and Feldmann.
HENRY GRIMSDALL , High Bailiff of the Shoreditch County Court. Or March 14 I was in possession at the office of Collings and Co., 88, Chiswell Street, the total amount I required being £19 14s., £14 13s. debt, and the balance expenses. The plaintiffs were H. Hewetson and Co., 27, Watling Street, twine manufacturers. I produce the inventory. On March 15 the Sheriff of London and Middlesex followed me for £33 3s. 10d. I took sufficient goods to satisfy the £19 14s., and he took the remainder.
Cross-examined. I found two typewriters at 88, Chiswell Street, a Remington and a Barlock.
FRANK EDWARD KIRNER , manager to Garstin and Co., leather-goods manufacturers. Queen's Square, Aldersgate Street. In consequence of a message by telephone from Collings and Co., 88, Chiswell Street, which I received on or about January 1 of this year, I sent a sample of kit bags, and subsequently received from the firm an order by post giving Pugh and Co., 173-5, Fleet Street, as a reference. We communicated with Pugh and Co., and received a reply from them stating, "We have not known this firm very long, and have only had one business transaction with them. In confidence, we do not think it policy to give them any credit." Before delivering the goods we also inquired at the London and County Bank. where we found Collings and Co. had an account. The value of the goods delivered was £15 8s. I afterwards called several times at Chiswell Street, where I saw Collings. I wanted to get the money, and also to see what kind of place it was. I gave the intimation that we expected a cash payment. He did not raise any objection to that that I remember. I did not get the money. On January 24 we received
another order, and we then agitated for payment of the first. We got the payment eventually on February 3 by cheque, which was honoured. We then executed the second order, which amounted to £28 18s. I believed that the statement on the heading that Collings and Co. were merchants was genuine. I called at the office several times, but did not see either of these men, but a middle-aged man, in the outer office. I was told, I think, that the principal was away in Manchester. That was the sort of excuse I got. I think I only saw Collings once when I called. He never represented to me that there was a man named Winning connected with the business. Besides the inquiries of Pugh and the London and County Bank we had a confidential trade inquiry report, which was satisfactory.
FREDERICK WILLIAM BURNSIDE , traveller, Remington Typewriter Company. I recollect calling about the middle of January on the firm of A. Collings, and Co., 88, Chiswell Street, to sell a machine. I saw prisoner Collings, and later on I got an order. The typewriter was delivered on January 15 and invoiced on January 30 at £22 17s. The terms of payment were 5 per cent, cash in 10 days. I believe I called afterwards to tee whether the machine was going along all right. Our collector called for the money, but did not get it, and we have never seen the machine since. The place consisted of two or three small rooms on the second floor. There were desks and other furniture. There seemed to be a little stock there at far at I could see.
Cross-examined by Mr. Green. My first visit was not due to any application by Collings and Co. I was canvassing. The typewriter was on the premises at Chiswell-street when the bailiff levied.
WILLIAM VICTOR BATTEN , traveller, Remington Typewriter Company. In June last I called upon Winning and Co., 16 and 17, Devonshire Square. I had then no knowledge that they had any connection with Collings and Co., of Chiswell Street. On the occasion of my first call the name of H. Binks appeared on an indicator in the passage. On the occasion of my second call the name of Binks had been obliterated and Winning and Co. substituted. I saw prisoner Winning, having called with the object of ascertaining whether he would require any machines for use in the business, which, so far as I could see, was a new one. After trial, he decided to keep the machine, and it was invoiced to him on June 29 at £22 9s. 6d. I called attention to the fact that Binks's name had been obliterated, and Winning told me that Binks had been taken over by him and the business was now Winning and Co. I gathered from what I saw that the business carried on was that of general merchants. I called afterwards, and at various times saw both prisoners there. As we were unable to get the money, my firm instructed their solicitors to sue for it. They got judgment but never recovered anything.
Cross-examined by Mr. Green. When I first called I was canvassing. I am certain about what Winning said as to his having taken over the business of Binks and Co. He did not say he had taken over the offices. I understood that he had taken over the business
of Binks and Co., and also that he had taken Binks into partnership. I did not ask for any reference.
GEORGE FERRIS , district manager of the Remington Company, gave evidence as to the delivery of the machine, to calling for the money, and to seeing Collings on the premises, who then gave the name of Marsden. On one occasion Collings said the money would be all right, Mr. Winning being wealthy. After a time, in consequence of information received, witness swore an information at the Guildhall. When he first called on Winnings he had no knowledge that they had anything to do with Collings and Co., of Chiswell Street.
Cross-examined. Collings never led me to believe that he was a member of the firm of Winning and Co., but spoke as if he were a clerk.
AUBREY WILLIAM FOOTE , traveller for the Typewriter Company, Limited (Royal Barlock). About the end of July I called on the firm of P. Winning and Co. I cannot recollect that I saw either of the prisoners then. After some conversation, I obtained an order for a Barlock typewriter, and the machine was delivered shortly afterwards.
Cross-examined. I did not ask for or receive any references.
VICTOR HOWARD VOWLES , manager of the Typewriter Company, Limited. On July 25, typewriter No. 105,425, of the value of £23. was delivered to Winning and Co. upon the order brought in by last witness, the terms being 5 per cent, for cash within seven days. The usual custom it to allow seven days' trial. At the expiration of the period of trial our usual custom is to write a polite letter as fellow: "Dear Sir,—As we have often found that our customers have been desirous of obtaining the special discount for cash within seven days, and have missed securing this through overlooking the date of the invoice, we follow our usual custom and send you this reminder; but, of course, if you prefer to take the monthly account net we are quite agreeable. Trusting the machine is giving you every satisfaction, and that we shall be favoured with your kind recommendations, we are." etc. The machine in question was never delivered to a person of the name of Bagnell. I never heard of such a person. We have had no transactions with him. The machine produced is the one supplied. We had previously supplied a machine to Collings and Co., of Chiswell Street, in February of this year, the price being £23. For that we have received no money. I heard afterwards that Collings and Co. had gone away, that they had been unfortunate.
Cross-examined. I do not know that the bailiff of Shoreditch County Court seized two typewriter machines. He seized ours, I know.
OLIVER BULL , pawnbroker, Bishopsgate Street. On October 11 a Barlock typewriter was brought to our place by somebody giving the name of Culley, of P. Winning and Co., but I cannot swear that it was this machine. The card and receipt produced were handed to us by the person pawning the typewriter. The card was that of "P. Winning and Co., merchants and manufacturers, 16 and 17, Devonshire
Square, E.C." The receipt purported to be a receipt for the typewriter by H. Begnell and Co., steel pen manufacturers, of 30, Cotton Street, E., for £15 10s. (This receipt was in the handwriting of Collings.) Upon production of that receipt we lent £4. On October 10 the typewriter was redeemed by Winning and Co., £4 2a. 8d. being paid, but as I had then had notice from the police and from the Typewriter Company I did not part with it.
Cross-examined. The man who pawned the machine gave the name of John Culley, of P. Winning and Co.
GEORGE ALFRED HALL , cashier of the Birmingham Cabinet Manufacturing Company (in which Mr. Moss Mendelssohn is a partner). About February 1 of this year my firm received a postcard from "Collings and Co., merchants and shippers, 88, Chiswell Street, Finsbury Pavement," asking for our illustrated catalogue. On February 7 we sent them a reminder. We subsequently received an order for a walnut sideboard, No. 384 (6 ft.), at £31, less £50 per cent., Messrs. Pugh, of Fleet Street, being given as reference. The sideboard was to be delivered at the station of the London and North-Western Railway, Broad-street, London, and was, presumably, for shipment. The sideboard was sent in accordance with these instructions after we had applied to Pugh, who wrote that Messrs. Collings and Co. were satisfactory, but they would not recommend us to trust them beyond £30 or £40 a month. Upon that we enclosed an invoice to Collings and Co., asking for cash before delivery, and in reply Collings and Co. wrote that, as they had forwarded the usual trade reference cash before delivery could hardly be expected. Upon that we sent the sideboard, which, with its packing, amounted to £16 5s. We applied several times for payment, but received no reply, and the last letter was returned through the Post Office. On July 4 we received a postcard from P. Winning and Co., in a form similar to that of Collings and Co., and also asking for our catalogue. The writing on both cards is, I think, the same. We forwarded the catalogue. On July 10 we wrote them a reminder, and on September 20 we received an order for one Stanley Suite American walnut at £37 10s., less 50 per cent., to be delivered to Winning and Co., Devonshire Square. We wrote for references, and they replied that if we would advise them when the goods were ready they would send references. By an oversight the references were not taken, but the goods were sent per Midland Railway on October 6, with an invoice for £20 6s. We made two applications for payment, but got no reply to either. On November 5 I saw the bedroom suite in the hands of the City Police at Moor Lane Police Station.
CHARLES FEATHERSTONE , London manager to William Acerington Greenslade, brush manufacturer, Bristol. On September 7 I received a sample order from P. Winning and Co., which came to £1 7s. 8d., the terms being 2 1/2 per cent, for thirty days. On September 24 I received a letter from the same firm enclosing a further order to the amount of £13 7s. The goods were packed loosely in baskets, and were delivered late in the evening of October 17 at Devonshire Square. We have never been paid.
Mrs. RACHAEL ARRABUS, wife of Samuel Arrabus, 39, South Block, Stoney Lane, Houndsditch. I deal in new and second-hand furniture and other job lines of goods. I did not know the prisoners until I bought the furniture. I was sent for by a friend of mine, a Mrs. Levy, who works at hand linen, blouses, and that sort of thing. She took me to Devonshire Square, where I saw both prisoners. They asked if I would like to buy a bedroom suite. I bought the suite on October 12, and I went there about a fortnight before that. I saw the furniture in the basement of No. 16. It was new, but I had some new handles put on it. Prisoners asked £14. The suite consisted of a wardrobe, dressing table, washstand, and three chairs. I bid to £12, and they said they could not take my money, but in a week or so they sent to say they would accept it. I went with my sister to look at it again and agreed to the £12. Prisoners were both there. Collings took the money and wrote out this receipt: "London, 12th October, 1906.—Dr. to R. Phillips, job buyer and commission agent, 27, Wellington Buildings, Bow, E. One bedroom suite of furniture.—Received cash, R. Phillips. October 12." They delivered the goods where I store things in Titley Street, Spitalfields. The suite was afterwards stopped by the police and is now at Moor Lane Police Station. About a week afterwards I again saw prisoners at Mrs. Levy's, who had again sent for me. They asked me if I would buy some more goods. I said, "If I can, I will," and I subsequently bought some brooms and brushes (about half the quantity obtained from Greenslade) for £3 10s. the receipt being again made out in the name of R. Phillips by prisoner Collings. I sold the brushes and things off a barrow separately in Stoney Lane, where I often have goods out on Sunday. I produce an account of what I bought. I counted the brushes and brooms as I bought them, and my sister and I carried them home. There were 24 hairs (long brooms), two dozen balusters (staircase), eight dozen scrubs (scrubbing brushes), and 42 large stoves (stove brushes).
WALTER BOYS , traveller of Messrs. Wolfsky and Co., leather manufacturers, 17 and 18, Bridgewater Square. On June 11 we received a letter from the firm of P. Winning and Co., asking for a catalogue. I afterwards called at 16 and 17, Devonshire Square, and saw Winning. I had some conversation with him as to the character of his business, and tried to get out of him whether he had a bona-fide shipping business. I only represent my firm in shipping. He said he had been with Cook and Co., St. Paul's Churchyard, and had been out to South Africa, which was an important point from my point of view. I think he said he had been in the Cape Mounted Rifles, either that or in the Cape Mounted Police. He undoubtedly said he was a South African merchant. That is the first question I asked him, because that trade is a different class of goods. I told him we had a new catalogue in the press, but it was not ready, but as soon as it came out we should have pleasure in forwarding him a copy. He said that would do, but he wanted a few bags—that class of goods. A few days afterwards some travelling bags were supplied
by my firm. On July 16, when I called again, I saw the prisoner Collings, whom I did not know as Collings then. I think he gave the name of Somers; it was not Collings, I can swear. I asked if the bags ordered by Winnings suited, and he said he thought they were a little bit dear, and then we argued the point. As a matter of fact, Winning had called at our warehouse. Collings said he had had a cheaper bag offered to him, and we went up to the third floor to look at the bags. I said they were good value, and so on, and in the end he agreed to keep them. We afterwards received from P. Winning and Co. an order for double-handled kit (Dublin) bags, to the value of £6 12s., which were delivered on July 17. The account was subject to a discount of 2 1/2 per cent. for cash.
(Wednesday, November 21.)
WALTER BOYS , further examined. After the delivery of the bags on July 16 I called again at Devonshire Square. I saw an old man in the outer office whom I had seen once before. I also saw Collings, who said the governor was away ill. I never knew Collings as Collings; he gave some other name. On August 1 I received a telephone message purporting to come from Winning and Co., again ordering doubled-handled kit bags. At the end of August, on account of a communication from the firm, I called at Devonshire Square. I had previously learned that in my absence on a holiday an order had been delivered on August 15 to the value of £12 7s. 6d. It was Winning I saw on that occasion. He said he had been in Guy's Hospital for some weeks. I said there had been a misunderstanding with my firm over references. My firm thought I was guaranteeing the amount, which practically meant that I knew all about prisoners, and they had not troubled to make a reference through trade sources. I said I should like two references, and he said, "Certainly," and gave me the names of Albert Oehen and Co., watch manufacturers, Newgate Street, opposite Old Bailey, and H. Bagnell, Wheeler's Lane, Birmingham, pen manufacturers. I thanked him, and went straight on to Newgate Street, and subsequently made a report to my firm. On September 18 I again called at Devonshire Square, and saw Winning. I said to him, "You have been round to our firm and ordered a bag for your own personal use, and also a gent's fitted suit case, value nine guineas, on approval. As you have had this case eight days we must know whether you wish it charged up or are going to return it." He said it was ✗with a customer, and he had not had an answer yet. Would I call later in the day? I did so, and he put me off by saying he had not been able to see his client. I called the next day, and said to him, "We must have the suit case settled up," and he said, "I will go on and see the man at once." I said, "All right, I would like to come with you," and he replied, "Oh, that would scarcely be fair." I called on several other occasions, and in the end he said, "Charge he bag up; I have sold it." I think it was on the same day I saw
Collings, because I waited three solid hours while Winning was out about the suit case. I told Collings we wanted a bit of money, and could not they pay half of it, say £15? He started talking about a bill for a month, and I said, of course, I should have to refer that to my firm. On a later occasion I said to Winning, "What about our account? My firm are on to me every day, as we have not seen the colour of your money yet, and unless we can get something definite we shall have to sue, as our terms are monthly." We never got any money from him.
Cross-examined by Mr. Wertheimer. Winning said that he was trying to work up a business as a South African merchant By inference he said that he was a South African merchant. He said that he had been out there, and gave me the impression of knowing the trade. I have had 25 years' business experience. I do not agree that the premises and general surroundings did not show a very flourishing business. I believed that a lucrative business was being carried on, because in the outer office there was a very large bill case full of letters and papers, which I examined when I was left alone. I do not see that my conduct was unprofessional, because when we go out we have to get as much information as we can, especially about a new client. I have reason to believe that Winning had been with Cook and Son, of St Paul's Churchyard. I knew from his conversation he had had good general business training, and that induced me to do business with him. He seemed to understand hit business. I did not see Mr. Olhens himself, butt I saw his manager. I asked him if he would show me his account with Winning. He said he could not do that, but Olhens had certainly done considerable business with Winning. Winning had paid about £30 or £40, and owes him, roughly, £60 or £70. Olhens' manager then showed me the "South African Export Gazette," a paper published in the interests of South African merchants, and directed my attention to a paragraph to this effect: "There is a very junior firm (or young firm) in the neighbourhood of Devonshire Square, and we advise our clients to he very careful about trusting them." Of course, it was a guarded thing, no name being mentioned. Collings did not give me the impression of, being a partner in the business, but buyer or manager.
FREDERICK LIVINGSTONE , managing director of Livingstone and Co., Limited, cotton waste manufacturers, Manchester. Mr. George Starnes, of Monument Buildings, is our London agent. On July 25 we received a letter which had been addressed to him by P. Winning and Co., of Devonshire Square, asking for samples and quotations of white and coloured cotton waste. On July 26 we quoted prices for press-packed bales, delivered f.o.b., with 2 1/2 per cent, for prompt cash. Under date August 13 we received an order for half a ton coloured waste at £20 per ton, and half a ton of white at £25, "press-packed bales, f.o.b. Terms, 2 1/2 per cent prompt cash." On September 6 we received a postcard, "Please let us know when to expect delivery of goods ordered on 13th ult. and oblige.—P. W. and Co." On September 8 we wrote, "We have been awaiting your instructions. The goods will
be ready for shipment by end of next week. Have we to make of each quality two bales of 5 cwt.?" On September 10 they wrote directing us to send in four bales of 5 cwt., with marks for shipment. We forwarded the bales and sent them an invoice amounting to £22 10s. 8d. Under date October 2, we received from them, "Please quote and sample in sponge doth," giving a number of sizes. We replied on October 4, sending samples and quoting prices, and under date October 8 we received an order for 20 gross. Sponge cloth is an open woven cloth used for wiping grease, and may be seen on steamers round the stokers' necks. All these things indicated to us a shipping trade. The amount of the order was about £25. We did not, however, deliver it, having received information. We have never been paid anything. We heard of me arrest, and gave information to the police. On November 5 I was taken to the office of Messrs. Osmond, Matthews, and Co., in Hearn Street, City Road, where I saw three bales of our goods which had been detained by the police. Neither of the bales had been unpacked, and I found on them traces of our marks which in some cases had been entirely cut away. Looking at the headings of the letters, to the fact of the goods being ordered to be packed and marked outside, and to be quoted f.o.b., we believed that they were for shipment, and that P. Winning and Co. were doing a genuine business.
Cross-examined by Mr. Wertheimer. Goods for shipment are press-packed in bales of 5 cwt. In the domestic trade the package is invariably one cwt. The marks they gave us were such as are used in the export trade, "P.W." in a "diamond." The goods were directed to be sent to the care of Fisher, Renwick, and Co., Manchester Wharf, Shadwell Basin. We knew nothing about their ultimate destination, whether Australia or South Africa. We considered Winning's a businesslike communication. They did not hurry us for the stuff; they gave us time to turn round. There was no representation beyond what appears on the correspondence, the whole tenor of which was misleading. No doubt if we had been more circumspect we should have obtained references.
Re-examined. The object of press packing is to reduce freight "F.o.b." indicated that they were to be shipped, not sold in the City Road. We had to deliver the goods free to London. It was within our rights to send them in any way we liked.
FREDERICK SMITH , traveller of Messrs. Adams and Co., Limited, waste manufacturer, Manchester. In September we received from Mr. Chadwick, of Rochdale, another cotton waste, manufacturer, a request for samples of cheap coloured waste, which he had received from P. Winning and Co. I took the letter to Devonshire Square, where I saw Winning, and asked him what his requirements were. He said he required about one ton of cotton waste, and that the order was for Johannesburg. He said also the buyer was over from South Africa, and had given him the option to purchase cotton waste for him. We had some conversation about South Africa, Winning stating that he had been stationed there in business, and that he
went out with the Imperial Yeomanry. He also said he had come over to England to manage the business he was then conducting. On that occasion I saw Livingstone's samples, and Winning told me he was doing business with them, and also with Cookson's, of Manchester. Both are firms well known in the trade and friends of ours. I wrote to our firm and caused samples to be sent on. On October 2 I came up to London and went to Devonshire Square, where I saw Winning. He said he had shown the samples to the buyer, who had been unable to decide, but would see them again. He asked me to call next day at 10.30. I did so, and he said he had not been able to decide, but if I would call again at 12 o'clock he hoped to be able to place the order with me, as our prices were a little lower than those of other firms who had quoted. When I went again at 12 the order had been made out for me: "One ton Thrum 10 at 25s. 3d. per cwt. To be press-packed, in 5-cwt. bales, marked 'P. W. J.' in a 'diamond,'—P. Winning and Co." The words in pencil "Must be in London on Friday by five p.m. latest; catch boat" are in my writing, and were pat on in accordance with what Winning told me, that the goods were for South Africa, and the boat was leaving on Saturday from Shadwell Basin. After finishing with the order, he told me that he would probably be coming to Manchester in the course of a few days along with his buyer, and they would inspect our factory. The goods were despatched on the following Thursday, and we sent an invoice to Winning for £25 5s., and we gave special instructions to the Midland Railway that they were needed to catch a boat. Application was made for payment, but we heard nothing more of the mailer until we saw that they had been arrested. From the conversations I had with prisoner, I believed the goods were for shipment. On November 5 I went with the detective-sergeant to Messrs. Osborne and Matthews's, in Hearn Street, where I saw our goods. They were packed in canvas. The marks' had been cut off, but we have a special marking ink, with which we paint the marks on, sad pert of that was remaining.
Cross-examined. It is our practice to ask for references, but we did not on this occasion, because we thought if he was doing business with Livingstone's and Cookson's it was good enough for us. When I got back, the firm instituted proceedings to ascertain the standing of Winning's firm, and we got a very bad report. At that time the goods had been despatched.
FREDERICK POSMAN MATTHEWS , Messrs. Osmond and Matthews, Hearn Street, Finsbury. I know a man named Feldman. He celled on me at the end of September or the beginning of October. Afterwards he bought me some samples of cotton waste, and I bought some of him, the following being the receipt: "37, Ferntower Road, Canonbury, N. London. October 10, 1906. Messrs. J. Osmond and Matthews. Bought of J. Feldman. Job Buyer, Factor and Commission Agent—1 ton cotton waste, £15 15s. 10 dozen laid cord, 3s. 9d., £1 17s. 6d. (Total) £17 7s. 6d." I also bought a ton of cotton waste for £14. The goods were delivered in 5 cwt. bales. I am
holding the goods under the direction of the police. I made my price by the samples.
SIDNEY SPENCER , cashier to Campion, Lacey, and Co., Milton Buildings, Watling Street, E.C. On August 16 I received a message through the telephone from P. Winning and Co., asking for patterns and samples, and I caused samples to be sent, under date August 17 we received an order for three pieces of black silk taffe'a at 16 3/4 d., with reference to Messrs. A. Oehen and Co., 123 and 124, Newgate Street. The three pieces came to about £21. I got a reference from Oehen, and asked for further references through the 'phone. The answer was that they did not do so with the London houses. I then asked them to give me any country house that I knew, and they gave me a reference to Bagnell and Co., Birmingham. I wrote to Bagnell and Co. the tame evening, and three days afterwards a person who gave the name of Wells called upon, me and said he was one of the partners in that firm. In consequence of what he said I let the goods go. The signature appended to the receiving note was that of "A. Culley," and the date August 23. An invoice accompanied goods. No application was made for payment, which was not due for 30 days. Goods delivered after August 20 would be due, less 2 1/2 per cent, commission, any date in November up to the 10th. I heard of the arrest, and communicated with the police. I acted entirely upon the references. Wells satisfied me as to their respectability. I have not seen him since.
DETECTIVE STOCKER , City Police. I went to Cotton Street, East the address given as that of Bagnell. There are two Cotton Streets, one off the East India Dock Road, and the other at the back of the London Hospital. In the former I made inquiries at No. 30, and ascertained, as far as I could go back, that no Bagnell had ever lived there. I could find no one who knew anything about Bagnell and Co., steel pen manufacturers and inventors of the magnetic electric pen, or the works at Wheeley's Lane, Birmingham. In Cotton Street, Whitechapel, there is no No. 30. I did receive some information about a person of the name of Bagnell.
Cross-examined. Inquiries were also made by the police of Birmingham, and their report is here.
ALBERT OEHEN , dealer in watches, Newgate Street. I first made the acquaintance of Collings on January 2, 1906, when he brought us a letter to submit samples. Subsequently I called at their office, 888, Chiswell Street. Then he gave me an order for some watches, value £22. Then I asked for a reference, and was given the name of Messrs. A. Ries and Co., 23, Hatton Garden. The reference was satisfactory. We delivered a second order, and in March applied for payment. We received a post-dated cheque on the London and South-Western Bank for £39, which was dishonoured. I went up to the office and found it closed. I attended a meeting of the creditors of Collings at the Wool Exchange at the end of March. Collings was not there, but there were a good many creditors, and nothing resulted. On August 8 he telephoned tip to my office and said he would like to come and see
me with reference to the old account. A day or two afterwards he called at the office, presented the card of P. Winning and Co., and said he was now in that firm, and intended to settle the old account. Mr. Winning was his partner, and they could buy goods for cash, that he could not pay anything off the old account now, but he would do to gradually. He took some samples and gave me a verbal order for metal watches to the amount of £47. Collings paid me about half on account. I subsequently received other orders from Collings on behalf of Winning and Co. These goods were delivered, and then the balance of the first order was paid off. We had two more orders after that, and always the last order was paid. A balance of £27 is still due. Collings paid nothing off his own account. When I went to Devonshire Square, sometimes I saw Collings and sometimes Winning. I did not agree to be a reference for them, but people came to me saying they had been referred to me by Winning and Co.
Cross-examined. I never heard of an agreement being necessary before taking for a reference. Coilings stated that he was managing the business of Winning and Co., and represented himself as partner and manager. The representation that induced me to supply goods to Winnings was that Winning had some money, and they would pay cash for what they bought, and that Collings would settle the old account.
MICHAEL DAVID MARKS , agent for Messrs. Aitken, silversmiths, Birmingham, and 109, Hatton Garden. In consequence of receiving a postcard from Mr. Aitken I called twice at 16 and 17, Devonshire Square, in July last, but saw no one; I sent after that. Samples were forwarded to Winning and Co., and I received an order. The first lot of goods was delivered on July 20. Collings told me that Winnings was master of the business, and he himself was only manager, and that there was money in the business; that Winning was the son of a well-known family at Gatford. Until I saw Collings at the Guildhall I was not aware that was his name, as he told me it was Marsden. I applied to him several times for money, and on one occasion he gave me £3 10s. on account, the amount of the goods supplied being £19 1s. 4d. In September they had a second lot of goods to the value of £11. On one occasion he said that if I would give him a reference to another house he would see that I got paid. Of course, I did not agree to the proposal.
Cross-examined. I instructed my assistant to ask for references, and he was told they would be sent on, but they never came.
Mr. Grain said there were other cases of which the prosecution had had notice, but he did not propose to trouble the Court with them.
EDWARD DODD , carman to Mr. John Harris, Wrestler's Court, Bishopsgate Street, proved the removal of four bales of cotton waste (Livingstone's) from Shadwell Basin to 16 and 17, Devonshire Square, where both prisoners helped him to convey them to she basement. About a week afterwards he removed some furniture—a bedroom suite—from Devonshire Square to No. 3, Tilley Street. Both prisoners were present when he loaded up the goods, which at Tilley Street were taken charge of by Mrs. Arrabus.
ARTHUR COURTNEY , clerk to Messrs. Jones, Lang, and Co., auctioneers and estate agents, spoke to letting two first floor rooms at 16 and 17, Devonshire Square, to Henry Binks in the early part of May at a rent of £45 per annum. The firm were in June asked if they would accept Winning as tenant, and release Binks, as he was going to South Africa. Winning, it was said, would furnish satisfactory references. As the result of inquiries they did not agree to let the premises to Winning, and when the rent became due distrained on the furniture under the agreement with Binks.
RICHARD FREDERICK MITCHELL , housekeeper, at 16 and 17, Devonshire Square. Shortly after the offices were taken by Binks I saw Collings and Winning in them, and the name Binks was afterwards removed and that of Winning and Co. substituted. I knew Collings as Marsden. There was also a boy named Colley. Goods were constantly being delivered at the offices. I allowed them to use the basement at times for bulky goods, and upon one occasion the rooms on the third floor. Some leather goods were stored on the third floor about October 17. Prisoners had no warehouse or storing room at these offices Collings usually paid me for the cleaning, 3s. per week.
Cross-examined. I knew Collings or Marsden simply as a clerk. Once I saw him receive his salary of 30s. a week.
ALFRED ARTHUR , housekeeper, 88, Chiswell Street. I remember Collings taking the first floor in September, 1905, in the name of A. E. Collings and Co. Goods of all descriptions were constantly being delivered there—bags, portmanteaux, baskets, eider-down quilts. Most of the things were shortly afterwards removed. This went on until March, 1906, when the brokers were put in.
Detective-Sergeant WILLIAM SARGANT, City Police. Having received a warrant for the arrest of prisoners, on October 20 I saw Collings in company with a man named Reuben Phillips, whose address is Wellington Buildings, Bow. I have seen the receipts in the name of Phillips signed by Collings in the presence of Mrs. Arrabus. The two men went together to the office of Winning and Co., in Devonshire Square. Phillips remained in the outer office I asked Collings If his name was Collings, late of Chiswell Street. He said, "Yes." I then told him I had a warrant for his arrest, He said, "All right, Mr. Sargant, I am only the clerk here. I can face it. I cannot help what my governor does. I do not know where he lives—somewhere in Rotherhithe New Road. I will give you all assistance to find him. I am paid a weekly salary." I took him to Bishopsgate, where he was charged. On October 22 I found Winning detained at Bishopegate, he having been arrested by Detective Wagstaffe. I read the warrant to him. He made no reply. I have known a man named Feldman a good many years. I have known Phillips at more than one address. I afterwards with another officer
searched the offices in Devonshire Square. There were some chairs, a desk, and a table. I found some papers relating to a typewriter company, a quantity of catalogues, and the covers of some letterbooks, all the leaves having been removed. In a room on the third floor I found some account books of Collings', and also a pass-book. I found other books in one of the basements. The pass-book of Winning and Co. is also blank. In a book of Collings there is an account of goods bought and sold, commencing October 13, 1905, and going up to March, 1906. There is also a book of Collings' showing cash received and paid out during the same period. On February 26 there is an entry, "Self, £25." On March 2, "Self, £75," and March 3, "Self, £15," showing that all the money had been drawn.
Detective JAMES BROWN, City Police. I went to 175, Fleet Street, to make inquiries as to Pugh and Co., and found they occupied offices there for about nine months. They had left about three months when I called.
ARTHUR ERNEST COLLINGS (prisoner, on oath), stated that he was with Tudor and Co., stockbrokers, 29, Threadneedle Street, for nine years, and left of his own accord. He started business in Chiswell Street in October, 1905, as merchant and shipper. It was a genuine business. The books produced were kept in connection with the business. There were a good many customers, and he had good prospects for the future, the average turnover being about £400 a month. (Prisoner proceeded to point out payments he had made.) As to the Remington typewriter sold to him by Mr. Burnside, the thing was pushed into him; in fact, they would leave a typewriter with anybody in the City. Burnside worried and pressed him to have it on trial, and he said, "Send it in." Then the brokers came in with a distraint with reference to another matter, and took it away. When he bought it he intended to pay for it. An execution had been previously levied, but that he paid out. With reference to the Garstin matter he had an order come in for some kitbags. He intended to pay Garstin's for them, and so with all the other people who had supplied goods. One firm, that of B. Reis and Co., he requested not to deliver goods, as he was in difficulties. As to the Barlock machine, that was left on trial, and he bought it on monthly terms. It was part of the proceeds of the execution. The first month had not expired when it was seized. The Birmingham Cabinet Company was an order he received from a client. He sold the sideboard for £17 or £17 10s. Winning was never in the Chiswell Street office at all. When he came to grief as Collings and Co. he consulted a solicitor in Leadenhall Street about putting a petition on the file, but was advised not to. After being sold up he walked about for a couple of months and did nothing. Then Winning offered him a situation at 30s. a week. From what Winning told
him he was trying to work up a South African business. At the time Winning was lodging with his people. He then told Oehen he had got a situation with Winning as buyer. Oehen used to visit a firm in 16 and 17, Devonshire Square, and knowing he must some day run into him he thought he had better take the bull by the horns and go and see him. He told Oehen he was in an unfortunate position, bat would pay him when he could; that he had got into a good situation, and had a prospect of paying. Oehen then said, "Very well, Collings, I have a good opinion of you." He never bought anything as a member of the firm. He used the name of Marsden because he thought if his old creditors knew where he was they would take out judgments against him, and he would be so pestered with judgments that he would have to leave hit situation. It was his intention at first to pay his old creditors, but afterwards he found it was impossible. The Barlock typewriter was pawned by a man named Marshall to get the wages for the week, Winning being away; Marshall, who, he was sorry to say, was a bit of a blackguard, was traveller during Mr. Winning's illness. The receipt as from Bagnell he forged at Marshall's request, Marshall typing the body of the receipt on a piece of Bagneil's paper. Marshall said he had an account of £6 to collect on the following Monday morning, and would get the machine out without Mr. Winning knowing anything about it. Marshall subsequently decamped. Winning's business was not booming but medium. It was a hard thing to work up a new business. The transaction with Wolfsky he had nothing to do with, and knew nothing of beyond seeing him in the office. With the cotton waste from Livingstone's he also had nothing to do except writing out the orders as clerk. With the Birmingham Furniture Company he had nothing to do except perhaps writing out the order. He was present when it was sold to Mrs. Arrabus. He believed the furniture was ordered by Phillips for a customer. Phillips came to Winning and told him he could place a bedroom suite, but his customer would not have it, saying it was damaged. Phillips then tried to sell it, and went to Mrs. Levy to ask if she knew of anyone, and Mrs. Levy recommended Mrs. Arrabus. Mrs. Arrabus then came to Devonshire Square, but he did not know what took place. As to his accounts, he had paid hundreds and hundreds of pounds to various creditors.
Cross-examined. When he went into business he had knowledge of purchasing goods which he had acquired at Archbishop Tenison's School in Leicester Square. His capital at starting was £260, some of which was borrowed.
(Thursday, November 22.)
The jury intimated that they had no desire to hear the further cross-examination of Collings, whose evidence had not, in their opinion, made his case any better.
Verdict, Guilty of conspiracy to obtain goods by false pretences, Collings being the master mind.
Mr. Grain said that from information the City Police had gathered it was perfectly clear that there were older persons behind these young men. He would suggest therefore that sentence be postponed till next Sessions.
The Common Serjeant thought it very probable, and postponed sentence accordingly.
Mr. Grain also observed that Sergeant and the other officers of the City Police had worked up this case exceedingly well, and anything his lordship said with reference to that would be of great value to them.
The Common Serjeant. I think so too, as far as I am able to judge from what has come out in Court. Of course, we never ask the police how they extract information. It seems, so far as I can judge, the police have acted with great ability in bringing this case to light. It would, if it had not been stopped, probably have become much worse.
FOURTH COURT; Tuesday, November 20.
(Before Judge Lumley Smith.)
Mr. T. Close prosecuted; Mr. G. Elliott defended Johnston; Mr. G. L. Hardy defended Leserve.
Verdict, Guilty, against both prisoners; Johnston strongly recommended to mercy. Sentence, each prisoner, Three months in the second division.
Mr. C. E. Moran appeared for the prosecution.
WILLIAM HENRY CASFORD , master decorator, 33, Farrow Road, West Kensington. I know prisoner, and was present at his marriage at Newport, Isle of Wight, December 25, 1892. I was one witness and my mother the other. I produce a certified copy of the entry in the register. She is called Alice Ada Parker. On October 31, 1906,
I went to 27, Victoria Road, Upper Norwood, and I saw Alice Ada Parker.
ELIZA PARKER . I live at 44, Berridge Road, just before last Christmas and before that at Barnfield Road, Upper Norwood. My daughter was prisoner's first wife. I last visited my daughter in June, 1901. I managed the children when they went out. They were living at 18, Berridge Road. That was the last time I saw them together. Prisoner left her in March of the following year.
To the Judge. After the time when I last saw prisoner I have not had any inquiry at to whether his wife was living. If he had wanted to know where the was living he could have asked me.
OLIVE CALLAN , 13, Commerce Road, Wood Green. I first became acquainted with the prisoner at the Alexandra Palace in 1904. I was employed at the theatre, and he was employed in the refreshment department. We resumed the acquaintance in 1906. On August 30, 1906, we were married. He told me he was a bachelor, and he is so described in the certificate. He told me he was a single man, and his name was Walter Redshaw. I produce the certificate. He never told ma he had a wife. I believed him to be a single man.
Sergeant Henry Davis. I saw prisoner in the Tottenham Court Road on the 8th inst., and I told him he would be charged with bigamy. I said, "Is that true?" and he said, "Yes."
WALTER CHARLES REDSHAW (prisoner, on oath). Neither of these charges would have been instituted but for the fact that I was informed by one George Chandler, in Upper Norwood, that my wife was dead. I had permission from the Governor of Wandsworth Prison to write to his address, but I have not heard anything further from him. In 1901 I left my wife with her full knowledge to seek employment at the Alexandra Palace, after I was out of employment some considerable period. I obtained employment in the refreshment department, and remained there till the end of August in the same year, and during that time I either took my money home on Saturday night or sent it by post on Monday. I had a salary of 18s. per week in the refreshment department. After that time I was out of employment owing to the bar being closed. I was thrown out of regular employment till the second week in February, 1902. From that time things were bad with me, and I had no stamp to send my wife a letter. I eventually obtained employment the second week in February. A fortnight after I met George Chandler, plumber. I knew this man at a friend over 20 years. He asked me if I could get some employment at the theatre. I asked him how long it was since he was at Upper Norwood He said some time, as he had been living at Wood Green. I asked him if he would go to Upper Norwood for me if I paid him for his trouble, and he consented. Previously to this I wrote to Upper Norwood to Berridge
Road, and enclosed a postal order for 30s., which was returned to me "Not known." I gave Chandler the money and paid his expenses to Upper Norwood to see if he could find the address of my wife, and he came back in two days and acquainted me with the death of my wife through an operation. He said one of my wife's sisters had charge of the children. She was being allowed an amount weekly by the guardians, and the moment they knew of my whereabouts the allowance would cease, and that was my sole reason for not going back to Upper Norwood. I did not make the acquaintance of Miss Callan till two years after that took place. There were five children. Allow me to express publicly my sympathy for Miss Callan and the trouble I have brought on her.
Cross-examined. The reason I sent Chandler was I was so much in debt that I did not like to go back. I sent Chandler about the fourth week in February. Chandler saw the estate manager, Charles Hart. He heard from different residents in Norwood that my wife was dead. It did occur to me that the relatives of my first wife would be able to give information, but I did not go to them; I was not on speaking terms with them. I saw Chandler on more than one occasion, and he brought back the money I gave him to take to my wife, less 5s. I did take steps to find out my first wife's mother's address.
To the Judge. I expressly avoided going to make inquiries myself on account of not wanting to get into trouble with the guardians. I did not tell Chandler not to go near my wife's people. I did not tell Miss Callan that I was a single man. I admit that I signed the roll as a bachelor, and I cannot explain why. I pretended to be such when I believed my wife was not alive. I did not do it intentionally.
Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.
VICKERY, Richard (35, hatmaker), EFFORD, John (19, porter), and BRYAN, James (25, labourer) pleaded guilty ; to breaking and entering the warehouse of Van Oppen and Co., limited, and stealing therein the sum of 19s. 9 1/2 d., and postage stamps of the value of 15s. 3 1/2 d. Sentence, Efford, 14 months' hard labour; Vickery, 10 months' hard labour; Bryan, Six months' hard labour.
GRANT, Wilfred Spencer (33, no occupation) pleaded guilty ; to obtaining by false pretences from George Wilson two telescopes, a sextant, and other goods, with intent to defraud; he also confessed to having been convicted at Clerkenwell Police Court on February 18, 1905, for a similar fraud, Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.
He said, "Go to the landlady and ask her to lend you a shilling," but I knew she was a poor woman, and I said, "You are not thinking about me and the child." I sat down, when I felt a blow. He hit me with a poker. My landlady opened the door, and I fell. He hit me on the right side under the right arm with a brass poker. I got in the street, and a woman helped me to my cousin's. We have two children. My husband has tried to get work for two months. He is a box-maker. This is not the first time he has been cruel to me. I have been in the workhouse three months. It was 12 o'clock on a Sunday morning when he struck me. It was not an accidental blow, but a deliberate one.
DR. WILLIAM J. C. KEITH , Superintendent of the Camberwell Infirmary. On October 7 Mrs. Smith was admitted to the hospital, and she said her husband had struck her. She complained of having been injured, and I found a perforated wound in the right axilla, right upward and forward. I found it was 1 3/4 in. long. The edges of it word slightly turned in, and had soot on them. There were signs of a collapsed lung, owing to the wound penetrating the chest wall, and the wound and the collapsed lung was in a very dangerous condition. she remained in a dangerous state several days, but she is now out of danger. It might have been done by the poker produced. It was a regular pierced wound. The 1 3/4 in. was before the penetration of the chest wall. It would not require a great deal of violence. She will be able to leave the hospital very shortly. She will have to go to the lying-in ward, as she will be confined soon.
INSPECTOR BADCOCK. At 10 o'clock on October 7, in consequence of information, I saw prisoner and told him I should arrest him for wounding his wife, and he said, "My wife and I had a few words because we had nothing to eat, and she kept on arguing with me. I poked her in the side with a poker. I would not have done it for the World, and I have seen her twice to-day. The iron I did it with is downstairs. I will give it to you."
MRS. RUSTON. I am the landlady. Prisoner hat been out before five o'clock every morning all the time he has lived with me. I heard Mrs. Smith scream out, and she fell into my arms. Prisoner has been out of work a long time. I have never seen prisoner worse for drink. I believe him to be a staunch teetotaller. These are the first words I ever heard between them. I thought he was a very quiet, hard-working fellow, and he tried hard to get work. He was never indoors after five o'clock in the morning. They have been with me since May. Mrs. Smith went to work two or three weeks. She seems a respectable young woman. I did not hear what was said in the quarrel. I do not think there was much to eat in the house. On the morning when this happened I know prisoner went to the Believing Officer, sad he would not give him a loaf of bread. I thought he tried his best.
Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, Three months' and nine days' imprisonment in the second division.
OLD COURT; Wednesday, November 21.
(Before Mr. Justice Grantham.)
WADE, Frank (47, wireworker), was indicted for the wilful murder of William Clayton and Emma Clayton, and charged, on coroner's inquisition, with the manslaughter of those two persons. Prisoner pleaded not guilty to the charge of murder; guilty to the charge of manslaughter.
Mr. Arthur Gill and Mr. Kershaw prosecuted. Mr. Curtis Bennett defended.
Mr. Gill said that, in view of the fact that two coroners' juries had found a verdict of manslaughter, he proposed to accept the prisoner's plea of "Guilty" to that offence. The prisoner lived at 83, Shaftesbury Street, Hoxton. He occupied two rooms on the ground floor of his house, and let the rest of the premises to lodgers. William Clayton and his wife, Emma Clayton, lodged on one of the floors above. The explanation of the matter appeared to be that the prisoner was a very excitable man, and apparently a very timid man. On the night in question the prisoner told a friend that he could not get his rent from his lodgers, and he seemed to be worrying on the subject. Later on an altercation took place between the prisoner and William Clayton about the rent in which the Claytons were in arrear. The prisoner and his wife were in their room, the door of which was fastened on the inside with a button. In the course of the quarrel the prisoner appeared to think that William Clayton, who was thumping at the door, might burst it open, and he fired a revolver through the panel of the door. Clayton was standing on the other side of the door, and the bullet entered his heart. He called out that he was shot. His wife and son, Frederick Clayton, came downstairs. Prisoner was then standing at the street door apparently talking to some one. Frederick Clayton went towards him. The prisoner exclaimed, "Come on, I have got two of you to deal with now" He discharged the revolver, and Mrs. Clayton fell to the ground by the side of her husband, the bullet having entered her abdomen. She died some time afterwards from the injury. The prisoner's explanation was that he did it on the impulse of the moment in self-defence. He said that William Clayton came down like a tiger, and he fired the revolver through the door to frighten him. He fired the second shot towards the ground.
Prisoner's statement before the magistrate: "I done it on the impulse of the moment, in self-defence. He came down and tried to force his way into my room and to force the door open. My wife got inside, and we both pushed the door to. Then he used a shocking threat and tried to force his way in again. We both leant against the
door. Then he took an oath that he would not go out of the house without seeing me, and that he would do for me. All this time we were trying to keep ham out and he was trying to force his way in. After a while, feeling our strength giving way, I thought he would really burst in upon us. In the impulse of the moment I picked up a pistol from under the drawers and fired through the door. I had no intention of hitting him, but only to frighten him and to gain time to call somebody else. After I fired I heard him fall and I opened the door and went into the passage. I was frightened and terrified for the moment. Then young Clayton came up and rushed at me. I said to him, "How many of you?" With that he ran back into the passage. He went downstairs and came up behind me the front way; then by accident the pistol went off and shot the woman. I stumbled against the man or something. I was all of a tremble. The passage is rather dark, and I could scarcely see anything. I did see the woman, but only very faintly. I never intended to hurt the man; it was done in a moment of excitement; I was terrified at the time."
Mr. Curtis Bennett, addressing the Court on behalf of the prisoner, said that he was a man of neurotic temperament. He bought the revolver some years ago for self-protection In the course of the quarrel William Clayton exclaimed, "Before I leave in the morning I will settle with you," or words to that effect. The prisoner, hearing that, thought that Clayton was going to do some bodily harm to him and his wife. The door was only fastened with the button, and the prisoner thought that the fastening was giving way. It was in these circumstances that he fired the revolver through the panel. In regard to the second shot, counsel said the passage was dark, and the prisoner could not see how many people were there or if he was going to be struck by anyone. He thereupon fired the second shot in the direction of the floor. He did not see Mrs. Clayton.
Testimonials were produced from the prisoner's employers speaking to his excellent character.
A Jury was sworn, and returned a verdict of " Not guilty of murder and guilty of manslaughter."
Mrs. WADE, called by the Judge, stated that she had been married to the prisoner for 23 years. He was never a strong man, and had always been nervous and delicate. She had not known that he had a pistol in the house.
Sentence, Twelve months' hard labour.
NEW COURT; Wednesday, November 21,
(Before the Recorder.)
Mr. H. H. Pocock prosecuted.
CHARLES WELLS , 2, Clifton Terrace, Finsbury Park, coal porter. At 11.30 p.m. on November 3 I was in Seven sisters Road with Fred Fisher and Walter Emery. Prisoner came up at the corner of Woodberry Road and Godwin Street and asked who was the best man of the three. He was a stranger to me. We turned round and said we do not want to have anything to do with fighting. Prisoner then struck me behind the ear with something he took from his pocket. I could not say if he inflicted a wound. I ran after him, took my coat end waistcoat off as I ran, and caught hold of him round the neck, and we both fell together. After that he punched me seven or eight times with something which pricked me. I found myself covered with blood and became unconscious. I came to myself in the Great Northern Hospital. I was an in-patient from November 3 to 19, and am now an out-patient. I did not see any body with prisoner.
Cross-examined by prisoner. You hit me first with something on the shoulder. I took my coat and waistcoat off, and ran after you to hit you back when you struck me first, and to give you a thrashing if I could. I never struck you at all.
WALTER EMERY , 16, Athelstane Road, Finebury Park, private, 7th Battalion King's Royal Rifle Corps. On November 3, 1906, I was in Seven Sisters Road at about 11.30 p.m. with prosecutor and Fred Fisher. Later on we saw prisoner coming across. I had not seen him before. He was coming up behind me. and he said, "What are you laughing at?" I turned round and asked him what he meant, and he offered to strike, and Wells said, "Wally, he is coming up to hit you." With that, prisoner put his bond in his right trousers pocket and pulled out a white thing—I thought it was a dagger or knife—and struck at Wells and ran away. He did not appear to be drunk. He seemed to strike Wells on the side of the face. I did no. see any blood then. The prisoner ran away, and Wells ran after him. It might have been the knife (produced). One blade is broken—it might have been that. As Wells was running he threw his coat and waistcoat off. I ran as well, but having my big coat on I could not run very fast. Wells caught him round the neck and they fell. While on the ground I saw prisoner strike Wells several times with something white. I went to pull prisoner off and he struck at me with the weapon which he still had in his hand. I dodged away; the prisoner got up and ran away. Wells was very bad, bleeding furiously; he did not seem very conscious. He seemed very weak. I stopped to pick him up, and helped him to the station. I saw prisoner at the station, and identified him.
Cross-examined by Prisoner. I know you punched Wells on the left tide of the face. I was standing on the right of you. I ran to see what was the consequence of the squabble. When I saw you pull the knife out—the dagger—I thought it very dangerous. I did not run with the intention to give you a punching. I came to the conclusion you were doing something very bad. I could not say whether
Fisher ran after you. I have not had a talk with Wells and the other witness about this affair. I asked you what you meant. You said you wanted to fight the best man of the three. I first saw you between 12 and quarter-past. I do not know Fisher's young woman. There are no lodging-houses in Fonthill Road to my knowledge. I have been about three months in the Army. I live in Athelstane Road, about three minutes' walk from where this took place.
FRED. D. HICKS , Acting Divisional surgeon, Y Division. About 12.30 on the morning of Sunday, November 4 I was called to the station and saw prosecutor. He was in a very collapsed condition, bat I should not say unconscious—very collapsed and bleeding every where. There was one incised wound on the left side of the head about 2 in behind the left ear 2 in. in length, bleeding freely; a wound on the left side of the forehead over the left eye; one punctured wound in front of the left ear, and another similar punctured wound on the chin. There were sundry deep scratches, as though done by a sharp instrument on the cheek and the upper lip. There was also a wound 2 1/2 in. long above the navel; a stabbed wound slightly to the left side; there was one wound over the region of the heart, and one wound in the neck above the left collar-bone, and both those wounds had been deep enough to puncture the lung inside, and the air from the lung had got into the tissues of the akin. Those were all the wounds. The wound on the back of the head was a clean-cut wound, and might have been caused by the larger blade of the knife produced, but this larger blade is too broad to have made the other wounds, excepting the scratches. The punctured wounds might have been done by a blade such as the one which is now broken. The wound in the abdomen had bled pretty freely, but, apparently, was not so deep as the others. The ones in the region of the heart and over the left collar-bone were both deep wounds, and undoubtedly dangerous. The wound over the navel was in a dangerous situation. I staunched the blood as well as I could with cotton wool, and, seeing how dangerous a case it was I got the man in a cab and attend him and the wounds properly dressed. I stayed while it was being done. I saw the prisoner at the police station when I came back to make a note. There was nothing in his condition to indicate one way or the other whether he was drunk.
Cross-examined by Prisoner. I saw the wound on the back of your head. It is difficult to say now what size it was, but it was a confusion—a bruise—at the back of the head as though you had fallen on some hard substance. I do not think it could have been caused by a blow from a stick. I think prosecutor could have run some distance after receiving the wound over his left collar-bone, and I think it was the running which caused the air to work into the wound from the lungs.
wounds on his head and body. He was rather excitable. I dressed his wounds on the operating table—the wound above the left collarbone, one over the region of the heart, one in the abdomen, and one on the back of the head. All this took place in the early morning of November 4. He was an in-patient until last Monday, when I discharged him. He was in danger, but he is out of danger now, and I think he will mend. It will be a long time before he is able to go to work again as a coal porter. I think the wounds could have been done with the knife produced. [To the Recorder.] He need not be in bed now; he is quite fit to go about. He is attending at the hospital as an out-patient.
Cross-examined. The wound on the back of the head might have been inflicted with the large blade of that knfe, and the smaller blade before being broken would have inflicted the others.
To the Recorder. It is not necessary that prosecutor should stay in the hospital—in fact, I think he ought to go to work within a fortnight as a coal porter. The wound over the lung is healed. I do not think it is necessary to send him to a convalescent home.
FRED FISHER , 126, Fonthill Road, Holloway, labourer. I was with prosecutor and Emery at the corner of Godwin Street on November 3, 1906, between 11 and 12 p.m., when I saw the prisoner. He came across, and asked us what we were laughing at. Then he challenged the beat man amongst us to fight, and struck Wells upon the shoulder. He was with a female on the opposite side. He appeared to be sober. He drew something bright from his pocket, struck Wells upon the shoulder, and ran away. Wells ran after him. I did not see any more; I was taken away by my young lady. Afterwards I saw two constables helping prosecutor towards Seven Sisters Road. Wells was sober—he was very pale. I do not know the prisoner or the woman who was with him. [To the Recorder.] He was quite a stranger to me. We had not been passing any remark about him or about the woman. Nothing was said; nothing was done at all. Nothing whatever was said or done by either of the three of us to the prisoner or to the woman with him.
Cross-examined. I did not link my arm into yours and say, "Come and have a drink, and it will be all right." You never pushed me away against the wall. I did not run after you and Wells.
[To the Recorder.] I did nothing whatever to him or to the woman, I made no offensive remark or anything of the sort, nor did either of my comrades. [To the prisoner.] I met my young woman just after 12. I had not been with her before. I meet her every Saturday night at half past 12.
HENRY HAZELL , 57, Campbell Road, Holloway, greengrocer's carman. I do not know the prisoner. I know the prosecutor as living in the neighbourhood. He is not a friend of mine. I had just finished at the shop where I work when I was attracted across the road by screams, and I saw the two men on the ground, prosecutor underneath, the prisoner striking him with his right hand—I did not
see anything in his hand. When I got closer the prisoner got up and walked away, and I saw him put something in his right hand trousers pocket. Bystanders then picked the injured man up, and he was so covered with blood that I came to the conclusion he had been stabbed. I went after the prisoner, and caught him, and said, "Wait a minute." He said, "what do you want; do you want some?" at the same time drawing a knife similar to that (produced) from his right hand trousers pocket, and opening the large blade. I then let go of him, and he walked away. I followed, and when the policeman came up gave him into custody. I then saw him drop the knife behind him, picked it up, and handed it to the constable.
Police-Constable ALBERT BRUTY, 821 J. I saw prisoner coming hurriedly up the street. Hazell told me what he had done, and I took him into custody. Prisoner placed his right hand behind him and dropped the knife produced, which Hazell handed to me. Prisoner said, "I am not drunk. What do you take me to, the station for? Let me go. I will give you 5s. You will get nothing out of this. Let me go and I will give you 5s." That was on the way to the station. He was not drunk. At the station he said, "Look at me, mud all over. I have been set upon by four roughs, just because I would not buy them beer. They set about me, and I have only defended myself. Look at that lump on my head." He had a large lump as the back of his head, and blood on his face and neck. That did not come from any wound on him. I examined him, and there was no wound on him whatever. He was in a muddy state. I know nothing of any of these men. Prisoner became very violent on the way to the station and tried to get away. I had no assistance, as the other two constables were employed on the injured man. Prosecutor was in a state of collapse. He was partly carried and partly walked to the station. He was very bloody; blood flowing very freely from the neck. The divisional surgeon was sent for on the way to the station, and came very soon.
Cross-examined. There are no lodging-houses in Fonthill Road; in Campbell Road I know of three. I do not know of any prostitutes living in Fonthill or Campbell Roads. I have cautioned women in the street, but not with men. The women I turned off the street are those that I have noticed or had suspicion of being prostitutes. I should not think that a man with a watch and chain was going to lose it down those streets.
ALFRED GEORGE BROWN (prisoner, not on oath). On the night in question, about 11 or 12 p.m., I met a prostitute in Fonthill Road, and consented to go down Fonthill Road for the purpose of having connection with her. When I got down to Fonthill Road she said, "Come into a house," which I consented to, and gave a man a shilling at the door. When I got into the house she wanted another shilling before I got into the room. I said, "Give me my shilling back. I will go out." I could not get my shilling back, but as I came down Fonthill Road I saw these three people talking to the woman. When I got
there the woman walked away from them, and, as I came up to them, the three came round me and asked why I insulted that woman and made a fool of her. Then Fisher linked his arm into mine and said, "Come and treat us and buy some beer," stopping me." No," I said, "I am not going to buy beer for you." He said, "Come, it is all right." I gave him a push. Then the soldier and the other fellow made a stroke at me. I hit out, and hit Wells and ran away. I deny using that knife in the first instance. Why should you believe I should go up to three men and without any foundation at all challenge the best one to fight, and deliberately stab him in that manner unless I had been drunk or a lunatic? I am telling you the truth. I am a working-man, only just come from Canada. I landed at Liverpool on October 2. I ran away from them, not having used the knife, and the prosecutor ran after me and deliberately put his arms round my neck from behind to hold me in that position tall his pals came up, so that hit pals could pay me. He held me in that position with his arms round my neck and the other two came along and started punching me. I put my fingers in my pocket and pulled out the knife, opening it and striking with the small blade, which is broken off in the struggle. At the same time the soldier hit me on the head with the cane he carries. There was no blood at all on the ground. If I fell on the top of that man, how did I get that blood? I could not hit my head on the pavement. They said I wrestled with the man and we fell down. I say I got that blow from a blow with the soldier's cane after wrestling with the prosecutor. At the finish I found this man with his arms round me, and I got hold of my knife and stabbed with it, and defended myself and used the knife in that way. I was getting punches off one and a hit from the other one. I made no complaint about it to the divisional surgeon for the simple reason that I was excited at the time. In fact, they told me that the man was murdered, that the man was dead. I thought I was charged with murder. Put yourselves in my position—would you think of anything like that? They say blood was on my face; that was from a punch in the nose. If that man fell on the ground under me could I get bloodstains on the face? I admit some blood might have come off him, but I had a punch on my nose, and there are the bloodstains on my tie at the present moment, which never came off this man. Do you think I should turn round and deliberately stab at three men without any provocation at all? What is there to cause it—that is what I want to know? It is said I, a stranger to three men, in a strange neighbourhood, deliberately challenge the best man to fight and then give one a punch and run away. What I did was in self-defence. They assaulted me, and I defended myself. If I had not defended myself with that knife I should have been kicked to death. I am telling you the truth. As soon as that man let go I got up and ran away. I was sober. He ran after me to give me a thrashing, and the other two came on to assault me. What would they have done to me if I had not used the knife?
Verdict, Guilty. The jury stated they considered prisoner may probably have had provocation. Prisoner confessed to being convicted
of felony at Westminster on February 22,1902, where he was sentenced to five years' penal servitude and five years' police supervision. Three previous sentences were proved, and a sentence of five months for assault in Canada and expulsion. Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.
Mr. De Michele prosecuted.
BLANCHE GRAHAM CLEMOW , 101, Earl's Court Road, widow. Alice Lee has been in my service as cook for 11 years. Her sister, Ellen Lee, I have known for four or five years, and she being ill, I allowed her to have a room on the same floor as my own in my house. On September 4 I wore a diamond and emerald ring (produced), which was left on my dressing table, and I missed it about a fortnight afterwards and went to the pawnbroker's and identified it. Prisoner had no authority to go into my room to take scent or anything else. I saw prisoner on the morning of the 6th, when Ellen Lee left for the hospital. He stated that she was his wife.
Cross-examined. I think there was other jewellery besides this ring on the dressing table. I was in the habit of leaving my jewellery about, as I had had my two servants for 14 and 11 years. Alice Lee told me you said yon had found a ring. She did not tell me if it was my ring you were prepared to redeem it as soon as possible. She said she was overcome with grief that I should be put to the expense of getting it out.
Re-examined. I got the ticket on September 24, three weeks later.
ALICE LEE , cook to Mrs. Clemow. My sister Ellen came to stop at the house because she was ill. Prisoner was supposed to be her husband, and I knew him as Paget. He brought her on September 2. I saw him on the 3rd and also on the 6th, when he went upstairs to he thought my sister was very bad, end that I had better go up and see her. He said he had opened the doors to give more draught, and that he had been to Mrs. Clemow's room to fetch some scent as he knew Mrs. Clemow would not mind. Prisoner later on took Ellen Lee to the hospital. Some days afterwards he said that he had found a ring in the bottom of his trousers when he was undressing on the night after he took Ellen to the hospital. He hoped that his luck would turn, as he said he knew it was a good ring. He did not say he had pawned it.
JOHN C. BORER , assistant to Smith, pawnbroker, 163, Brompton Road. Prisoner pawned ring produced with, me on the afternoon of September 6 for £5 in the name of Dighton Patmore. The outside value ok it would be £8. He was of respectable appearance, and I had no suspicion.
Cross-examined. The ring was pawned between two and four p.m.
and said it was Mrs. Clemow's ring, and told me to take it to her, which I did the same day. I do not remember when he gave it me. He said he had found tie ring in the bottom of his trousers. He gave me his address at 199, Kennington Park Road, and I gave it to Mrs. Clemow. I remained in the hospital a week.
SERGEANT CHARLES VANNER , C Division. On October 11 I saw prisoner at Vine Street Station, and read the warrant to him, which included other charges besides the present. He said, "I am sorry I used Dr. Clemow's name. I took Mrs. Clemow's ring out of the house without knowing it. When I discovered I had it I immediately pledged it for £5, but I sent the pawnticket back.
CLAUDE SYDNEY HUNTER (prisoner, not on oath). I have only one thing to say. While Ellen Lee was at Mrs. Clemow's I went into her bedroom to take the scent bottle, at Lee asked me to get her some scent. In taking the scent bottle I knocked over a small casket with other jewellery in it. I picked it up, and placed it on the dressing-table. When I got home that same afternoon, in changing, as I took off my trousers and turned them down, the ring fell out on the floor. I was pressed for money, and pawned it, and told Alice Lee that I had found this ring. I made no secret of the fact that the ring was in my possession, and when I sent the ticket up to Mrs. Clemow by Ellen lee I told her to tell the facts to Mrs. Clemow, and to say if it wit her ring I would redeem it at soon as possible, or pay her the money. I did not know it was hers for a certainty.
Verdict, Guilty. Several previous convictions were proved, the last being one for forgery, with a sentence of three years' penal servitude, which expired June 21, 1906. Sentence, Five years' penal servitude, and five years' police supervision.
CRESSY, Clarence (33, carpenter) ; indecently assaulting Stanley Warwick, a male person; being a male person did procure the commission by Stanley Warwick, a male person, of a certain act of gross indecency with him the said C. Cressy.
Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.
FOURTH COURT; Wednesday, November 21.
(Before Judge Lumley Smith.)
WATERMAN, William Henry (42, surveyor) ; uttering a certain bill of exchange knowing the same to be forged, with intent to defraud. Obtaining by false pretences from Ludwig Lichtwitz the sum of £143, with intent to defraud. Uttering certain bills of exchange for £200, £165, and £200, knowing the same to be forged, in each case with intent to defraud. Obtaining by false pretences from Benjamin Bridgewater, the several sums of £190, £156 15s., and £200, in each case with intent to defraud. Attempting to obtain from Benjamin Bridgewater the sum of £190 by meant of a certain forged bill of exchange, knowing the same to be forged and with intent to defraud. Forging and uttering five bills of exchange, in each case with intent to defraud.
Mr. J. P. Grain and Mr. Forrest Fulton prosecuted.
BENJAMIN BRIDGEWATER , engineer. I have known accused some time, and I have had transactions with him from time to time. I have discounted bills for him. Bill No. 8 (produced.) is a bill for £200—purported to be accepted by Mr. Maddison—which I discounted at prisoner's request. I gave him £190 for it. It was presented at maturity, and came back, "Instructions—no advice." Bill No. 10, for £165, of June 28 purports to bear the acceptance of Mr. Gleed. I discounted for prisoner, giving him £157. It was presented and returned "No Advice." Bill No. 11, of May 22; for £175, purports to bear my signature, but it is not my signature, nor was it written by my authority. Bill No. 12, of July 9, for £200, also purports to bear my acceptance, but is a forgery. No. 14, July 9, for £150, is a forgery. No. 15, of April 9, for £200, is a forgery. No. 10. of July 19, for £200, is a forgery. No. 17, of August 8, for £200, that which is supposed to be my acceptance, is a forgery. The total amount of which I was defrauded was £546 15s., that includes the £200 bill of April 9.
Cross-examined by Prisoner. I first knew you when you were articled to Mr. Holmes. I did some work for you, for which you have paid me thousands of pounds. I have always found you honest. As an architect you never toot commissions for me. You always had the name of being a man who did not take commissions. In 1896 Mr. Fortes cue took a site in Ludgate Hill, No. 56, and you introduced me to him some time previously. The mutter was discussed between us, and some two or three months afterwards we offered Mr. Fortes cue £1,100 more for the site. A plan was got out, and the place was built. That was my experience as a builder. I was simply an engineer before that. By trade I am a constructional engineer. When I gold the ground rent I think I got 32 1/2 years' purchase. There was a ground rent of £1,600. I gave 33 years' purchase for it. I sold the leasehold interest to the West India property people for £25,000. When I sold the Ludgate Hill property I did not promise you £500 out of the profit. If I had, you would have had it. You did not sue me for your fees, I swear. I could not tell you whether Mr. Evans was my solicitor. He was a solicitor three or four years ago, and did work for me. You built the property in York Road, King's Cross, I do not remember what it cost, nor what I got for it. I do not know whether I got £20,000. York Road was not profitable. I made a loss over it. In 1903 I lent Mr. Fortescue £10,000. I can hardly say it was at your request; it was done through Mr. Hughes, my solicitor. There Was no partnership, although it was contemplated. It was 32,000 ft. You put eight or ten warehouses on it. That was in Southwark. I sold it to the Southwark Borough, Council for £36,000 in 1903. I
do not know whether I paid you your fees on the two warehouses I built. I do not know that I have been applied to for a further payment to Waterman and Abrahams of £800. It is the first I have beard of it. They were taken at a valuation, and I appointed you valuer on my behalf. It came to between £14,000 and £15,000. I am not aware that I was so pleased with the valuation that I gave you another £50 in addition to your 1 per cent. There was a quarrel with Mr. Fortescue about what it cost me, and I appointed you as arbitrator. You settled it, and I gave you £50. I remember at the end of 1904 Mr. Fortescue guaranteed a loan of £500 to you from the Capital and Counties Bank. I know at the time you were doing work for Fortescue as architect, you and I went to the sub-manager of the London and County Bank, Aldersgate Street, to ask him if he would let you have £475. On this guarantee he suggested, as I had a large sum on deposit for which I was only getting 2 per cent., that I should do it and get the 5 per cent. instead of 2. I drew a cheque for £500, with which an account was opened with the London and County Bank in your name. This was in 1905. You gave me a cheque for £160; £25 was for 5 per cent. on £500 for 12 months. You had the £500, and I had back the interest for the time, plus £25, which was for money you owed me. Towards the end of 1905 you may have advised me to buy the piece of land in White Lion Street. Mr. Robert Wragg bought it in November, 1905, and in February, 1906, I took it on a building lease at £130 a year, with the option of purchase of the freehold at 25 years' purchase. You acted for Mr. Wragg and myself as architect I do not remember yon writing a letter in my house in Hornsey naming the sum of 300 guineas for fees. The estimated cost of the building was between £3,000 and £4,000; it cost nearly £5,000. You drew the plans; 5 per cent, on £5,000 would be £150. There were three sets of plans. I think you had your, commission for the plans in White Lion Street. Directly you have not been paid your commission as architect on the job, but you have indirectly. I had to sue you in connection with, Mr. Fortescue's guarantee for himself of £500 to the London and County Bank; you have never paid it back. I called on Fortescue to meet his guarantee, and he said he would not pay, and I had to sue him.
After the cross-examination had proceeded some time the prisoner stated that he would withdraw his plea, and the jury found a verdict of Guilty.
Detective-Inspector BARR stated that prisoner is an undischarged bankrupt, liabilities being £5,182. In 1894 he was bankrupt, liabilities £3,434; and his creditors received 7s. 6d. in the £. As the result of his forgeries he obtained £1,746 altogether since April of this year. He attributes his downfall to slow horses and fast women.
Prisoner handed in a statement in which he said that, in 1888, he joined Mr. Hughes in partnership, under the style of Hughes, Ballantyne, and Waterman. In 1890 they built Portland House, Basinghall
Street, for Mr. Eames, but be never wit paid his fees for the work. His affairs went into bankruptcy, and in 1894 a composition of 7s. 6d. in the £ was paid. In 1890 he started business at 7, Cullum Street and carried out various important buildings. He had had a number of professional engagements with Fortescue and Bridgewater, and the moneys due to him had not been paid. Eventually he got discouraged, and went to Hurst Park and York Races, where he backed three horses, either of which would have got him out of his trouble, and all three got beaten by a head. To save the disgrace of exposure to his family if he failed he had intended shooting himself. On the Sunday he heard Canon Fleming preach at York Minster, a sermon that touched him very much, and on the Monday he came back to London.
Sentence, Eighteen months' imprisonment in the second division.
Mr. Moran prosecuted.
WALTER SILVERSTON , 46, William Street, Hackney, trading as Silverston and Son. My son is a partner with me, and prisoner was in our employ. My son drew a cheque on October 26, with my authority. Cheque produced is drawn by W. Silverston and Son on the National Provincial Bank and signed W. Silverston and Louis Silverston and Son. It was left on the desk; prisoner had the entry to the office. The cheque is drawn on the firm's account.
To Prisoner. It was not impossible for anybody to inter the office without being observed, and unless they were well acquainted with the rules of the firm. You had the entry to the office and came in and out of it. Most decidedly I think you have taken the cheque.
LOUIS SILVERTON (son of last witness). Prisoner was in our employ. I remember on October 26 drawing a cheque in the name of the firm, and it was left on the desk in the office. The signature of Mr. Goldberg was not on it. I have my private cheque book here. I missed a cheque from that book. The counterfoil is blank. The cheque before it is dated February 1. I cannot recognise the cheque otherwise than by the number.
To Prisoner. It is impossible for me to say whether it is your writing unless I saw writing to compare it with. I could not say that you have taken the cheque. I can only say it is out of our chequebook, but you had access to the whole place. In my opinion you changed the cheque, and the other cheque was in your possession.
To the Court. I do not know anybody of the name of R. Smith. We bid not miss this cheque till we had it brought to our notice, because we do not use the cheque hook but seldom.
HARRIS GOLDBERG , timber merchant, 12, Hackney Road. Prisoner is a relative of mine. With regard to the cheque for £5, the endorsement is not mine, although it resembles it. I did not authorise prisoner to cash it. I did not know anything about that cheque. With regard to the other, I have not got the name of R. Smith in my ledger. That cheque is not endorsed by me. I did not authorise prisoner to cash it. The signature does not resemble mine.
To Prisoner. It is not my signature, but I am not going to say that it is your writing. The signature on the first cheque it just as good as mine. It is a good forgery.
EDGAR TYZACK , tool maker, 343, Old Street Mr. Goldberg is a customer of ours. I change cheques for him. I recollect prisoner coming to my shop on November 1 and bringing a cheque for £5, which he asked me to change for Mr. Goldberg. I said I would do so, but it had not got Mr. Goldberg's signature, and I said, "You take it back to Mr. Goldberg and ask him to sign his name on the back of it." He came back with the cheque saying it had the signature of Mr. Goldberg on it. I looked at the signature and compared it with an original signature which I had and gave him the money.
To Prisoner. You did not tell me you were a relative of Mr. Goldberg.
To the Court. Prisoner was a stranger to me.
CHARLES BOST , 370, Old Street. I am a customer of Mr. Goldberg, and changed his cheques. Prisoner came to me on November 6 about 12 o'clock with a cheque for £6 4s., which he asked me to cash. Being a stranger my suspicions were aroused, and I asked him where Miss Goldberg was, at she usually came with such cheques. He said she was busy, and I told him to call again in an hour's time, which he did; but in the meantime I went to see Mr. Goldberg, and asked him if he had given authority to have the cheque cashed, sad he said, "No." I asked him if I should lock the prisoner up, and I sent for a constable. Prisoner came back again and gave me the cheque.
To Prisoner. You did not tell me you were a relation of Mr. Goldberg.
Police-Sergeant J. POWELL. I saw prisoner at the station, and told him he would be charged with forging and uttering a cheque, and obtaining £5 from Mr. Tysack, 243, Old Street, and I showed him the cheque. I also showed Mr. Goldberg the cheque in the presence of prisoner, and Mr. Goldberg said the signature on the back was not his. Prisoner said that was right. I told him he would be charged with forging a cheque for £6 4s. He replied, "I had no intention to defraud; when I tried to cash the cheque I intended to go straight to Tyzack and to pay him back the £5. I should not have allowed the second cheque to past through the bank."
PRISONER (not on oath). I was not the forger of £he cheque or utterer. I was given the cheque by a man who asked me to cash it and he sent me back to get it signed by Mr. Goldberg. I went
out and gave the cheque back to this man, and told him that Mr. Goldberg must sign the cheque. He was waiting at the corner of the Kingsland Road. He said, "That will be all right, oblige me and get It cashed." Mr. Tyzack gave me £5, and I bought a pocketknife and I told him I was a relation of Mr. Goldberg, which shows that I had no intention of doing anything wrong. I took no more notice of it. On the Monday Mr. Tyzack came round to the ware-house to Mr. Silverston and I happened to be out. I met the man who gave me the cheque at Bow, and he said, "That is all right, I will come to Tyzack's to-night," and went. I would not let him go unless he gave me £5, and he made an appointment to see me first thing on Tuesday. I had to go on an errand for Mr. Silverston, and I met him in Old Street. He gave me another cheque for £6 4s., and he said, "YoU must get this cheque cashed." I should not have allowed the other cheque to go through the bank.
Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, Five months' imprisonment in the second division.
OLD COURT; Thursday, November 22.
(Before the. Recorder.)
Mr. C. E. Jones prosecuted; Mr. Brandon defended.
WILLIAM WILFORD OXON , clerk to Tillings, Limited, jobmasters. Prisoner in December, 1904, ordered eight omnibuses and pairs of horses for a wedding from my company, and the account of £16 16s. was afterwards sent to him every month until, the money not being paid, the matter was placed in the hands of Mr. Kilner, solicitor to the company. I attended at Lambeth County Court on November 8, 1905, and we obtained judgment for £20 12s. 6d., debt and costs. On April 26, 1906, a judgment summons was issued, which came on for hearing tm May 17, 1906, before Judge Emden. Defendant was sworn, and stated that the carriages had been supplied to Greenwell, that he had repeatedly applied for payment, and had been unable to get the money because Mr. Greenwell was still abroad on his honeymoon. The judge asked him if he was willing to assign the debt to Tillings; after some hesitation he said he would do so, and the judge then ordered the summons to stand over.
Cross-examined. Prisoner hesitated to agree to assign the debt for some noticeable time, a matter of a minute perhaps. I am not aware that Hayward had the management of prisoners business, or that the prisoner was away for months at a time.
defendant on October 6 gave notice he intended to defend the action; it came on for hearing at Lambeth County Court on November 8; the defendant did not appear, and judgment was given for debt and costs amounting to £20 12s. 6d. I caused an execution to be levied which wm ineffective, there being a bill of sale on his stock, and the furniture being claimed by the wife; and in April, 1906, a judgment summons was issued. Defendant attended at Lambeth County Court on May 17, 1906, and I was present when the matter came before Judge Emden. Prisoner was sworn, gave evidence on his own behalf, and I cross-examined him. He said he had made several applications for payment, and the answer he had got was that Mr. Greenwell was still on the Continent. He was represented by a solicitor. Prisoner agreed to assign the debt. His solicitor wanted to prepare the assignment, but I suggested I should prepare it to save time, and wrote to him several times for particulars of the debt. Prisoner came to see me once or twice; I asked him for the amount of the debt, he said he did not know, and would look up his books and let me know the amount. On June 11 I wrote stating that unless the particulars were furnished I should write to Mr. Greenwell. He then informed me that the amount was £29 10s., and executed the assignment produced. Prisoner asked me to give him 10 days to pay the debt before giving notice of the assignment, which I did, and inserted that clause in the assignment, otherwise the assignment to become valid. I communicated with Greenwell 12 days afterwards, and on June 29 received letter produced from Godwin, Greenwell's estate agent, stating that the money had been paid by a crossed cheque to defendant's order. I informed the defendant, and arranged that he should com up to see Godwin and the cheque. He called on me twice before I had the cheque and said that he had not had any of the money, that he had had a manager who had robbed him and gone away. On July 12 I showed him the cheque endorsed, and he said, "That it my writing," and that he most have had use money. He seemed surprised at finding he had had the money, and offered to pay at the rate of £2 a month. I did not entertain his offer at all, and said I required a proper explanation of the matter. I then applied to the County Court for the reissue of the judgment summons which could not be served upon ham, and the present proceedings were instituted.
Cross-examined. I knew prisoner was a horse dealer. He told me he personally carried on his stables when he called about the payment. Greenwell's cheque was dated January 14, 1905, and was paid in on the 16th. Judgment was signed November 8, 1905, and the judgment summons was heard May 17, 1906. Defendant stated be had a wife and 11 children. He asked me to give him 10 days before giving notice to Greenwell, and therefore knew that, as a solicitor, I should give notice of the assignment of the debt. I have made no inquiries as to whether prisoner is a respectable man. On July 3 I showed prisoner the letter from Greenwell's agent, saying he had been
paid. He said he had not received the money. When I showed him the cheque he said he would look through his pass-book, and he afterwards stated there was no entry of £29 10s. He seemed surprised, and offered £2 a month.
DAVID DENNY , Chief Clerk, Lambeth County Court. I produce record of proceedings in Thomas Tilling, Limited v. Bashford, including default summons, notice to defend, and record of the judgment. I was present at the hearing of the judgment summons on May 17, 1906, when defendant gave evidence, and I took notes as follows: "Defendant said, 'I own nothing. Am taking £4 a week, paying £4 10s. in wages. I have 11 children. Greenwood is the name of the creditor. He have not paid. I do not know his address.' Order was to Mars den Park. They were married at Oxted from Marden Park. That house is sole property of Mr. Greenwood, or Greenwell, to whom I sent accounts repeatedly. Reply is that they are away on the Continent Accounts never returned. I will assign the debt. Adjourned for that purpose." Those are all the notes I have, Subsequently there was an attempt to reinstate the judgment summons, and it could not be served.
Cross-examined. My memory is entirely confined to my note.
GEORGE JAMES GODWIN . I am the agent of Sir Walter Greenwell, stockbroker, of Marden Park. I reside on the estate, and have the management of his business. I remember the wedding in December, 1904, and that prisoner was employed to supply a part of the carriages. On January 14, 1905, cheque produced for £29 10s. was sent to prisoner's address in payment of his account, was cashed on January 16, and I received receipt produced, which settled up the whole matter. All letters relating to the estate would be opened by me if sent to the estate office, or would be handed to me by Sir Walter Greenwell, if sent to him. No applications for payment have reached me from the prisoner. [To the Recorder.] The marriage was that of Sir Walter Greenwell's daughter to Hr. Daniel, who is on the Stock Exchange, and who could not have spent all that time on the Continent.
----CROUCHER, clerk, London and County Bank, Croydon. I produce certified copy of the account of the prisoner, showing credit of £31 2s. 6&, in January, 1906, made up of cheques £29 10s. and £1 12s. 6d., and paying in slip for same, which I believe to be in defendeat's handwriting.
Mr. Brandon submitted that there was no case to go to the Jury, as the evidence given by the prisoner could not have been material to the issues before the County Court, which was whether the defendant had means. and if he had admitted the payment it would not have shown that he had means. [Referred to Reg. v. Baker (1895, Queen's Bench, p. 797) (C.C.R.) and to Archbold, 1905 ed., p. 1050.]
The Recorder declined to stop the case, but stated that it was a somewhat nice point, and that he would, if It became necessary, reserve a case for the consideration of the Court of Crown Cases Reserved.
JOHN BASHFORD (prisoner, on oath). I commenced life at 11 years of age as a bird minder, have been a carman's boy, butcher's boy, builder, and, ten years ago, became a horse dealer. I am now 51 years old. In 1901 I acquired stables at Whyteleafe for the purpose of keeping horses in until sold. I then found that under my lease I was bound to supply cabs in connection with the railway station. My business as horse dealer required me to be away travelling in all parts from one to five months at a time, and I put my son Charles in charge of the livery stable business and took no part myself in it. In 1904 I met a man named Hayward, who told me he had come from Canada and had had a fire, which had ruined him. He knew something of horses, and I employed him casually at first, and after a time he took complete management of the livery stable. He sent out accounts and receipts and endorsed cheques. When I was home he would ask me to endorse them. I have never put a pen to my books since I have been there. I have only been to a night school when I was 30 years old, and I cannot read writing unless it is very plain. I trusted Hayward and put every confidence in him. I had nothing to do with Greenwell's order. I knew the order had been given and went to see Mr. Godwin about it. I left England for France on December 31, 1904, taking some horses out, and returned on Sunday night, January 15, 1905. I only stopped at home half an hour, as I was going to Wales, whence I went to Paris, and was away about eight weeks. On January 15 Hayward put some documents in front or me to sign as I was going out of the yard, amongst which must have been this cheque. I never looked to see who it was from, but wrote my name on the back of it. I used to ask Hayward if he was sending out the accounts generally. I attended on a judgment summons at Lambeth County Court on May 17, 1906. I had no idea they were going to ask me about Greenwell's cheque. I had my pass-book with me, and found no entry in it of £29 10s. I honestly believed the amount was owing when I told the Judge so, and agreed to assign the debt to Tillings. I asked Mr. Kilner not to give notice of the assignment at once, and he gave me 10 days. I was told to assign something; I did not know what it was. I told the Judge I had made application for the money to Greenwell, relying on what Hayward had told me. In May, 1906, I discharged Hayward for drunkenness, and my son. who was a jockey in France, came to take ever the livery business. He made certain communications as to what Hayward had been doing with the money. On July 6 I saw Mr. Kilner. and stated I had not received the cheque or given receipt for £29 10s. He told me it had been paid. I was positive it had not because it was not in the passbook, or in any other book. It then occurred to me that Hayward might have taken, the money. On July 12 Mr. Kilner produced the cheque and receipt and I said
I had not signed it. I said there was something wrong, and asked Mr. Kilner whether there was such a thing as my signature being transferred from one cheque to another. I then offered to pay £2 a month. It would have been a struggle to me to have done that. I have had 11 children, six of whom are now dependent upon me.
Cross-examined. I am speaking of my movements in 1904 and 1905 entirely from memory. I have no book here in which Greenwell's account would be entered. I sold my business on October 5, and burnt the two or three little books which there were, as they were of no use. In July, 1906, I told Kilner I did not know the exact amount, and would go and look at my books. Then I told him it was £29 10s. It was months afterwards I destroyed the books. In December, 1904, and January, 1905, I was carrying on a very small business. I do not buy horses—I go and find them and sell their on commission. I was paying £4 10s. a week wages at the stables. You are obliged to keep the men on in a big yard. Until Hayward came my son Charles looked after the business. He was a decorator. I had no testimonial with Hayward. He had nowhere to go to except the workhouse, and I gave him food. I allowed him to endorse my name on cheques and trusted him. After I discharged him I found he had gone away with one or two little accounts. He had been in the workhouse several months. I did not allow him to draw cheques. I gave my wife cheques signed in blank if I was going away, and there was money in the bank. I did not take the cheque in question to the bank myself. The payingIn slip has "J. B." in my writing. I was in Wales on January 16, 1905. Looking at the slip with my glasses I should say it is my writing. I had the counterfoil book for the paying-in slips. They are burnt. I have no real recollection of burning it. The wife burnt it, I suppose. I know the books were burnt on October 6, 1906. I have not got a thing left now. As I went to attend the judgment summons, pawing my bank I got the pats-book to see what was in the bank, and I looked afterwards to see if the £29 10s. was in it. When I went to Wales on January 15, I stayed there two or three days, and then went straight to Paris with horses. Denman was my solicitor then. I had brought an action against Slaw in respect of an accident, in which Ticknor had been my solicitor. I may have been in London on January 17 and seen Denman about it. My wife may have paid Church £16 for rent on January 19 out of the £29 10s. She would attend to that. I see my pass book very seldom, as I do not understand it. I have sold my business, and two of my sons are now working in it for the man who bought it Hayward told me that the people had not come back; that they were on the Continent. I do not know where Hayward is. I have tried to find him all over the place to get the money he has had off me. He left me at the beginning of May. The wife told me, "You had better look after Hayward, he is on the drink." I could not find him in the yard. I found him rolling out of the "Whyteleafe Tavern." I said, "You know I do not like anybody about the place
drinking. You had better pack up your traps and get out at once." That was half-past eight in the morning; that was the end of April or beginning of May—certainly before May 17—when I went before the County Court Judge. I never paid Hayward wages; he only came there for hit board and lodgings. I defended the action for £16 16s., because I could not pay.
Re-examined. I sold my business to Hewitt. I offered him all the books I had and he refused them—said he did not want the rubbish, and my son burnt them in the yard. I have made inquiries for Hayward at the Kenley Police Station, at the "Rose and Crown," and at the "Whyteleafe Hotel." I recovered £63 in Shaw's action, and had a trouble to get £16 out of Denman. I have not received any costs yet although I paid the out-of-pockets for counsel's fees. I was hoping 10 pay Tilling out of that money. Church is my landlord, and my wife would fill up a blank cheque for the rent if there was money in the bank. [To the Jury.] I have not got a cheque endorsed by Hayward I was hard up on January 16. I was always hard up. The bank slip is in my writing. I could not have taken notice where the £29 10s. came from. I did not know how much the job came to for Greenwell.
Rev. JOHN GLOSSOP, Vicar of St. Mark's, Battersea. Until January 1906, I was Vicar of Whvteleafe, near Warlingham, and have known prisoner for five years. He bore a good reputation in the neighbourhood. The children were at my Sunday School, and I used to call and see him and his wife occasionally. I had general knowledge of the family, and he has brought up his children very respectably.
Verdict, Not guilty.
NEW COURT; Thursday, November 22.
(Before the Common Serjeant.)
GOLDBLATT, Hyman (40, a Russian Jew, formerly carrying on business as a boot manufacturer) ; within four months next before the presentation of a bankruptcy petition against him, then being a trader, did dispose of otherwise than in the ordinary way of his trade certain of his property, to wit, certain goods value £91 17s. 6d.; making a transfer of certain of his property, to wit, bankers' cheques for £25 17s. 8d., £27 13s., £150, £118 3s. £122 13s. 6d. £15 9s., £120, £100, £18 8s. 4d., £26 2s. 11d., £75 5s. 4d., £8 8s. 6d., £8 18s. 9d., and £44 18s. respectively, a quantity of furniture and materials, one pony, one cart, one waggonette, and one set of harness, and one watch, one chain, and one ring; being a bankrupt not discovering to the trustee administering his estate all his property.
Mr. Graham Campbell and Mr. Eustace Fulton prosecuted; Mr. Purcell and Mr. Forrest Fulton defended.
The prosecution was instituted under Sections 11 and 13 of the Debtors Act, 1869, and the offences alleged were under two heads—
first, prisoner's dealings with the 14 cheques enumerated which were in his possession between April 1 and 15, 1905, and secondly, his dealings with property in his possession in March of that year, all of which had gone beyond recall by May 19, the date of the receiving order. The case for the prosecution was that with a view to defrauding his creditors prisoner made a transfer of those cheques to a man named Max Fisher, who gave him open cheques in exchange, and also that he had not fully described to the Trustees in Bankruptcy how he dealt with the proceeds of those cheques, and had attempted to account for the proceeds by fictitious losses and expenses. Five of the cheques were fraudulently omitted from the cash account. On April 10 prisoner gave notice to one of his creditors that he had suspended payment, that being the Act of Bankruptcy upon which the petition was founded. On May 2 a creditors petition was filed; May 19 a receiving order was made; May 30 prisoner was adjudicated bankrupt; June 6, a statement of affairs was filed showing liabilities of £1,273 4s. 2d., and assets £21; June 8 Mr. Allen was appointed trustee. Prisoner came to England in 1896 and obtained employment as a clicker. In 1896 he commenced business as a boot manufacturer in William Street, Whitechapel, afterwards removing to St. George's Street, where he carried on business for 18 months. In 1898 he owed his creditors £300, in respect of which only £6 has been paid, and the business, so far as he was concerned, came to an end, but his wife carried on a similar business at the same address for about 12 months, her husband acting as her manager. From 67, St. George's Street, they then removed to 147, St. George's Street, where they remained four years, prisoner acting as manager at a salary of 25s. per week. In 1902 Mrs. Goldblatt failed, and Isaac Goldblatt, prisoner's brother, then took up the business, which was carried on in Old Gravel Lane, St. George's-in-the-East, prisoner acting as manager at a salary of 22s. In June, 1904, by which time the old debts of 1898 had become statute-barred, prisoner acquired the business from Isaac, purchasing the goodwill, machinery, fixtures, fittings, and trade utensils for £25. According to prisoner's statement, there was a further payment of £189 for stock but this statement the prosecution did not accept. From June 24, 1904, to April, 1905, prisoner carried on business at 20, Cambridge Road, Mile End. On June 27, 1904, he opened a banking account at the St. George's-in-the-East branch of the Capital and Counties Bank with a payment of £100, which he had borrowed from Max Fisher. On June 28 there was a further payment in of £100 by cheque from Fisher. On June 30 a cheque for £159 3s. 6d. in favour of I Goldblatt was drawn, but the money returned to Fisher's account the next day, so that it is not dear that prisoner paid his brother anything beyond the £25. In March, 1905, prisoner formed the intention of realising all his assets and putting them out of the reach of his creditors. This resolution of the prisoner might have been accelerated by the failure in that month of the firm of Watson and Co., of Leicester, upon whom he had drawn bills for £260, which
had been discounted by the Capital and Counties Bank, prisoner thus becoming liable for the bills. After March 25, 1905, prisoner ceased to pay money into his banking account. On March 29, as prisoner admitted in his public examination, he sold to one Margoulis for £91 certain materials for the manufacture of boots, bellys, and patent calf, which he had obtained on credit and not paid for. When asked why he wanted to sell these goods for cash, he said he wanted the money, as, if he was not mistaken, there were bills due which he had to meet. After that date there was no payment to any trade creditor. In order to carry on the family business, prisoners son, Samuel, a youth of 18, took premises at 453, Bethnal Green Road, where he carried on a similar business under the name of Samuel and Co., in partnership with Mrs. Dora Yellin, a relative of his mother's, and prisoner and Mrs. Goldblatt went to reside there, and were both employed in the business. On April 4 prisoner sold his furniture to a Mr. Ginsburg, of Brick Lane, for £39, and on the same day raised a loan of £30 from the Prudential Insurance Company on a life policy, receiving from them an open cheque for £18 8s. 4d., the balance of £11 11s. 8d. being in respects of premiums in arrear. On April 8, Ginsburg entered into a hire purchase agreement with Samuel Goldblatt, by which a considerable portion of the furniture sold by prisoner was returned. On April 10 a bill drawn by Messrs. Noble, and accepted by prisoner, for £44 4s. 8d., fell due, and on that day he informed them that, he could not meet his liabilities. On April 11 Samuel Goldblatt, through hit partner, Mrs. Dora Yellin, opened an account at the London and South-Western Blank with a payment of £200 in gold, Mrs. Yellin signing with a x. On April 12 prisoner sold to his ton a quantity of skins and calf-cuttings, together with a number of knives and lasts for £43 15s. 8 1/2 d., paid by cheque on the London and South-Western Bank. On April 12 prisoners' machinery was transferred to his son, Samuel, On April 13 prisoner sold to a Mr. Grizzard his pony and trap, which, however, found its way to the stables at the back of 453, Bethnal Green Road. Five cheques on the London and South-Western Bank were given by Fisher in exchange for the fourteen cheques in the indictment, and though the average life of Bank of England notes, especially in the higher denominations, is short, more than a year afterwards nearly £500 worth have not returned to the Bank of England, and the Public Prosecutor asks the Court to infer from that fact that at the date of the receiving order these notes were in the custody of the prisoner, and should have been handed over to the trustee, By May 16 prisoner had not quite realised everything, having still some jewellery left, which he had purchased of a Mr. Bromberg. This lie pawned with Layman and Co. for £60. It was redeemed on October 25, and repledged by a woman, whose Christian name was Dora, and who signed the agreement with the pawnbroker with a x. Prisoner's statement in his examination was that he had sold the ticket for the jewellery to a man named Soloman for £2 10s. Of the £21 of assets given in the statement of affairs the trustee had
only been able to realise £5 13s. 1d., 13s. 1d. from a provident society, and £5 from the sale of the equity of redemption, of defendant's life policy with the Prudential. The statement of affairs gave no information as to how prisoner had been dealing with the cheques. In his preliminary examination prisoner stated that when he stopped business in April he had £105 for sale of stock to Levy, £43 from his son for the sale of stock and implements, £80 book debts, £60 jewellery pledged, £30 from sale of furniture, and £15 from sale of horse and van—£323. The cash account furnished by prisoner on June 29, 1905, showed receipts between April 1 and May 19 of £784 5s. 10d., and payments during the same period of equal amount. Under the heading of repayment of loans were the following: Louis Robilosky, £120; Aaron Stroyer, £112; and Morris Koher, £82, at addresses in Russia, and stated to be relatives of prisoner or his wife, £310 was entered as having been lost in horse racing, but no particulars were given. An entry of £29 13s. 5d. for personal expenses exactly balanced the account. In the amended cash account filed on July 13 the receipts and payments were shown as £800 14s. 10d., and on the receipt side appeared a sum of £15 19s. not shown in the first account, and on the other side the payments went up to £15 19s., added to personal expenses. The trustees' solicitors, Messrs. Osborn and Osborn, wrote to Robilosky, Stroyer, and Koher at the addresses given by registered letter, but the letters were returned undelivered, and the prosecution accordingly asked the Court to infer that these three persons existed only in the bankrupt's imagination. In the second cash account two cheques for £150 and £118 do not appear, though they were in his possession on April 3, and handed to Mr. Fisher, but they appeared in a later account filed August 10, but were made to appear to have been suspended before April 1. Though in March, April, and May, 1905, prisoner had in his possession, stock, fittings, and implements, pony and trap, jewellery, and a life policy at the Prudential, and cheques representing some hundreds of pounds by May 19, the date of the receiving order, everything was gone, and at the time of his arrest all he had in his possession was 15s., his assets being returned in the statement of affairs as nil.
PAUL SPENCER MILNES , messenger of the Bankruptcy Court, produced the file in the bankruptcy. The petition was presented by George Denton, trading as H. Noble and Co. The statement of affairs filed June 6 showed liabilities of £1,273 4s. 2d., and assets £21 Os. 7d., leaving a deficiency of £1,252 3s. 7d. The trustee was Mr. Frederick William Allen, 7 and 8, Railway Approach, London Bridge. The public examination was adjourned from June 29 to July 20 and November 3.
Cross-examined. Cash accounts were filed on April 1, and May 19, I find in the account on April 7: "J. Hilton. Goods sold, £100." And on April 14: "J. Hilton. Goods sold, £75 5s. 4d." April 13: "J. Hoskins, £8 18s. 9d." April 4: "Levy Brothers. Goods, £122 13s. 6d." April 7: "Levy Brothers. Goods, £26 2s. 11d."
The Common Serjeant: Does that show whether it is goods sold and money received, or merely goods sold for which money would be due?
Mr. Purcell. The defendant's case is it was money received.
Cross-examination continued. There is an amended cash account of July 13. I find there March 17, J. and C. Smith, goods £58 3s. 9d." April 4, "Carter, goods, £15 19s." A further cash account was filed on August 10. I find there on March 31, "Levy Brothers, goods. £150, among the receipts. The total receipts shown are £1,949 6s. 4d. March 24, "Hilton and Sons, goods. £118 3s."
Re-examined. In the account filed on June 29 the receipts and payments amount to £784 5s. 10d. In that account I do not find on the receipt side any cheque for £15 19s. On the payment side I find the personal expenses were £29 13s. 5d. In the second cash account filed July 13, from April 1 to May 13 the receipts and payments are £800 4s. 10d. I find the Carter cheque for £15 19s. on the receipt side, and on the payment side the personal expenses are up to £45 12s. 5d. In that account I do not find on the payment side the cheques for £150 and £118 3s. The third cash account covers a period from March 1 to April 1. There for the first time we get the two cheques of £150 and £118 3s.
JOHN WILLIAM CARR , 272, Hackney Road, London, manager to Noble and Co., leather merchants. Noble and Co. are creditors in the bankruptcy for £672 1s. 7d. We had been supplying the debtor with goods for about nine months down to about March 24 last. He used to pay first of all by cheque and afterwards by acceptance. There was an acceptance of £100 falling due on April 3. Prisoner came to see me two days before the bill matured and said he was unable to meet toe bill, which was due on the following Monday, and asked if my firm would let him have the money to take it up, as unless he had he money to meet it he could not meet the whole of his engagements falling due the week following. I consented to do that, and on Monday, April 3, went with him to the Capital and Counties Bank and paid the £100 down. And the bill for £44 4s. 6d. was due a week later, which bat never been met On April 10 I went to prisoner's premises and asked him if this bill had been provided for. He said, "No," and further that he had already called at our premises. I asked him what for. He said he had been to consult a solicitor about his affairs, and had been told he had better see his largest creditor. I asked him what he owed, and he said about £900. I asked him what he had got, and he said he had got nothing, and what was more, if something was not soon done the landlord would clear what there was for rent. He said also it was impossible to go on; be could not do any good. About too months Later I saw prisoner in the Bethnal Green Road, where similar business was being carried on in the name of Samuel and Co.
Cross-examined. In the period from June, 1904, to March,1905, we were paid £453 by prisoner.
WILLIAM GEORGE TOLHURST . inspector to Levy Brothers, West Hartlepool. Levy Brothers sell boots amongst other things at the Civil Service Stores, and for some time have been dealing with prisoner. On March 31 they sent him a cheque for £150. It is endorsed "J. Goldblatt." I also produce a cheque dated April 4 for £122 13s. 6d. to the order of J. Goldblatt, and endorsed "J. Goldblatt"; also a cheque dated April 27 for £26 2s. 11d. to the order of J. Goldblatt, and endorsed by him. All these cheques have been said by our bankers to the Stepney branch of the London and South-Western Bank. [This statement applies to all the cheques.]
To Mr. Purcell. The cheques were for manufactured goods paid for at the usual price.
GEORGE WILLIAM WITSON . I am cashier to S. Hilton and Sons, Leicester, boot and shoe manufacturers. The prisoner was one of those who supplied us with goods. The cheque (produced), dated March 24, 1905, to J. Goldblatt, bearing the endorsement J. Goldblatt, was paid by our bankers on April 5 to the Stepney branch of the London and South-Western Bank. On April 7, 1905, we sent him a cheque of £100 on Lloyds Bank. It was endorsed by him, and paid on April 12 as before. On April 14 we sent him a cheque for £75 5s. 4d., which was endorsed and paid. Our firm have also had dealings with Samuel and Co., carrying on business in the Bethnal Green Road as boot and shoe manufacturers.
To Mr. Purcell. The cheques were for manufactured goods bought and sold at the usual price.
WILLIAM HOSKINS , I am manager to my father, who is a bobt factor at Leicester. Prisoner used to supply my father, with goods On April 13 we sent him a cheque for £8 18s. 9d., which was endorsed and paid to the Stepney branch of the London, and of Bank in payment of goods supplied. We also deal with the firm of Samuel and Co., boot manufacturers, 453, Bethnal Green Road. Mrs. Goldblatt used to travel for prisoner, and also for Samuel and Co.
GEORGE, ALFRED JOHN BEAVEN , clerk to John Carter and Sons, Limited, leather merchants and shoe factors, Kingsland Road. On April 4, 1905, prisoner supplied us with goods to the value of £15 19s. On April 4 a cheque on the London City and Midland Bank for that amount was sent to him. It was endorsed and paid.
JOSEPH CHOLLERTON , boot factor, Derby. On March 31 I sent prisoner a cheque for £27 13s. in payment of goods. It was endorsed by him and paid. I also sent a cheque on April 12 for £8 8s. 6d. drawn to his order, which has been endorsed by him and paid. Mrs. Goldblatt used to travel for prisoner.
EDMUND CHARNLEY SMITH , director of J. E. Smith, limited, boot and shoe factors, Manchester. The company is in a considerable way of business, and prisoner used to supply us with shoes. On April 7 I sent him a cheque for £120, drawn to his order. It has been endorsed by him, and was paid to the Stepney branch of the London
and South-Western Bank. It was in part payment for goods supplied between March 25 and April 4. I also produce a cheque for £44 18s. drawn to the order of J. Goldblatt, endorsed by him, and paid on April 18, being the balance of his account. We overpaid him 2s. 1d. We purchase goods of Samuel and Co. The transactions with them appear to be on the same scale as we had with the prisoner. Mrs. Goldblatt travelled for prisoner, and also for Samuel and Co. The overpayment of 2s. 1d. was transferred to the account of Samuel and Co. and allowed on the settlement.
EDWARD NICKSON , secretary to John Tyler and Sons, Leicester, boot factors. We have been getting boots from the prisoner for some time. On March 31, 1905, we forwarded him the cheque for £25 17s. 8d. (produced) in payment of goods supplied. It was endorsed by him and paid at Stepney. A lady used to travel for him—I think Mrs. Goldblatt.
WALTER EUSTACE CRAIG . chief clerk to the Prudential Assurance Company, Holborn. Prisoner had a life policy for £400, taken out in 1902, upon which in April, 1905, he applied for a loan. The quarterly premiums were £5 12s. 4d. In April, 1905, the premiums were in arrear. I agreed to lend him £30 subject to the payment of the premiums on his own policy and that of his wife, amounting to £11 11s. 8d.
MAURICE GOLDSTEIN , leather merchant, Brick lane. I am a creditor in the bankruptcy for £27 9s. 5d., in respect of goods bought by prisoner on March 21. 1905. He paid by bill, which fell due on April 24. Previously I went round to see him, and asked if he would like to take advantage of the extra discount, and he said he was not ready, but when the bill became due he would pay it. Some cases of goods were then being taken away from his factory. They were directed to Margoulis, in Fashion Street. He said they were empty cases, and they often obliged each other by exchanging cases. I know the business of Samuel and Co., in Bethnal Green Road. I have had, I think, one transaction with them. I have seen prisoner there working. The bill was never met.
ISAAC CHARLES KNOX , clerk to Messrs. Osborn and Osborn, produced three registered letters dated July 24,1905, addressed to Louis Rubiloskv, Aaron Stroyer, and Morris Koher, at addresses in Russia, supplied by prisoner, which came back without having been delivered marked in French, "Retour Inconnu" with some endorsement in Russian.
Mr. Purcell read a letter from Mr. Jonas, the bankrupt's solicitor, to Messrs. Osborn and Osborn, solicitors for the trustee, explaining certain omissions from the cash account and offering to give any further information required.
(Friday, November 23.)
at our Bank. Cheques were drawn in the man of Max Fisher and Co. I produce a certified extract showing credits received on his account between April 1 and April 15, 1905. On April 1 cheques were paid in amounting to £53 10s. 8d.; April 3, £268 3s.; April 5, £138 12s. 6d., on each of those days no cash at all was paid out; April 100, four cheques amounting to £264 11s. 3d.; April 15, four cheques amounting to £137 10s. 7d. Mr. Fisher's place of business in Commercial Road is two or three minutes walk from our place He is engaged in the leather business. I produce a cheque dated April 19, for £137 10s. 7d., drawn on Fisher's account to the order of I. Goldblatt. It was originally a close cheque, but was made open by the words, "Please pay cash," being written across it. That cheque was cashed over the counter on April 19. I produce a certified extract from the cashier's paying-book showing the numbers of the notes given in exchange for that cheque. One was a £100 note numbered 61770, dated February 18, 1904, Samuel and Co. opened an account at our bank on April 11, 1905, by the payment in of £200 in gold. I produce the extract from the cashier's receiving book showing that Mr. Fisher was the introducer of the account and brought both Samuel Goldblatt and Dora Yellin to the bank. The account remained, open until November of the same year.
Cross-examined. Fisher's account was purely a receiving account, and his practice was to draw large cheques in his own favour on the Union of London and Smiths Bank, Fenhurch Street. Fisher had an account with the Union and with; the Capital and Counties. Prisoner had nothing to do wife the opening of Samuel's account.
FRANK ELSTON ROGERS , cashier, Capital and Counties Bank, Commercial Road. Prisoner had an account which was opened on June 27, 1904, by the payment in of £100. I produce a certified copy of that account which remained open till June 30, 1905. Prisoner was Introduced by Max Fisher. On June 28, 1904, a further sum of £100 was paid. Both cheques for £100 were drawn on the Union of London and Smiths Bank. On June 30 a cheque was drawn in favour of Goldblatt for £159 3s. 8d. The cheque was presented by the London and South-Western Bank. My bank is a creditor in the bankruptcy, but I cannot say exactly for what amount. They hold three bills drawn by prisoner, and accepted by Watson and Co., Leicester. The first is for £100, dated December 3, 1904, and due April 6, 1905, Prisoner discounted that bill with the bank on December 9, 1904, The second bill is for £85 1s. 4d. due April 20, 1905, and was discounted on December 21. The third bill is for £94 Is. 5d., dated January 21,1905, and was due May 24, four months after date. That was discounted, on January 23. The bills were presented when due and dishonoured. We received a dividend in the bankruptcy of Watson and Co., but I cannot tell now much. Prisoner is liable on the balance. After March 25, 1905, the only payments into the account are £100 on April 3 and £16 on April 28. That was paid in to meet an overdraft of £16, and just balanced the account. The account stood like that until October 16, when the balance of £1 15s. 2d. was
placed to past due bills. There was also 5s. which he paid for a copy of the account. At the police court I was shown certain cheques which had never been paid into our bank.
Cross-examined. When the bank manager heard that watson's were failing they refused Goldblatt an overdraft, and he was not allowed to draw against crossed cheques until they were cleared. The manager sent for Goldblatt and told him that unless he made arrangements to take up those bills of Watson's they would not be able to grant him any accommodation at all, would not discount any more bills nor allow him an overdraft. It would therefore be of no use for him if he wanted money to pay in crossed cheques. To my knowledge there were several interviews in the manager's room about this time between prisoner and the manager.
Re-examined. The total of the bills was £259 2s. 9d. I should not have paid against London cheques before they were cleared with out reference to the manager. I do not know the working of the Clearing House. It is possible to ascertain by telephone if a cheque may be paid against.
ULYSSES LATRIELLE , accountant, Union Bank, Fenchurch Street Mr. Max Fisher had an account at our bank our April 1905. I pro duce a certified copy of the account between April 1 and 10. On April 1 a cheque for £53 10s. 8d. was drawn by Fisher in favour of I Goldblatt on that account and paid by up on April 3. It was originally crossed and was opened by writing across it, "Please pay cash." On April 4 a cheque was drawn on that account for £268 3s. in favour of I. Goldblatt, opened, and endorsed I. Goldblatt. On April 5 a cheque was drawn on that account for £138 12s. 6d. in exactly the same way. On April 10 a cheque was drawn on that account for £264 11s. 3d., drawn to the order of I. Goldblatt by Max Fisher, crossed, and then opened. Those cheques were paid over the counter. I produce an extract from the cashier's counter book showing notes given in exchange for those cheques. With the exception of the first the cheques were cashed on the same day as drawn. I also produce a certified extract from the cash-book snowing that on June 28 1904, two cheques for £100, drawn by Fisher, ware paid to the Capital and Counties Bank.
Cross-examined. Mr. Max Fisher had an account with us for many years. He need our bank as a paying-out bank. To a great extent the cheques paid in at this time need to be cheques on the London and South-Western Bank, Stepney, but it is not to now.
ERNEST TODD CODRINGTON , inspector of notes at the Bank of England. I have looked at the list of notes contained in the exhibits (29 and 35). Their total value is £850. At the time of the hearing at the police court £355 worth of those notes had come back, leaving £495 outstanding. Amongst the notes outstanding was a £100 note numbered 61,770. Since the hearing at the police court seven more numbered have come in, amounting to £60, leaving £435 outstanding The average life of a £5 bank note from the time it is issued to the
time it returns to the Bank of England is 62 days; of a £10 note,58 days; and of a £100 note, 30 days. It therefore follows that the £435 of notes have been outstanding considerably above the average. There are 44 notes in the whole bundle. The is no period of time at which we regard a note as absolutely lots, but if a person has had a note stolen we pay on receipt of the number alter a certain time.
Cross-examined. One of the £10 notes produced hat the stamp of a Dutch firm. If Bank notes are paid into a banking account either the person who brings them signs his name, or if they come through some business agency there is a stamp upon them. I am in the inspectors' office, but there is a place outside where if you want to convert notes into gold you would have to sign your name. As a rule there is some mark on the notes indicating where they have come from. Two of the notes in this bundle bear stamps of a Rotterdam house. The notes that have come in since, the hearing (two £5 and five £10) have come in through the Manchester branch of the Bank of England, and have no endorsements, but the endorsements might have been torn off with the signature. The cashier at Manchester tears off the signature. It is the practice of banks both in London and the country to keep a secret reserve for emergency wants, and they might keep notes for that purpose that had been in circulation and reissue them, but the London branches would be more likely to be keep notes received direct from the Bank of England. I should not like to say whether country branches frequently keep notes which they have received in the course of business and not direct from the bank. If a bank thinks there it going to be an extra call they send for more notes. If the reserve was stationary for months or years that would, of course, affect the life of the notes. There are a good many notes which never come back at all. One note is known to have been out 111 years. There are also people who board notes.
Re-examined. It is the practice both for London banks and country banks never to reissue Bank of England notes.
ISAAC BROMBERG , jeweller, 6, Turner Street, Commercial Road, E., examined by Mr. Eustace Fulton. I am a creditor of prisoners for £58. On March 16, 1905, I sold him a three-stone gentleman's diamond ring, in payment of which he gave me a cheque for £5 and two bills for £29, payable, one six weeks and the other two months after date. They were presented when due and dishonoured. When I was privately examined in the bankruptcy of the prisoner I saw a diamond ring which I identified at my property.
Cross-examined. In the course of my dealings with prisoner he has paid me considerable sums.
CHARLES HENRY BEAVER , assistant to J. Longman and Co., pawnbrokers, Whitechapel Road. On May 16, 1905, prisoner pledged a gold watch, gold chain, and a three-stone gipsy ring for £60. I produce the book, with the agreement signed by prisoner. He gave the address 20, Cambridge Road, East. The goods were redeemed on October 20,1905, by a woman who gave the name of Dora Yellin, or,
rather, they were renewed, the interest being paid, and the agreement was to run for six more months. The woman was unable to sign her name and made a X over the stamp. The woman did not know how to spell her name, and I entered it as Dora Dellyan.
Cross-examined. By the second agreement, if the jewellery was not redeemed within six months I had power to sell. By the first agreement I had power to sell at any time. I do not know that the contract note was afterwards sold to Solomon Lovovitch.
ISAAC GRIZZARD , 451, Bethnal Green Road. I live next door to where Samuel and Co. carry on business as boot manufacturers. That business has now been given up. I rented a stable at the back of 453 from Samuel and Co. On April 13, 1906, I bought from prisoner a pony and trap, a set of harness, and waggonette for £14 7s. I produce the cheque in payment, and his receipt. Prisoner afterwards used the trap on two or three occasions by paying for it.
Cross-examined. I deal in vans and horses, and have bought and sold a good many. I saw the pony and waggonette on the 12th in stables prisoner rented in Cambridge Road.
JOSHUA GINSBURG , furniture dealer, 43, Fieldgate Street, Commercial Road. On April 4 I bought some furniture of prisoner for—39 5s. The furniture was at Cambridge Road. On April 8 I parted with some of the furniture to Samuel Goldblatt, prisoner's son. under a hire purchase agreement. The agreement was to pay £5 at once, and £2 a month subsequently, beginning April 17.
WALTER TIMMS , London representative of Robinson and Co., boot and shoe machinery engineers, Kettering. In April, 1905, prisoner held machinery made by our firm under a hire purchase agreement dated June 25, 1904. The machinery was then on the premises, 20, Cambridge Road, under a hire purchase agreement with I. Goldblatt. In April, 1905, it was transferred to Samuel and Co., at the request of the prisoner, who had paid very badly. The agreement for the transfer to Samuel and Co. was signed by prisoner and D. Yell in. Samuel and Co. also paid their instalments very badly. I used to go to 453, Bethnal Green Road, for the purpose of getting the instalments. Sometimes I saw Mrs. Goldblatt, sometimes Samuel Goldblatt, and sometimes prisoner. Mrs. Goldblatt was not the same person I knew as Dora Yellin. I handed prisoner statements of what was owing. He spoke about an allowance being made in consideration of past payments.
CHARLES EDWARD HARTRIPP , examiner in the department of the office of the Official Receiver. I took practically the whole of the preliminary examination of the prisoner. The whole of the examination was read over to him and signed by him in my presence. The first part of the examination was taken on May 25, and it was concluded on June 22, 1905. (Mr. Campbell read extracts from the examination.)
in bankruptcy. I find by the statement of affairs filed June 6 that there was a liability to unsecured creditors of £1,013 4s. 2d., in addition to £260 of Watson's bills. The deficiency it £1,252 3s. 7d. The list of unsecured creditors, with three exceptions, represents debts for trade goods supplied, the exceptions being £8 for gas, £58 jewellery and £15 bank overdraft. Among the unsecured creditors I find Max Fisher, 241, Commercial Road, £16; and the Commercial Leather Company of the same address, £42. Fisher is a partner in the Commercial Leather Company. No proofs have been lodged in respect of either of those two items. Amongst the creditors fully secured I find the Prudential Assurance Company, the amount of debt being £30, estimated surplus of the security £10. In Schedule D, liability of debtor on bills discounted £260, and in the column for holders, name, address, and occupation, "Capital and Counties Bank, 210, Commercial Road." The date of Watson's failure is March 9, 1905, when a receiver was appointed on behalf of the debenture-holders. In the statement of affairs the assets are shown as £21 0s. 7d. That includes cash in loan club £1, in respect of which I have recovered 13s. Id. Stock-in-trade, £10 0s. 7d., I have endeavoured to trace, but have not been successful in finding anything. The other £10 is under the heading surplus from securities in the hands of creditors fully-secured. In respect of that I have realised £5 on the life policy, the equity of redemption in which I told to a Mr. Bender, "Mr. Fisher's partner in the Commercial Leather Company. In the deficiency account, in which prisoner purports to account for his deficiency, he states that on June 24, 1904, he was about solvent, and his net loss arising from carrying on the business from that time to May 19, the date of the receiving order, was £212 3s. 7d., with no bad debts. Expenses incurred since June 24, 1905, other than usual trade expenses, being the household expenses of himself, wife, and five children, about £300; illness of his wife. £50; losses due to failure of Watson and Co., £250; losses due to horse racing, £360. I have received no property at all from prisoner, and no books other than his pass book, and no wages sheet. In the first cash account filed June 29, 1905, there is an entry of repayment of loans to relatives, Rubiloski, Stroyer, and Koher, but no addresses are given, and no particulars are given of the horse-racing losses. The public examination was commenced on June 29 and he was ordered to amend his cash account. In the amended account certain addresses in Russia were given for the three men Rubiloski, Stroyer, and Koher, and the solicitors forwarded them registered letters, which were returned. Certain names of bookmakers were also given. If prisoner had the cheques for £118 3s. and £150 in his possession on April 3, even though he had received them in March he ought to have shown them on the receipt side of the account. He received the proceeds of those two cheques from Max Fisher oh April 3.
The Common Serjeant expressed the opinion that if prisoner had put down on April 1 moneys he had received some time before, the account Would have been misleading.
Mr. Campbell. It could only have been entered as a balance.
Examination continued. On the receipt side of the second cash account I find these entries: Furniture sold to J. Ginsburg, £39 5s.; goods sold to Samuel and Co., £43 15s. 3d.; and under the same date, pony and trap sold to Grizzard, £14 7s.; and jewellery pawned to T Layman, £60. Under date of March 29 there is an entry of goods to Margoulis, of Fashion Street. The third cash account filed August 10 covers a period from March 1 to April 1, and in that account the two cheques for £118 3s. and £150 do appear. The total in that account on the receipt side comes to £1,949 6s. 4d. That includes the balance he had on March 1. The payments amount to exactly the same sum. The three cheques of £25 17s. 8d., £27 13s., and £88 6s. do not appear in any cash account, but the two larger of them are referred to in the letter from Mr. Jonas to Messrs. Osborn, put in yesterday afternoon. Prisoner his never accounted to me for the way in winch he spent those two cheques, and it was not until November 10 that I knew anything about them at all. The public examination was closed on November 2. I have never been able to trace the loans to Rubiloski, Stroyer, and Koher, or to get further particulars of the losses by horse-racing. I never heard from prisoner that he had transferred cheques to Fisher. I traced them to the London and South-Western Bank through the drawer's cheques. I have had a good deal to do with the leather trade, and the drawers of these cheques are well known in business—Levy Brothers, S. Hilton and Sons, Tyler, Chollerton, and J. E. Smith and Co. I afterwards examined Mr. Fisher himself. The amount of the cheques transferred to Fisher was £862 8s. In addition I have traced £117 14s. 11d., which prisoner received for trade goods between April 1 and April 15, in addition to what went to Fisher. If prisoner had paid his creditors all these sums there would have been nearly enough to pay them in full. Prisoner's own statement is that he got rid of the money in this way: Workmen for wages, £75; Prudential Assurance Company, premium, £5 12s. 5d.; horse racing, £50; horse racing, £200; horse racing, £60; workmen. £28 and £15; Rubilosky. £120; Stoyer. £112; Koher, £82; other expenses, £22; personal expenses, £45 12s. 5d. Nothing was paid therefore to any business creditors.
Cross-examination of the debtor was then read.
(Monday, November 26.)
Mr. Graham Campbell observed that, as £435 of the bank notes for which the Fisher cheques were changed were still outstanding, his Lordship might think it proper to postpone sentence.
The Common Serjeant thought it a case in which sentence should be postponed. Nobody could doubt that prisoner had put all this money away for his own benefit, and he ought to have an opportunity of disclosing where it is. Some of it, it was known, had gone to Samuel and Co. Sentence would therefore be postponed to next Sessions. If prisoner should make restitution by disclosure that, of course, would be taken into consideration; if he did not he must take the consequences.
Mr. Purcell asked that certain cheques might he returned to the solicitor of the prisoner for production in the action of Alien v. Fisher, which was being revived.
The Common Serjeant said the documents in the case would be kept here, but if they were wanted they could easily be obtained. As regards Fisher, he was surprised that he had not been more careful.
THIRD COURT; Thursday, November 22.
(Before Judge Lumley Smith.)
WEBB, Alfred James (36, provision merchant), JACKSON, George Frederick (53, provision merchant), and TAYLOR, George Frederick (29, provision merchant) ; all in incurring a certain debt and liability to the amount of £11 10s. 9d. to Keevil and Best, Limited, did obtain credit under false pretences and by means of fraud other than false pretences; Jackson and Taylor, obtaining by false pretences from Arthur Edward Sowerbutts and others, 10 boxes of butter, with inteat to defraud; Jackson and Taylor in incurring a certain debt and liability to the said Arthur Edward Sowerbutts and others, did obtain credit under false pretences and by means of fraud other than false pretences: Taylor, in incurring a certain debt and liability to John Gibbs, did obtain credit under false pretences and by means of fraud other than false pretences.
Mr. Travers Humphreys and Mr. E. P. Boyd prosecuted. Mr. J. W. Thatcher defended Webb.
Mr. ALBIN SIEBER, salesman to Keevil and Best, provision merchants, 71, Cowcross Street. On July 28 Webb and Taylor called and saw me, introduced by their clerk, Fisher. They wanted to buy cheap bacon. They gave me the firm's card, Webb, Taylor, and Co., wholesale provision merchants, 18, doth Fair, West Smithneld. Bankers: London and County Bank." They bought bacon, for which they paid cash, £5 15s. 2d. which was delivered to 38, St. Peter's Street. On August 4 Webb and Taylor called again and bought bacon to the amount of £5 9s. They paid £1 6s. 4d. in cash. They said they had not sufficient cash to pay the balance, and if we would take a cheque on delivery it would be all right. I agreed to take a cheque, and gave orders that the goods should be delivered the same day. My carman subsequently handed me cheque, dated August 8, for £4 2s. 8d. They had not said anything about giving a post-dated cheque. It was paid into the firm's account and returned on the 11th marked "R. D." On the 7th. and before it came back, they came and said they wanted more goods, and they bought goods to the amount of £7 11s. Id. I did not know the cheque was not met,
but I told them "On this occasion I must have cash," and they agreed to pay cash on delivery. I sent a ticket marked "Cash only," but my carman subsequently handed me a cheque of August 8 for £7 8s., and I paid it into the bank. On August 11 the £4 2s. 8d. cheque came back and I went to their office in Cloth Fair and saw Webb and Taylor. I told them the cheque was returned and they seemed surprised. They said there was money there to meet it and if it were paid in again it would be all right. I asked them about the second cheque and they said that would be met. I paid the first one in again and it came back dishonoured. The second cheque came back on the 14th also dishonoured. I called somewhere about the 14th and saw Webb, Taylor, and Jackson and asked for an explanation. Webb told me he was leaving the firm and Jackson (Ferguson) was bringing money into the business and when the thing was settled they would pay up; that would be in a week's time. On the 15th somebody paid £2 into the firm. On the 17th I saw Webb and Jackson (Ferguson) at same office. Wright, their clerk, was there. They said the partnership was not completed and that Jackson would not do anything until it was complete. As a matter of fact neither of these two cheques were taken up.
Cross-examined. I did not know Webb or Taylor before this.
DANIEL J. WARD , carman to Keevil and Best. On August 4 I took some bacon to 38, St. Peter's Street, and saw Webb. He said, "Will you take a cheque?" I said, "Yes, I expect it will be all right." I handed over the goods and got the cheque, the date of which I did not notice, for £4 2s. 8d.; it is dated August 8.
CLYDE FORSDYKE , cashier, London, and County Bank, Tower Bridge branch. On June 27 I saw Webb and Taylor at the bank, and they opened an account in the name of Webb, Taylor, and Co. They both signed the book in my presence, "Alfred James Webb and George Frederick Taylor, provision merchants, 18, Cloth Fair." I produce a certified extract from the bank books showing the account of Webb, Taylor, and Co. from July 4 to August 20. On August 1 balance to credit was £1 13t. 2d. During the following day they paid in £1 5s., making £2 18s. 2d., and that continued to be the balance in their favour up to August 8. On August 8 it was reduced to £116s. On August 14 it was £1 7s. 6d. The two cheques produced were paid into the bank and dishonoured. The first one was re-presented and again dishonoured, and the second one also, and never paid. There were no funds till the close of the account to pay either of them. I saw both Webb and Taylor from time to time, and I spoke to them both about the state of the account. I told Taylor that the account was very unsatisfactory and that unless he improved it or properly conducted the account we should have to close it up. Before I spoke to Taylor there were cheques dishonoured; that was the reason why I spoke of its being unsatisfactory and also the small balance they
were keeping. I have never spoken to Webb. The manager sent for him on one occasion and I was present part of the time. The manager spoke about the unsatisfactory state of the account and told Webb and Taylor that unless they could conduct the account in a better way and introduce some capital into the account we must close it as soon as the cheque-book was exhausted and not issue another cheque-book.
Cross-examined. On June 27, when Taylor and Webb were in the bank, to the best of my belief they were by themselves. Previous to June 27 Taylor had had a private account with us. Webb had not a private account. Taylor having had a private account was known to us, and that was sufficient introduction. We had no other introduction than that.
To Taylor. You did not give a cheque on account of the firm of Webb, Taylor, and Co.
To Mr. Thatcher. I did see Jackson with the other two prisoners at the bank. There was a conversation between the three, and the manager and I was present part of the time. Webb stated that Jackson would be introducing some capital into the firm, but I do not think any date was stated. It was said in my presence, and in the presence of three persons, that Jackson was introducing capital into the business. The date was, approximately, towards the end of July.
JOHN GIBBS , provision merchant, 89, Walworth Road. I have known Taylor some years. He called on me on August 21 and asked if I would trust him with some goods and I agreed to let him have goods to the value of £9 0s. 3d. on credit. They were delivered to 38, St. Peter's Street. I thought it was Taylor's business, but I knew he had a partner. That was the address given by him. On August 24 he called on me and gave me a cheque in payment of these foods for £9 0s. 3d., signed George F. Taylor, dated 27th, and asked for more credit. He said One cheque would be met. He had goods to the value of £20 9s. 9d., delivered on following day to the same address. When I gave him credit I believed he was entitled to draw cheques on the London and County Bank in the name of Taylor, and that they would be met. I paid the cheque into my bank in the ordinary course and it was returned marked "No account as drawn," I met Taylor 10 days afterwards accidentally and asked him about the cheque. He said he would pay it in a few days as he was selling some shares. He did not explain why he drew the cheque or why the cheque was dishonoured. He did not say anything to me about his partners. I have not been paid for these goods. I think he said the value of the shares which he was selling was about £50.
To Jackson. I saw you there about twenty past one. You said you were waiting for the staff.
CLYDE FORSDYKE , recalled. The cheque for £9 0s. 3d. was presented on August 28 and returned marked "No account." At that time there was no account in the name of G. F. Taylor. Two years previously he had had an account. The cheque was issued to him on his private account, which had been closed.
To Taylor. If an account stands in the name of a firm, we do not honour cheques drawn by partners in their own name. Cheques go back to the customer after they are paid.
ARTHUR JOHN DEACOCK , commission agent, Streatham. I have known Taylor some years. On August 29 I met him, and he introduced me to Ferguson, who is Jackson. He said he was a man of money, and was going to open several shops, and might be some good to me. He told me he was carrying on business at 38, St. Peter's Street, and had an office in Cloth Fair under the name of Taylor and Ferguson. I understood they were partners. Ferguson gave an order for £10 worth of margarine—22 packets. It was to be delivered at 38. St. Peter's Street, but it never was delivered. Ferguson asked me if I could sell him any butter. I said I did commission work for Sowerbutt's, of Tooley Street, and it was arranged that I should meet him on Tuesday and take him to their warehouse. The margarine being a first transaction, and having no reference, I said I should require cash. He said he did not require credit. I met slim by appointment on Tuesday, 30th, and took him to Sowerbutt's place of business in Tooley Street. I introduced him to them as a possible buyer, who would be prepared to pay cash. I said that so as to protect myself. I was present when he gave an order to Sowerbutt's for 10 boxes of butter, of the value of £25 gross, with a discount for cash. He said he should be wanting some cheese the next day or the day after. I do not know what transpired between Sowerbutt's and Ferguson. On September 1 I met prisoner Jackson, and went with him to Sowerbutt's office. I saw him give a cheque to Sowerbutt's representing £24 6s., and I heard him give a farther order for 10 cheese. On that occasion somebody spoke to me about Ferguson while I was in the warehouse, and I stopped the delivery of the margarine, and Sowerbutt's stopped delivery of the cheese. With regard to the 10 boxes of batter, the delivery note was given two days before.
Cross-examined. I knew Taylor as a salesman, and I did not know anything against him. Webb had nothing to do with these transacttions. I knew him as being in the trade. I never saw Jackson in my life.
Jackson. This transaction took place in Surrey. Had the magistrate any power to act?
The Court. If the offence charged took place within the jurisdiction of this Court, that is enough.
To Jackson. You told me you did not require credit and you would pay cash.
was introduced to me by Mrs. Deacock. Deacock said that Jackson would be a cash buyer, and that he wanted tome butter to retail at 1s. a pound. My price was 100s. a case, and he said the price was too high to retail at 1s., but he would take 10 cases if I could put the price at 98s., and, he added, "I am a cash buyer, and I do not require any credit. You do not require to keep a staff of clerks to keep books for me. I pay cash for everything." On that basis I agreed to let him have it for cash at the price he offered—98s. instead of 100s. That brought it, with the discount, to £24 6s. I agreed to sell 10 boxes at that price. He asked me for the invoice and delivery order, and said, "I will post you a cheque to-night." I gave him the delivery order on Cotton's Wharf for that amount of butter, and he went away with it. The cheque for £24 6a. was afterwards received by my clerk and paid into the bank and returned dishonoured and unpaid. The butter was taken the same afternoon. I believed that he was in a position to pay cash when he had the delivery order.
Cross-examined by Jackson. I gave you the delivery order with the invoice, and you said the cheque would be posted that night. I heard that such a firm as Webb, Taylor, and Co. had started. Either Webb or Taylor met my partner, Stevens, and stated that they had commenced business, but they would be very pleased if they could use our name as a reference, and he, being a good-natured man, said "Yes," and, to my surprise, a few days afterwards we were inundated with references from Manchester, Liverpool, and all over the place. I wrote to the people and stopped them at once. I said, "We know nothing about their standing, and I must ask you not to give credit on our recommendation." I wrote to Webb, Taylor, and Co. a line to the tame effect. I had no idea you were connected with Webb, Taylor, and Co.
To Mr. Thatcher. Roughly speaking, I should think it was two months before Ferguson called on us that our firm gave the reference in favour of Webb, Taylor, and Co. At that time I did not know that Ferguson was connected with Webb, Taylor, and Co. I never heard of Ferguson except on that day. My partners afterwards found our that Jackson was connected with Webb, Taylor, and Co.
ERNEST FREDERICK STEVENS , salesman. I saw my partner, Sowerbutt, receive this cheque for £24 6s. from Ferguson. It was too late to pay it into the bank on that day, and it was paid in on the Monday and returned the same day marked "Refer to drawer." It was paid into the bank again and returned again. It hat never been paid. On September 4 I saw Taylor and Ferguson together in the street. When Taylor saw me he dodged behind a van and ran away. I ran past Ferguson after Taylor, and took him back to the office. I asked him to go back, and he said he was coming back in a few minutes. I told him the cheque was returned. He said it was rather funny. Ferguson said, "It would have been all right if you had sent in the cheese." I said, "Very likely."
Cross-examined. I have known Webb a long time in the trade. I have always known him as being a respectable member of the trade.
To Taylor. You certainly ran away. You were coming round the corner with Ferguson and dodged behind a van. I ran past Ferguson and ran after you. Perhaps you changed your mind.
THEOPHILUS VEGGIA , chief clerk to Hay's Wharf, and in charge of Cotton's Wharf. On August 30. at half-past four, this delivery note was brought to me by Neal's carman, and I delivered the goods to him—10 boxes of butter.
Cross-examined. I have known Webb in his official capacity, and have always known him as being a respectable member of the trade He has been employed in several places with whom Hay's Wharf have business transactions during several years past.
To Taylor. I have known you in the trade a good many years.
BENJAMIN STANNARD , clerk in the London and South-Western Bank, Smithfield branch. On September 1 Ferguson called and gave me his card of Webb, Taylor, and Co., and said he wished to open a private account. He said the firm were banking at the London and County Bank, Tower Bridge branch, and they would be transferring the account to us. He said the firm was Webb, Taylor, and Co., and his name was Ferguson. He did not give the name of the other partners. He said Taylor was going out of the business, and he was taking Taylor's place. I did not know him at all. I did not know Webb, Taylor, and Co. before this. He gave Mr. Bird as reference. I allowed him to open an account before I took of the reference. He paid in £8 cash, and I gave him a cheque book.
To the Court. I am not manager, but clerk. The manager was away on his holidays.
To Mr. Humphreys. I produce the certified copy of the account. It shows he paid in £8 on that day and £7 12s. 6d. on the 3rd. That is the total amount paid in. It was all drawn out between September 1 and 12 except Is. 11d., which still stands to the credit of the account the cheque for £24 6s. was presented on the 3rd by Sowerbutt's bank and dishonoured. On that day there was only about £13 in the account. There was never enough to meet the cheque. We wrote to Ferguson, and got an answer from him. The second time the cheque was presented it was returned, inked, "Orders not to pay."
To Jackson. I am sure you said that Taylor was in the business. No other cheque was returned.
To Mr. Thatcher. Ferguson came to open this account on September 1.
To Taylor. I am sure that Ferguson said that you were going out of the business.
the name of the firm was Webb, Taylor, and Co. He told me the name was Jackson. The next day I called at 18, Cloth. Fair and saw Webb. Jackson was there. He was introduced by Webb to me as Jackson. Webb said in Jackson's presence that £300 had been placed in the business. Jackson did not make any comment. They told me they were opening a shop at 38, St. Peters Street. On July 16 I got an order from Webb, Taylor, and Co. for £60 worth of goods, and they were delivered the following day at 38, St Peter's Street. They have not been paid for. Afterwards I saw Jackson and Taylor at our office, and they asked us to have the lease of the shop, 38, St Peter's Street, assigned to us as security against a further credit of £50 or £60. I saw Webb on July 19 at their office in Cloth Fair, and he said that they had had some trouble with their banking account, because they had arranged to pay in money to toe Ludgate Hill branch of the London and County Bank instead of the Tower Bridge branch, and the money had not been transferred from Aldersgate Street quick enough to Tower Bridge, and that was the reason way some of their cheques were returned unpaid. On July 16 we had a cheque for previous goods, but no cheque for the £60 worth. On July 24 he made an empty promise from a friend of his who would pay all the creditors in full if we would make the firm bankrupt in order to get Jackson and Taylor out of it. Fisher was there when he said it.
Cross-examined. Webb said he wished to get Jackson, and Taylor out of it because he wished to take the business at 38, St. Peter's Street on his own account. He said he could not get his friend to pay all the creditors in full unless Jackson and Taylor were out of it On August 11 Taylor had goods to to amount of £5 7s. 7d. It was not the firm of Webb, Taylor, and Co., bat only Taylor. Our solicitors have the lease, and we have refused to give it up.
STEVES SARATZ , 42, Hop Exchange. On July 10 our firm delivered goods to Webb, Taylor, and Co. Fisher introduced the firm to me. I saw Webb. I knew Taylor before. I knew he was a partner in Webb, Taylor, and Co. I did not know Jackson. On July 10 I delivered goods to the value of £5 on July 18 goods to the value of £16 6s. 4d.; on July 26, £16 16s. 5d. The goods which were delivered on July 10 were paid for by cheque, but the last items were not paid for. I saw Taylor, and asked him when he was likely to pay the amount owing, and he said he did not cars whether the amount was paid or not; he did not care what happened to him. He said something was wrong with the firm.
Cross-examined. I had known Taylor before by sight, and knew nothing against him. My firm lost £38. I was paid £30 and lost £38
for some time, and the conversation ended. The next time I saw him (Webb) was at the Hop Exchange, when he called on the firm which I represented. That was the first time I knew anything about the firm of Webb, Taylor, and Co. He showed me the card, and he also said he bad two gentlemen, both of whom had plenty of money. He said they carried on business at Cloth Fair. Then he came and asked us whether we could supply him with eggs. He said he wanted a clerk, and asked me if I would go to him and I went as clerk to Webb, Taylor, and Co. in July. The firm consisted of three, Taylor, Webb, and Jackson, who was also called Ferguson. His real name was Ferguson, but Webb in introducing him to the solicitor gave toe name of Jackson. I stayed with them three weeks and left the last day of July. I was supposed to get 35s. a week but it was only 25s. Webb said business was bad. The books were opened by Webb, and an accountant come in and looked at them, Sir, they were in a hopeless muddle. On July 31 I saw a solicitor I with Wright, my fellow clerk, and Taylor 'and Webb. In consequence of the solicitor's advice Wright and I left the same day. I told the three of them that I was leaving that day.
Cross-examined. I did not know much about Webb. Jackson was financing the business. He told me he was putting £300 into the business, and more if it was wanted. I believed it Jackson received the money that came in and paid it into the bank.
To the Court. They had a wholesale establishment in Cloth Fair and a retail shop in St. Peter Street.
To Mr. Thatcher. The firm bought eggs from Saratzky, which went to the shop in St. Peter's Street. When I found out that the business was not going on satisfactorily I went with Webb to Saratzky and gave him back the delivery order which he had given, and I told him I did not think the firm wit in a good position. Webb was there and Saratzkys clerk. I went with Webb to the largest creditors of the firm to make a statement. It was while Webb was the firm, but after I had left it. We went to Sharp and Hermanson and to Saratzky. Webb said the thing was not as he thought it would be and that something was wrong in the firm, and if they would make him bankrupt the business could be well conducted. I used to go to Webb for petty cash and he went to Jackson.
CHARLES WRIGHT , traveller, 38, Kelvin Road, Highbury. On June 25 I was introduced by Webb to Taylor and Jackson, and I subsequently agreed to get orders for them on commission. Early in July I become their traveller at £3 a week. I was paid in cash and goods.
Cross-examined. I was in the front shop for one week, and the next week I went into the country to get orders. There was a very good business in the shop. It might have been made a good business. Webb was the one who was putting his back into it.
Police-Sergeant JOHN KENWARD. On September 28 I had a warrant for the arrest of prisoners. I saw Jackson at 18, Cloth Fair and told him I wm going to arrest him on a charge of fraud. He said, "There are two or three others you want as well." I took him to the station,
and on the way he said, "I have nothing to do with the business. I don't see what you can do with me." He afterwards said, "My name is not Jackson, but Ferguson." On September 29 I saw Webb and read the warrant to him. He replied, "All right, I have been expecting this. This was all through Ferguson. I wish I had never met him. But I don't see what you can do with me. I have had nothing to do with the business since August 26 and the books will clear me."
Police-Sergeant WALTER HENBEST. On September 29 I went to Tooley Street with Sergeant Hawkins and saw Taylor. I said I should arrest him for obtaining goods of Keevil and Best by fraud. He said, "Yes, I thought that was what it would come to. I ought never to have had anything to do with Jackson. I first mat him at a public-house: we got into conversation. He said he could do a good business in toe provision line if he had a partner with a little money. He said he would put £300 into the business; I had a good character and was well known. I could get a good amount of goods on credit. I agreed to go into partnership with him, thinking he really had got £300." He afterwards said, "It that the only charge?" I said, "Yes, at present; but no doubt there will be several others." He said, "Of course, you know his right name is Ferguson?"
Police-Sergeant HAWINS. On September 29 I saw the three prisoners and read the warrant to them. The charge against Taylor was obtaining goods from Keevil and Best for fraudulent pretence. He said, "Yes. You mean the company of Webb, Taylor, and Co. They got the foods; Jackson was the company." Webb said, "I hear what you say; but that is not correct. I left the firm on August 21."
ALFRED JAMBS WEBB (prisoner, on oath). I first came into contact with Jackson about the commencement of June this year. Taylor and I were in the "Saracen's Head" having a cup of tea and Jackson accosted me. He said he had been told by a mutual friend that I was out of work. I assented, and he said he thought of starting business and would I and Taylor join him. Taylor was there. He said he had' some £300 which he would put into the business, and also had some shares which he would sell. I believed it. I talked the business over with Taylor, whom I had known for 10 years. Jackson was to look after the finances. Taylor and I promised that we would start on condition that the business should be carried on in a straight-forward, honest way. We had a little warehouse in Cloth Fair, and started trading at Webb, Taylor, and Co. There were three of us in the business—Taylor, Jackson, and myself, Jackson paying the rent. Neither Taylor nor I had any money. We opened an account of the London and County Bank, Tooley Street. There was some money banked in the name of Taylor. Subsequently I went with Taylor an interview with the manager, and produced to him
my references at his request, and the manager took my signature and Taylor's. I went to several friends in Tooley Street and told them how I was placed. Some gave me seven days' credit and some one month. We engaged a typist I met Fisher in Tooley Street and asked him to come with us. I asked him to see Jackson and Taylor. Then he was engaged as one our servants. Our accounts were paid regularly. Whenever any cheques were made out Jackson told us he would see that the amount was in the bank to meet them. At first I honestly believed it; afterwards I did not We opened a shop in St. Peter's Street, and that was a grand business with a good future. I drew a cheque in favour of Keevil and Best at the request of Jackson, which I honestly believed would be met on the Monday. I told Taylor I was very sorry, and that I should sign no more cheques till I knew that the money was in the bank. Taylor and I went round and paid Keevil and Best £21. I drew 30t. a week from the business from the second week in June to the first week in August. I saw Mr. Hermanson, and told him I was not satisfied with the way business was going on, and that Fisher had promised that his brother would come in if Jackson and Taylor went out of the business. I suggested that our firm should be made bankrupt because Jackson had not met his promises. Fisher and I went to Saratzky's and saw the manager. I went to a solicitor for advice, and he advised me to get out of the business and get all the money I could and pay the creditors. Then I went to Croft and Mortimer, solicitors, 15, Coleman Street, and they drew up a deed of dissolution of the partnership. I went out, and Jackson and Taylor remained in. That was on August 21. Croft and Mortimer have the deed.
To Jackson. You handled all the money. Too brought the money to the office from St. Peter Street and handed it over to Taylor, and he took it to the bank. Sometimes cash was paid out for goods bought in the market.
To the Court. There was no book of takings; I got tome sheets of paper which I could not make head or tail off. The manageress had not been used to trade, only in a greengrocer's store.
Cross-examined. Jackson was not a complete stranger to me when I met him in June; I had known him 3 1/2 years previously. It was at the first interview with him in the "Saracen's Head" that he asked me if I would go into partnership, and told me he had £300. It was arranged within a day or two to go into partnership; perhaps a week before the bank account was opened on June 23 Taylor and I went and opened this account. Jackson was not there. Taylor and I were the only ones who could draw cheques. At soon as there was money in the firm and Jackson told us to draw, we drew cheques. I do not know when I first discovered that the £300 was not coming into the firm. As soon as the first cheque was dishonoured I spoke do Jackson; that was the first week in July. It was Klyne's. Jack son made repeated excuses, saying he wise too busy to pay the £300 in. I did not believe it then.
Cross-examination resumed. When I went to the police station with Wright Fisher had bought seven or eight eases of eggs from Sartoza, which had not been paid for. Fisher told me he wanted to sell them to someone, and had no opportunity of getting the money. I went to the police station because I thought Jackson was going to cheat me. I knew he bad deceived me in the matter of the £300. We were doing a legitimate business, and the money was being paid into the bank from time to time. On a particular Saturday, when I postdated the cheque, I thought the Saturday's takings would be paid in in time to meet it Jackson asked me to draw the cheque, and said the money would be there to meet it. We would take on a Saturday from £60 to £70, perhaps, with the stall in Chapel Street. I do not suggest that £60 or £70 would be paid into the bank, for the expauses were very heavy. There were only two or three cheques out, think, at that period. They were ultimately met, perhaps two or three days after. I poet-dated the cheque for Monday Taylor knew had drawn it. Cash was paid out for the meat and the carmen and the ordinary salaries—about £20 in a week, which would be paid on Saturday. I cannot say when Mr. Seber or Keevil and Beet came to the office that I spoke about the return of the first cheque, or whether I was there, Taylor and I were the only ones who could draw cheques on that bank. I did not, on any occasion before I drew a cheque, go to the bank to find out what the balance was. There was a pass-book which Fisher or Taylor brought from time to time. I am sorry to say I did not look at the pass-book. When we first started we kept a rough account to see what the balance was. I was not in work when Jackson spoke to me in the public-house it he middle of June. I am a married man. I started with Jackson without inquiry. Sometimes a drowning dog will clutch at a straw, I believed that he was a straightforward man, and that he spoke the truth about the £300.
Re-examined. If the cheque was post-dated on Wednesday, August 8 it was a mistake, and I meant it for Monday. I believed there would be the money to meet it. The takings would come from the shop and the stall. The stall alone has taken, perhaps, as much as £20 on a Saturday night. After Jackson had paid the salaries to the employes he brought the money to the office in St. Peter's Street, which is 10 minutes' walk from Chapel Street. A manager keeps the stall, and he would pay the takings over to Jackson. Some of the Cheques that were dishonoured were eventually met. I think it is a common thing in a struggling business for cheques to be sometimes dishonoured. I did not go with Taylor to Keevil and Best on the second occasion. I do not think I have made a mistake. I know Jackson was there on the second occasion, and I think I was. I cannot recollect who else. Seber asked about the accounts, as far as I recollect, and I think Jackson told him that, they would be met all night. I was surprised when Seber told us that the cheque was not
met, at I naturally expected the money ought to be there to meet it. I kept an ordinary account to show how accounts were paid, and then Fisher, when tie came, altered it to his way of keeping the books. I absolutely believed that Jackson would find the money for the business.
By the Court. We banked at Ore London and County, Tower Bridge, but sometimes paid into the Aldgate Branch, it being nearer, and they passed it on perhaps the next day. I have worked as hard as I could from Saturday night to Sunday morning telling butcher's meat. What was sold over the counter had to be paid for in cash, which Jackson had charge of, and would go into the bank after payment of salaries. Jackson used to pay my wife on Saturday night or Sunday morning £1. I relied on Jacksons statement that there would be money to meet the cheque. I had no intention of getting goods from Keevil and Best without paying for them. Wright and I went to the solicitors the first time. I was then getting dissatisfied with the business. I told Hermanson that money would be placed in the business by Jackson, which I believed to be true. I asked his people to come up and see the shop. Fisher and I taw him and told him the position of the firm. The firm was all right, but, of course, I am tied and can't say what I ought to, really. I had correspondence with the country as to prices and quotations. We had a typewriter on hire. We wrote for orders and produce. I had been out of work a considerable time.
The Judge, having read letters of recommendation in favour of Webb on hit trying for employment, said he appeared to be of good reputation at that time.
Cross-examined by Jackson. I never said you told goods without bringing money to the shop. I was afraid you would let some people have goods for which you would not get the money. You told me £60 or £70 had been taken on a Saturday. You handled the money. I was present when the money was paid and called over from the list and taw the people paid. I did not tee the balance left. You told me you were there all the time, and you were running across to the public-house. You said there was not enough to meet the cheque, but that it would be there on Monday. You told Fisher, Taylor, and me of the existence of the £300. You said your with was to put down £300 in the book, and I should see the money there all right.
THEODORE FISHER , recalled. It is not true that Taylor, Wright, and Webb had the idea of purchasing the business in St. Peter's Street, Islington, but there might have been a customer for it if it had been sound.
Prisoner JACKSON, in his defence from the dock, read a very long written statement to the effect that he met Webb and Taylor at the "Saracen's Head" on June 15, when he said he told them he was going to open a business and sell goods on commission and they met the following day. They afterwards saw an office to let, and they joined and took it and started business—Webb was the only one out
of work—that they sent out circulars to the country and took the shop in St. Peter's Street on a 21 years' lease, that they met at Messrs. Croft and Mortimer's, solicitors, of 15, Coleman Street to arrange things. The shop was then opened, and the stall in Chapel Street, Islington, and the expenses of the staff amounted to over £30 a week. Webb took Fisher and Wright into his confidence and went to a solicitor in Mark Lane, that everything would have gone right if Taylor, Fisher, and Wright had not made statements that stopped their credit; that when Webb was preparing matters for the accountant he put in £300, and stated that was the sum that he (Jackson) was going to put into the business, which was not so; that it was agreed that the money taken at the hop and stall should be handed to him every night, and that he should bring a note of it to the office every morning. That was done, and after he had given out the money to buy meat for the shop and to pay the incidental expenses, the balance (if any) was banked by either Webb, Taylor, or Fisher; that he never went to the Bank himself, and that if he was going to pay £300 into the bank he should consent to sign the cheques himself. He asked for a verdict of acquittal, and stated the matter should have gone to the Bankruptcy Court.
Prisoner TAYLOR read a similar statement in his defence: That he was never able to get at the amount that Jackson had; that it was arranged that Webb should go out of the business on the understanding that Ferguson and himself should carry it on, and then they went to Messrs. Croft and Mortimer to arrange matters; that he issued a cheque on the bank in his own name, being assured by Ferguson that the money would be at the bank to meet it; that he had done the same thing before, and it had been honoured; that he wished, several times, to withdraw from tire concern, but Ferguson paid he should want some money; that when Ferguson opened the account at the London and County Bank, Smithfield, he told him that he (Taylor) was going out and he was coming in.
Verdict: Webb, Not guilty.
Jackson and Taylor, Guilty. Jackson was proved to have been convicted several times and to have still a year to serve, being out on ticket of leave. Taylor had been in custody since September 29 and appeared to have been respectable till he met with Jackson. Jackson was sentenced to four years' penal servitude. Taylor was discharged on his own recognisance in £20 to come up for judgment when called upon.
OLD COURT; Friday, November 23.
(Before Mr. Justice Grantham.)
Mr. Cecil Walsh prosecuted; Mr. C. F. Gill, K.C., and Mr. Muir defended.
Mr. Cecil Walsh said that this was a charge of rape upon a servant maid. He had looked at the depositions, and given the matter careful consideration, and his view was that in all the circumstance there was no reasonable prospect of persuading a jury that what was done was done in such a way as to establish the legal requirements of rape. It seemed to him that no public interest would be served it pursuing the matter further, and he therefore did not propose to offer any evidence. The young woman was pregnant, and there was no doubt that this course would not affect any civil liability which might rest on the defendant in the matter.
Mr. Justice Grantham said he thought Mr. Walsh was quite right There was not a ghost of a chance of getting a conviction in the case.
A jury was sworn, and, by his lordship's direction, returned a verdict of Not guilty.
FOURTH COURT; Friday, November 23.
(Before Judge Lumley Smith.)
Mr. Bryce prosecuted.
Detective-Sergeant WILLIAM EUSTACE, K Division. At about 1.15 p m., on October 16, I saw prisoner in Burdett Road, close to Bow Road. He went into Edwards Road, a short turning, and I went the opposite way. When I got to the corner of that road and Bow Road I met prisoner; he struck me on my hand and ran away; after a dozen paces he stopped. At that time I saw two other officers crossing the road towards him; they came across, and the three of us caught hold of him. I said to prisoner, "What is the matter; what were you doing down there?" He said, "Eating myself." I took him back about 50 yards, and while the other officers held him I examined some promises, but found no marks. He pointed to a place, and said." I was easing myself there." That was in Edwards Road. I searched him, and in his inside jacket pocket I found a jemmy and a wedge (produced). If you open a door you can put the wedge in and keep the door as it is, and take a further leverage farther down. It is a good jemmy. When I found the jemmy in his pocket, he said, "I picked it up down there," and pointed to the ground. He was then taken to the Bow Police Station, and the charge was read over to him. The jemmy was then lying on the table, and he pointed to it, and said, "This don't belong to me; this is a get-up for me with the man at the bottom of the street." I said, "Who do you refer to?" He said, "I met him, and he gave me the jemmy." I asked him where he met the man, and he said, "At the top of the turning—he told me to pick it up." I did not see any
man with him. In the public-house that evening there ware a number of men; that was about 10.45.
To Prisoner. I think I caught you somewhere here, and your clothes gave way [describing]. Three officers did not come up to you with their slaves drawn. I did not say so at the police station.
To the Court. It was one of those places where he might have been easing himself. I examined the doors and windows of the public-house with a match. I could find no marks. The prisoner was in Edwards Road passing to and fro and nobody with him.
Detective GEORGE BURTON, K Division. I was in the Mile End Read, at the time in question and saw prisoner come oat of Eric Street. Sergeant Eustace went towards him, and I saw prisoner strike at Eustace and run across the road. He said, "What is the master?" Eustace said, "What are you doing round there?" Prisoner said, "Easing myself." I caught hold of his left hand with my right, and the detective with me caught hold of his other hand. He then took us back to this place in Edward Street, where he said be had eased himself. Sergeant Eustace asked him to point out where it was. I found this jemmy and wedge, and he said, "I picked that up just there," pointing to where he said he had eased himself. He said, "That jemmy does not belong to me; this is a get-up for me. The man I met at the top of the turning gave it me."
To Prisoner. I believe I said before the magistrate exactly what I have said here. I said I examined some premises 400 or 500 yards away and fitted these things into the marks. That was on the opposite side of the Burdett Road. I saw you strike at Eustace; you got away from him. Eustace arresting you drew my attentions to the occurrence. One officer got hold of you by the hand and came round to the public-house to see what had occurred there. Two officers got hold of another man, end I said, "Let him go, we don't want him." There were signs in the place of you or somebody having eased himself.
Prisoner's statement before the magistrate." On August 7 last I was discharged from Pentonville. I joined the Church Army for certain work they promised to give me. Last Monday week I went to them again, and went again to Euston Road; there was no work at building where I tried to get it. At 6.30 p.m. I stood at the corner of Burdett Road, and a men named Parley came and took me to a public-house. I stayed till 12.30, and spoke to a woman. I went down the street to ease myself; a man came up to me as I sat there; be said, 'Put this in your pocket'; I asked what it was; he said, 'A bit of iron.' I put it in my pocket, and the officer came up and actually got hold of the other man, and one of the officers said. 'No, we don't want him, let him go.' I had no intentions. I had been home two months, and have not had a penny to dress my self. I walked nine miles each way this day to get work."
You came up and spoke to me. You took me into the public-house and we had several drinks. I stopped with you till 12.30. You said, "I am going to ease myself." I said, "Good-night," and walked in the opposite direction.
To the Court I did not point out to him a jemmy lying on the pavement. I left him at the corner of Bridge Road. I have never seen the jemmy before. I never saw prisoner till I spoke to him that night.
Verdict, Guilty. Prisoner also confessed to having been convicted of a similar offence at this Court on February 10, 1902, and several other convictions were proved against him. Sentence, Four years penal servitude.
Mr. Comes prosecuted.
WILLIAM BARNARD , auctioneer, 9, High Road, Chiswick. I first came to know prisoner by his giving a reference for one of my clerks about the end of April. After my clerk had been with me a few weeks the prisoner came into the office and asked to see my clerk, who was out, so he asked my brother, then in the office, if he could see the principal (myself). He was introduced to me, and we had a very interesting talk. He said he was a colonel. I had a letter from him first of all containing the references about my clerk. He signed it "Edward Clarke, D.S.O., etc., Colonel." He told me of all his experience in Egypt and the Soudan—that his brother was a majorgeneral, and that he was of good family, and his daughter was Lady Ramsey. He first of all told me about his shoulder; that he had broken it, and had a shattered knee, and could not walk very well, and that he had his jaw broken, and it was for those services that he had obtained the D.S.O., and how the Queen had pinned a decoration on his breast, and what she had said to him. He was with me about an hour, and then he came in from time to time for quite a month. He used to come sometimes in the morning, sometimes in the afternoon, and sometimes after the office was closed, and we had pleasant chats together and got very friendly. On June 18 he said to me, "I should be glad, Barnard, if you would let me have £2 till the 24th as pin money. I get my pension on quarter day." So I gave him the £2. Then he came on the next day and had another sovereign, and the next day another, sad also another, and then he gave me a cheque on Cox's Bank, and said, "If you will just put this through your bank in the ordinary way." I thought it was rather strange business, as it was on a plain piece of paper. Not dealing with military men before, I thought it might be their custom. I knew Cox's were military bankers. I got it back a few days after marked, "No account." I never thought much about it. I thought a man living in a good house would have a good income to keep up appearances, especially as he told me he was a colonel and required a good deal of money
to get about among the people amongst whom he mixed. The next time he came, I think, on a Wednesday, I said, "Your cheque has been returned," and he said, "Damme! Has it? They shall give you an apology, and me, too. That it just like how men who have served their country are served. We give the best of our lives for our country, and then have to wait for our money." He said he would have to wait a further period before he got his pension. If he had asked me for 2s. 6d. I should have thought something of it, but it was because he asked me for large amount, at I thought equal to hit position, that I did not think much of it. I did not think any ordinary man would ask for £2, and another and another, and so on. I never had any suspicion, and when he said the thing was a matter of delay, and there was some reason that the money did not come in, I took it for granted. In the places where we went to luncheon together we met tome of the Borough Council of Hammersmith, and he used to salute them and tell me who they were, and used to point out to me different people that saluted him. If we went on an electric tram he would say, if a man saluted him, "That is one of my privates." A man came up to him one day and got 2s. from him, and he said, "Barnard, that is a man who served under me." Wherever we went, and people spoke to him, he would say, "You see how they respect me." I thought it was genuine. He never used to speak to me except in military terms. He never named the King without raising his hat; and, taking into consideration the different wounds he had, and undoubtedly he has a stiff knee, I thought it was all right.
To the Court. I parted with my money, believing all this. He said he was a late Colonel of the 3rd King's Royal Rifles—that their nickname was "The little black sweeps." He had done no work for me than. The £5 had nothing to do with any work.
To Prisoner. The first cheque you gave me was June 23, to meet your pension on June 25. This letter, signed by Edward Clark, G. H. Smith, and W. G. Barnard, "Having obtained possession of a building site known as Uxbridge Road, Shepherd's Bush, in the name of Barnard and Company, for the sum of £5,500, including £500 commission, we, the undersigned, agree to take one-third each of the proceeds arising from the sale thereof, which shall not exceed £8,000 "—is dated July 6. I have tracings of that drawing referring to the property in my office. That it subsequent to the time yon got my money.
HENRY WALTER JONES , 16, Dorchester Street, Chiswick, plumber. I have known prisoner four or five years, and saw him write this cheque for £5. When he gave it to Mr. Barnard I believe he said, "On account of pension." I did not know then that he was not Colonel Clarke.
To Prisoner. I saw you with the cheque in your hand; it was on a piece of plain paper.
for the regiment. We have no account for any Colonel Clarke. I have seen this cheque for £5, which I returned marked, "No account." I did not know the prisoner.
THOMAS RENWICK , lodging-house keeper, Kipling House, Hammersmith. Prisoner lodged at my place some time before September 26 He got into conversation with me first masonically, and then, talking of matters of building and other things, he told me that he was a colonel—that he was in rather straightened circumstances at the present time, waiting until the 5th of the following month to get his pension of £104 from Cox's Bank. He told me a rare tale, and asked me if I could assist him until he got this pension money by letting him have his lodging, which was 9d. a night, and 2s. 6d. a day for food, and on the 28th he came and told me that his boots were in a very bad state, and that he was ashamed to go about, and would I advance him 10s. to get his boots repaired and make himself respectable to go for his pension. On the 5th he bailed in the morning and said he was going up for his pension and would see me in the afternoon. He came back in the afternoon and said that the agents had not received his cheque and that he would have to go up the following day. I let him have 2s. 6d. and his lodging. On the 6th he went up and returned in the evening in a state of intoxication. He then began to tell me another tale—that he had not received this, money, but that it was all right, and would I take a cheque on Cox's Bank until Monday and then I could ret it. Of course, as he talked about drawing cheques on Cox's Bank I wanted to know where it was coming from, and I told him what I thought of him then, and he said he was not what I represented—that he was a gentleman. I said, "Well, opinions differ, and until you can prove yourself to me I shall still adhere to the opinion I have formed of you." I had advanced him £2 5s. in all. I thoroughly believed his story, that is why I parted with my money."
To Prisoner. You showed me some plans. I never saw the letter. You told me you were in difficulties till you received your pension, which would be on the 5th—on dividend day. You were never without a plan under your arm. We are both Masons, and you are a very bad Mason to divulge secrets.
DETECTIVE FREDERICK WHISTER , T Division. I arrested prisoner on October 30. When the charge was read to him as to Barnard, he said: "Nothing of the kind." I said, "Can you refer me to anyone who can give me any account of you to assist you, or tell me the regiment you were in." He said, "I have never been in the English Army. I was in the Egyptian Army." I said, "Is that, where you get your pension from?" He said, "I am in receipt of no pension."
PRISONER (not on oath). I was first attached to the Militia, King's Roval Rifles, 7th Battalion. I have served in Egypt and with the Egyptian Army—attached to the Staff. I retired with the rank of colonel, and had not a pension when I left the Service with a broken
shoulder, shattered knee, and broken jaw. I have served my country in the Egyptian Service nobly. I am nearly 60 years of age, and have always had an unblemished character. I served in Mr. Barnard's office from early in the morning till late at night for three months. I have never been convicted or in a place like this before. I have been now six weeks under arrest.
Detective WHISTER said he made inquiries at the War Office, but not having any number they could not assist him, but they searched the Egyptian Army record from the date it was established—namely, December 14, 1881, and no officer of that name was ever in the Egyptian Army. He found that he had been building about London for some years and begging money from foolish people, telling them they were good speculations, and from a man named Long, of Bloomsbury he had had £237, on the pretence of a good speculation to build some shops in Goldhawk Road, Shepherd's Bush. He had had various sums of different people, and obtained a house by fraud from a widow on a three years agreement by stating he was a pensioner in the Army; that he had a daughter who was about to be presented at Court, and also that his bungalow was coming from abroad by rail; but when his things arrived they were found to be only two old mattresses and odd things. He stopped in the house for a long time, and that it cost £12 10s. for the solicitors to get him out.
The Judge. Is he quite right in his mind?
Witness. He is a clever man and a clever draughtsman. His wife and children have been in charge of the workhouse and are now chargeable to the Borough Council of Hammersmith, and ever since he has been turned out of that house he has been living in lodgings and has borrowed money of shoeblacks and crossing-sweepers.
Sentence, Four months' imprisonment. Second division.
THIRD COURT; Saturday, November 24.
(Before the Common Serjeant.)
Mr. W. W. Lucas prosecuted.
ALBERT SAUNDERS , builder, Pembury Road, Hackney. On October 1 I was passing along Chapel Street, Clerkenwell, between one and half-past one in the daytime. I turned into a little urinal in the wall round the corner. It has a swing door which opens inwards, and when you are inside, of course, you can block it and keep it shut. I had about half finished when Prisoner and another man came in and got their arms round me without a moment's notice. They held down my arms. A third man came in, pushed by me, and got right in front of me and began to tear out my watch, and threatened to do
I do not know what if I did not give it up without resistance. Struggling with the two who had their arms round me I at last got my arms released, and I seized the one that was taking my watch with my left hand by the collar of his coat and fixed him there. Prisoner had a white scarf on, and I seized his scarf with my right hand. There is very little light in the urinal when the door is closed, but a little light came in at the top. A fourth man was keeping the door closed, but I have an idea that it was pushed open by people at the entrance seeing what was going on. There was a commotion outside. The man at the door it appeared to me was doing his best to get the other men out and shut me in, but as I was able to hold them we all went out into the road together. Outside it was perfectly daylight, and there was a crowd of not very desirable-looking man and I called upon them to help me. I saw the man I was holding clearly face to lace. Prisoner was one of them, and the other has already been put away. [Thompson, tried at the October Sessions, and sentenced to five years' penal servitude, see preceding volume, page 591.] No one would come to help me. Then some bigger man came behind prisoner, put his arms round him, and pulled him back, and the scarf I had hold of broke, and remained in my hand, and I took it to the station. Prisoner being rescued from me, I triad to held the other, but prisoner and the other man came between us and separated me from the other one by hitting me over the arms and hands. I had to release him, and then they all dwindled away in the crowd. The scarf produced is the scarf prisoner was wearing. On November 11 I was called to the station at King's Cross to identify prisoner. There were eight or nine men dressed like him, as nearly as possible, and under ordinary circumstances I should not have had any hesitation in identifying him, because, when I was struggling with him, I noticed that he had only one eye, but when I got there I found the right eye of all of them was covered, but after looking at him this way and then that I distinctly identified prisoner with half the face in view. When they afterwards uncovered their eyes there was nobody else with one eye, to my knowledge. I have since recovered the watch, the value of which is £6 10s.
To a Juror. The urinal is about 3 ft. wide and 6 ft. deep.
To Prisoner. There was no one in the urinal when I went in. The door was shut by the fourth man leaning back against it.
ARTHUR PRATT , aged 13, of 2, Godson Street, Clerkenwell. I remember on October 1 being near Chapel Street, Clerkenwell. I was just going home to dinner. I saw Saunders go into the urinal between the public bar and toe private bar. The urinal is locked at night. I saw prisoner go in and put his arms round Mr. Saunders. Then some other men went in. There was a struggle and they came outside. One of the men got the watch off Mr. Saunders, and then some big fellow came up and got prisoner and another man away. Saunders had cried out for help, but no one would help him because all these men go with one another. I followed Thompson, the man that had the watch. He went down White Lion Street, down another
turning, and then he got into Pentonville, near the Angel. Then I told the constable, who arrested him, and the watch was found on him. On November 10 I saw Cox coming through the street I live in. I followed him, and he went into a public-house called the "Lord Wolseley," two turnings off. I went down and told the police officer at Clerkenwell Station. I was told there that if I taw him I was to give him in charge for being concerned in this robbery. When I came back with an officer prisoner was gone out of the "Lord Wolseley" into the "Queen's Arms" just over the road. I pointed him out, and the police officer arrested him. I have seen prisoner before. He is one of a lot I see standing outside the "Salmon and Compasses" as I come home from school. I noticed that prisoner was wearing a white scarf when the robbery was committed.
Police Constable FRANK TROTT, G Division. On Saturday evening, November 10, I was in Penton Street. Clerkenwell. The witness Pratt pointed the prisoner out to me, and said, "There is the man." I went up to prisoner, who was standing outside the "Queen's Arms," and told him I was a police officer, and should arrest ham for being concerned with a man already sentenced in committing a robbery in Chapel Street en October 1. He said, "All right." I then took him to King's Cross Road Police Station, where he was detained. On Thursday morning the prosecutor attended, and prisoner was placed with nine other men about his own build and dressed similarly. The other men put their heads over the right eye. and prisoner placed his hand on the right side of his face. Saunders then identified him. He was charged with the robbery, and made no reply.
Prisoner asked witness whether he considered it a fair identification that he should be taken unwished from the cells after being in the station all night, and placed for identification with clean men with billycock hats on and nice overcoats.
Witness. Seven or eight out of the nine men who were placed with prisoner for identification were wearing mufflers and were dressed in fairly rough clothes. Nobody was dressed respectably at all. They were apparently working-men who had been out in the morning and were either leaving or going to work. When I took prisoner out of his cell I told him to put his muffler on and button his coat up so to make him look as he liked, and previous to that he had a chance of wishing himself, because this was about 12 o'clock in the day. After the identification prisoner was asked by the sergeant in the charge room if he was satisfied. He said, "Yes, I am perfectly satisfied. It was a very fair identification."
Prisoner. The prosecutor was just going to say no, he did not identify me when the station sergeant said, "Look to the front, and up and down the row," when prosecutor was standing right in front of me. Of course, I was standing in front of him, and he picked on me.
Witness. The station sergeant did not place the prosecutor anywhere at all. Prosecutor was in a room at the back when the men were being brought into the station. He was then sent for to the
charge room, where the men were standing in a row. When prosecutor came inside the officer in charge of the station was standing at a desk and told him in the usual way, "Look along these men, and if you can see anyone you know go and touch him." Prosecutor looked at the men right along and fixed his attention particularly on the prisoner. He was then asked by the officer if he saw anyone there he knew, and prosecutor said, "Yes, I see him." He was then standing just inside the charge room door. Prisoner was in the centre of the room, and prosecutor went up to and touched the prisoner and said that was the man.
PRISONER, in addressing the jury, admitted being in the urinal, but denied being concerned in the robbery.
Verdict, Guilty. Prisoner also confessed to a previous conviction.
Detective WILLIAM HALL, N Division, proved three previous convictions—six months at North London Police Court, on December 6, 1904, for larceny and receiving; on June 3, 1903, at Worship Street Police Court for stealing a pewter pot, six weeks' hard labour; and December 19, 1905, at North London Police Court for stealing lead, one month. In April of this year prisoner was convicted it Clerkenwell Police Court for stealing a cap and sentenced to six weeks' hard labour.
The Common Serjeant observed that merely to give a man a month or six weeks who had been twice previously convicted was really encouraging crime. The magistrate, if he had known of the previous convictions, should have sent the prisoner for trial.
Detective HALL added that prisoner formerly worked at a marine store dealer's, but now did no honest work. He was one of a gang who used the selling of cabbages in Market Street as a device for picking pockets and pilfering anything they could get hold of.
Sentence, Four years' penal servitude.
The Common Serjeant thought the boy Pratt had acted in an excellent manner and done a great service in securing the arrest of these two men. But for him neither would probably have been convicted. He would receive a reward of £2.
NEW COURT; Friday, November 23.
(Before the Recorder.)
GIBBS, Robert Hyett, and SMITH, Albert ; both conspiring and agreeing together to obtain by false pretences from the Guardians of the Poor of the Poplar Union the sum of £1 6s., with intent to defraud; Smith, unlawfully obtaining from. George Herbert Lough the sum of £1 6s., the property of the Guardians of the Poor of the Poplar Union, by false pretences with intent to defraud.
Mr. Clarke Hair and Mr. Barrington Ward prosecuted; Mr. R. D.
Muir, Mr. Abinger, and Mr. A. R. Forbes defended Smith; Mr. Schultess Young defended Gibbs.
Mr. Muir objected to the counts of the indictment for obtaining money by false pretences, on the ground that the defendants were committed only on the conspiracy charge. Charges on which the magistrates have refused to commit cannot be joined in an indictment with those on which he does commit unless the prisoner has been bound over as to the dismissed charges (Reg. v. Crabbe, 59 J.P., 247; Reg. v. Clarke, 59 J.P., 248).
The Recorder: I understand the magistrate here was not asked to commit upon the charge of obtaining by false pretences; there was no refusal, as in Reg. v. Crabbe. I shall not quash the indictment, but I will state a case, if that becomes necessary.
GEORGE HERBERT LOUGH . I have been Clerk to the Guardians of the Poor of the Poplar Union for 19 years. I produce minutes of a meeting of the Guardians on June 14, 1905, at which committees were appointed to visit institutions where the Guardians have pauper patients. Gibbs was present. Smith was not present at that meeting. or that of June 28, when the minutes were confirmed. Prisoners were appointed to visit five institutions, the County Lunatic Asylum as Kesteven, near Sleaford, Princess Mary Village Home, the School of the Blind, Leatherhead, the Girls Training Home, Clapton, and Colney Hatch Asylum. On July 14, 1905, Smith informed me that he and Mr. Gibbs were about to commence their visits, and asked me to let him have something on account of expenses. I gave him £5. I afterwards received a report of the visit to Leatherhead, I believe from Smith; it purports to be signed by both prisoners. In September, 1905, I received a report with reference to their visit to Kesteven, dated September 14, and signed by both prisoners. On October 17 Smith handed me account (produced) of expenses, £2 2s. 6d. for Leatherhead, signed by Smith only, and an account produced for £4 15s. for expenses to Kesteven, making a total of £8 17s. 6d., and I handed Smith the balance of £1 17s. 6d. Twelve visiting committees were appointed, and it is usual to appoint two guardians to visit each institution. Clover is the horse and carriage contractor to the Poplar Guardians. About October 9 he furnished me with account produced for £82 17s. 3d. for the quarter ending September 30, 1905, containing or July 14 the item, "Pair-horse brougham to Leatherhead, special, £2 15s."—that would be from Poplar. The word "special" means that it is to a place not mentioned in the contract schedule. On October 20, 1905, that account was paid by cheque produced of October 18, signed by three Guardians—Lindsay, Summer, and the prisoner Gibbs. The accounts are checked by an assistant in the accountants' room with the orders issued by the authorised official. Most of the orders would be given by the Master. Order produced for the trip to Leatherhead is signed by W. A. Madeley, the then Matter, who, I have heard, is in New Zealand. On October 11, 1906, Mr. Gordon, Local Government Board auditor, audited the accounts at the Union offices, Poplar, and I was present throughout the audit. It would be my duty to attend. The Leatherhead account, with tome others, was put aside
for consideration. The auditor's attention had been drawn to the Leatherhead account by Mr. Broodbank as being excessive only and requiring investigation, and the prisoners were asked to attend on October 15. When they attended I was present, and several other persons were in the room. The auditor asked the prisoners whether they could give any explanation of the charges, as he considered some of them were excessive. He asked Mr. Smith whether he took a cab to and from London Bridge. Smith said that he did, and that be paid 5s. Smith was then asked if he took the cabs to Leatherhead. He said he did; he paid 12s., and only charged 10s. Gibbs was then asked if he had anything to say. He said that he agreed with all that Mr. Smith had said. The auditor said he did not consider the charge for expenses was reasonable. Gibbs said that they had had a good dinner and did justice to it. The auditor expressed an opinion that it was not reasonable to charge 16s. 6d., and that he should surcharge. I believe the 16s. 6d. included lunch as well as dinner. The auditor looked at the Kesteven account, and I think came to the conclusion that it was not unreasonable. I received instructions from the Chairman to call a special meeting on November 6, 1906, which was held on November 7, and I submitted the report produced.
(Saturday, November 24, 1906.)
Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I hare no personal feeling in this matter. As a public official I endeavour to keep free from political questions. Recently there was a Local Government Board inquiry into the general administration of the Guardians, and the financial and industrial conditions, including alleged excessive expenditure The result of that inquiry was the publication of a report in October, 1906, by Mr. Davey, the Senior Local Government Board Inspector, which condemned in some degree the administration of the Board. The Progressives on the Board, I think, were 19, to 5 Moderates. Payments for expenses were made by me. There were no special allowances, but the Guardians were entitled to charge reasonable out-of-pocket expenses. If 15s. a day were charged I should assume that the member had expended that sum and pay him. I think 10s. would be the average amount, but I have allowed as much as 15s. I should always pass a first-class railway fare if charged. The double fare to Sleaford first class would be 32s. 8d., or for two 65s. 4d. and 29s. 8d., or approximately 15s. a day for two Guardians would amount to £4 15s., the amount charged for the visit. [To the Recorder.] The Guardians generally charged third-class railway fare. [To the Jury.] They are allowed to travel first class; I am only giving the general practice. [To Mr. Muir.] The services of the Guardians are, of course, entirely gratuitous. There would be nothing improper in gentlemen of the position of the two defendants travelling first class and charring for it-quite the contrary. Mr. Smith is an estate agent and builder, I have always understood, in a very large way. Gibbs is a caterer. In the Leatherhead account 6s. for railway fare is
second class. I took no exception to the charge for cabs. Mr. Smith told the auditor he usually took cabs to London Bridge when he went on hit own, business, and the auditor took no exception to it. Poplar is outside the radius, and the distance is four miles. The auditor objected to 16s. 6d. for expenses. No criminal charge is laid in respect of that. If the auditor considered they ought to have taken a tram instead of a cab there would have been a surcharge; I should have to repay and recover it from the Guardians. Any question of extravagance would be dealt with in that way. The accounts are sent in to me, and if they do not appear to be on the face of them unreasonable, I should pay them, but they are subsequently submitted to the Finance Committee, who have a right to say whether they should be paid or not. Both these accounts were passed by the Finance Committee prior to the audit. The committees are chosen by the Board, and the bringing together of Mr. Smith and Mr. Gibbs was arranged by the Board. It is quite an ordinary thing for the two Guardians, or one of them, to come and ask for cash for expenses. The sending of pauper patient to Sleaford is arranged by the London County Council. The asylums near London are very full. The two accounts are initialled in the cash-book by Mr. Ford, the member of the Finance Committee who referred to the vouchers on October 17 or October 31. Mr. Ford is vice-chairman of the Board. He it a Progressive and Labour member. Clover's account came before the Finance Committee on October 18, was passed, and was initialled by Mr. Bacon, the chairman of the Finance Committee. Smith's Leatherhead account was in my possession before Clover's account was passed. The accounts are placed before the members for them to make such examination as they think necessary. [To the Recorder.] it was the Matter's duty to supervise removals, and he would have authority to issue the order for the conveyance. The account is initialled by the Master. [To Mr. Muir.] In the case of "special" items, it would be for the Guardians to say whether the charge was reasonable. Smith is not a member of the Finance Committee. Gibbs was, and was present on October 18. Clover's account would not come specially before Gibbs. His account is initialed by Mr. Bacon, the chairman of the committee qua guardian, not qua chairman. It did not come before Gibbs individually that I know of; it may have. One guardian takes one account and one another and examines it, and the initials show who has looked at the particular one. The matter rested there until after the audit, which was after the Local Government Board inquiry by Mr. Davey. [To the Recorder. ] So far as the books are concerned, there it nothing to show that this carriage was not used by the Master, who is now in Mew Zealand. [To Mr. Muir.] Mr. Gibbs gave evidence before Mr. Davey attacking the administration, chiefly with regard to the supply of inferior meat and asserting that no proper steps were taken to check the contractor for the out-relief stores. Mr. Broodbank first called attention to the Leatherhead account amongst other things. He is the secretary of the Poplar Municipal Alliance. He drew attention
to the charges being excessive. I think he took exception to the four cabs, and drew the auditor's attention to it at the opening of the audit Afterwards my attention was drawn to the fact that on the same date there was a charge in Clover's account for a carriage to Leatherhead, by Dennis, my assistant accountant. I believe he found it out himself. These two accounts for Sleaford and Leatherhead had been set aside by the auditor, and, in going through the contractor's account prior to it being submitted to me finally, the coincidence was noticed and my attention was dram to it, I believe, by Dennis on November 5. We did not know even then that the conveyance was used by the Committee. I immediately called the attention of the auditor to it, and the next day, November 6, that of the Chairman of the Board, Mr. Crooks. Neither Smith nor Gibbs was asked for any explanation. Mr. Crooks called an emergency meeting. Notices were issued at four p.m. on November 6, and the meeting was held at 11 a.m. the next day. Mr. Gibbs was present, but not Mr. Smith. Bacon was present, but not Phillips. My report with regard to Bacon and Phillips it as follows: "On Jane 26, 1905, Messrs. S. Bacon and A. Phillips visited officially Bury House, Waltham Abbey. Expenses charged, no details, £1. In conveyance account on June 26. 1905, a brougham is charged for to Waltham Abbey, £1 10s." That is in Clover's account; it is marked "Special" and is initialled by Bacon, the member of the Board who is said to have charged £1 for expenses to Waltham Abbey. My report goes on: 41 Then, again, with regard to the tame two gentlemen. Messrs Bacon and Phillips visited St. Jude's Home. Hampstead, and charged train and cab 5s., expenses, 10s.—15s. In the conveyance account of August 5, 1906, a brougham is charged for to Hampstead, £1 1s.—same coincidence of date—that it an item in Clover's account marked "Special" on August 5. A resolution was moved by Mr. Crooks, seconded by Mr. Bundock, that Mr. Marsh be instructed to take proceedings in respect of the offence or offences now reported to the Board. That report included Bacon and Phillips. On the following morning an application was made by Mr. Marsh, the solicitor, to Mr. Dickinson, for process against Smith and Gibbs, and no application was at that time made for process against Bacon and Phillips. [To the Recorder.] Bacon and Phillips are Progressives; that had nothing to do with the application not being made. The matter was placed unreservedly in the hands of Mr. Marsh, the solicitor. Mr. Dickinson granted process against Smith and Gibbs on the application being laid. [To Mr. Muir.] It came on for hearing on November 16, and up to that time no application had been made for process against Bacon or Phillips. Attention was called by the prisoners' solicitor. Mr. Robinson, to the fact that Bacon and Phillips had not been prosecuted, though they were included in the resolution. The prisoners were committed on November 16. The next day, the 17th, an application was made by Mr. Marsh to Mr. Dickinson in respect of process against Bacon and Phillips, when Mr. Marsh explained that he was not satisfied with the evidence,
The information was prepared but not submitted. Mr. Dickinson said that the matter ought to be placed before counsel to advise upon it. There is no selection at all with regard to which guardian should sign cheques. When the account is passed it is the duty of a clerk to fill up a cheque and the cheques are signed by any member of the Board, purely as a consequential act. The signing of Clover's cheque by Gibbs does not necessarily imply any knowledge of Clover's account.
Mr. Young submitted that the present indictment against Gibbs came within 56 and 57 Vict c. 61, sec. 1, which protected a guardian from the common law consequences of his acts, sad was therefore bad. (Cites Rex. V. Dobson, 7 East p. 218. The prosecution must be by the Government Department,)
The Recorder said he did not think there was anything in the point, and should overrule but he would reserve it for the consideration of the Court, together with Mr. Muir's submission, should it be necessary.
Cross-examined by Mr. Young. Gibbs was not present on July 14. There is no contract schedule price to Leatherhead. The schedule is only made for places where we constantly send patients. This was a blind patient. I do not know that Gibbs received any of the £1 6s. in question. I only know Smith received the money from me—i.e., he received the £5 and £1 17s. 6d. which included it. I have been in communication with Mr. Marsh. I believe Gibbs was not proceeded against for other reasons—because there was no evidence. Gibbs was present at the meeting of November 7; smith was not. That was the only opportunity Gibbs had for making a. statement. No special notice was given to Mr. Gibbs asking him to make an explanation. A circular notice was sent not mentioning his name or suggesting that he was to be charged. [To the Recorder.] An information was prepared against Bacon and Phillips, and I believe it was placed before Mr. Dickinson, and he came to the conclusion there was not upon the face of it sufficient evidence to justify taking proceedings. [To Mr. Young.] It was not a bogus information or not intended to get process upon against Bacon and Phillips. I could not say whether Mr. Marsh said the inquiry made rather upheld the statement of those two Guardians. There had been an objection by Gibbs to the supply of meat. I cannot say that had caused hostility against Gibbs. When Smith and Gibbs were before the auditor a number of other persons were present. Smith did not sit at the table; he rose to address the auditor. He may have moved from his place. I should not say he was excited. I did not hear him chaffing the auditor. There was not a considerable noise in the room. Gibbs was asked by the auditor if he had anything to say. He said he corroborated what Smith had said as to the way in which the money had been expended, and that he had had a good dinner. The auditor said he did not think the amount charged was reasonable, and Smith objected to that. I do not think there was any chaff; he may have spoken humorously, but I should not consider it chaff; I think he was serious. Smith and Gibbs were seated part of the time, and they both rose to address the auditor. I think £10 is the highest sum I have ever paid on account of
expenses. I think Gibbs has never got any money from me. A member went to Birmingham and Manchester in connection with institutions there. I do not think he was paid £7 7s. a day. Mr. Crooks was not. I have certainly no recollection of his being paid £7 for a day's expenses. [To the Recorder.] The expenses at Birmingham or Manchester would not be more than at other places. I think it improbable that he charged first-class railway fare. The book before me records 18 months, and I do not see any such entry. I received the following letter from Gibbs:—"228, East India Dock Road, October 19, 1906. Dear Sir,—In reply to yours of the 16th re audit, on the first matter of December 15, 1905, I would refer you to Mr. Smith. Perhaps he can give you details. I know that I provided supper and wines on return at my own restaurant so as to save incidentals myself, as in the previous matter before auditor. It is all very well, but this is one of the reasons I had declined to go visiting. Re February 17, 1906, is too ridiculous. I think 4s. is the only amount I have asked for during my connection with the Board. The least said about it the better.—Yours faithfully, R. G. Gibbs." That letter is written in reply to one I addressed to him asking for details of the expenses of visits on December 15 and February 17—nothing to do with what took place before the auditor. I had to write to several Guardians for particulars. This is the only letter I have from him. I did not think it necessary to ask him for any further explanation on those matters. It would be the usual course for the auditor to surcharge anything which he considered excessive and improper. I daresay the inquiry by the Local Government Board made the Guardians a little more sensitive than they otherwise would have been. Gibbs during the time he was with the Guardians, so far as I know, received 3s. for a visit to Shenfield, 3s. 6d. for a visit to Luton, and 10s. for a visit to Hadleigh, in Essex. That was not before the Board when they ordered the prosecution. These things had not come specially under my notice at that time. In addition, Gibbs has visited with Smith' several institutions in 1904 and 1905, of which the expenses were paid to Smith. There has been no complaint except in the Leatherhead case now under consideration. I only saw Gibbs at the meetings.
Re-examined. Gibbs was present when the resolution was read by me asking the members of the committee to explain the circumstances under which they considered it necessary to hire cabs to and from London Bridge and so forth, and after I read the resolution it was open to any member of the Board to say anything he desired. When Gibbs said the corroborated what Smith said it was with regard to the taking cabs and train—the whole of the expenses. The opinion of Mr. Horace Avory has been taken with regard to Bacon and Phillips. I do not think any question would have been raised by the Guardians about the present matter if the moneys had been expended in the way they appear upon the account—there may have been by the auditor. At the board meeting at which Clover's account was passed it was open to anybody present to examine the account. On
the notice convening the meeting the list of cheques and accounts to be presented it given, and members are informed that the accounts can be inspected from 10 a.m., the meeting being at 5.30 p.m. The accounts are ready for inspection by any of the Guardians during the whole of the day, and are placed on the table in the Board room. Any member who desires may inspect them at the meeting. [To the Jury.] There it no account in which the expenses of the journey to Leatherhead are placed together. This blind patient was not sent to Leatherhead under the direction of the London County Council. We should make application to various institutions to take the child. Leatherhead had a vacancy, and we pay so much a year for hit maintenance. The expenses of the visit would not go to the same account. [To Mr. Hall.] I find an item of Mrs. Crooks's visit to Birmingham, for which 15s. 6d. it charged as expenses. I am speaking without the voucher before me, but I presume it relates to that visit. Probably the explanation was that Crooks had business at Birmingham, and therefore only his cabs and expenses are charged; and not the railway fare. I believe it was to Winston Green, some distance from Birmingham. With regard to the charge of £4 15s. for the visit to Kesteven the charge of about 15s. a day includes conveyance from Poplar to King's Cross and from Sleaford to the Kesteven Institution.
HENRY DONALD GORDON , 1, Pump Court, Temple, auditor to the Local Government Board. On October 11, 1906, I attended at the offices of the Guardians of the Poplar Union to audit the accounts. Amongst them was the Leatherhead account (produced), which I put aside and requested that the Guardians whose names appeared upon, it should attend and explain the charges. On October 15 the prisoners attended in the Board Room, and I asked Mr. Smith certain questions with reference to the account.
(Monday, November 26.)
I asked Smith whether he had taken the cab to London Bridge. He said." I did." Then I asked him whether he thought it was a reasonable thing to do. As far as I remember, he said, "I have always travelled in cabs. I have never walked, if I could help it, since I have been a young man, when I could drive, and I always take a cab when on my own business." Mr. Gibbs was present all the time, I think, but I am not sure that he said he had driven in the cab. I asked Smith with, regard to the cabs between Leatherhead and the institution, and he said that he had taken a cab. I said, "Did you take the cab to Leatherhead and back?" and he said "I did." I got a map in order to see what the distance was, and, as far as I could make out, it was about 1 1/4 mile, and he said it was uphill going. I asked about the 16s. 6d. for expenses, and he said it was more expensive in the country than it was in London. He said also that he had given 2s. 6d. to the boy who was blind, which might also be put against that. I had the account
under consideration, and was going into the excessive charges, and my assistant had the vouchers for the jobmaster's account before him. The next day my attention was directed to the item of £2 15s. for a landau to Leatherhead on the same day. I saw Clover about it the next day. Gibbs said practically." I agree to what Mr. Smith has said." I do not remember the exact words. [To the Recorder.] The Guardians have a discretion as to sending two on a journey of this kind. I should not surcharge on that ground. If there were 12 or 15 it would be different.
Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I saw the prisoners on October 15, 1906, the date of the item being July 15, 1905. At that time I knew nothing of the item of £2 15s. in Clover's account. The whole point of the examination of the prisoners was to consider the reasonableness of the charges, and my attention was not in any way directed to the fact that Clover had in fact been paid for the expenses of that day or some of them. The point of my questions was that these charges were extravagant—first that it was extravagant to take cabs, and secondly to pay as much as 10s. for the journeys at Leatherhead. I only knew personally of Clover's item on November 5. I have not seen the prisoners about it. I took no notes of the interview on October 15. My recollection it refreshed by a report in a paper which I bought on my way home, and which I then considered correct. I have a strong impression that Gibbs absolutely confirmed what Smith said.
Cross-examined by Mr. Young. I said before the magistrate the distance from Leatherhead to the institution was a mile and a quarter at the crow flies. I did not find the distance with a map measurer. I had nothing to do with reporters being present on October 15. The report seemed to be correct when I read it. I think Smith was a little excited. I do not think he got up and walked about or that he was chaffing me. He did not like being asked the questions. Mr. Gibbs said he left the details to Mr. Smith. My strong impression is that Gibbs said he drove in the cab to London Bridge, and I know that he confirmed absolutely the whole of Smith's evidence. If I said just now "practically confirmed," I was wrong. The newspaper report was not complete. [To the Recorder.] The scale of charges varies. It is left entirely to me as a man of the world to judge whether the charge is reasonable or not [To Mr. Muir.] I postponed my audit until the Local Government Board inquiry was over.
GEORGE WILLIAM CLOVER , 13, Devonshire Road, Bromley, cab proprietor and contractor to the Poplar Union. On July 14, 1905, I received order (produced) from Madeley, the matter of the workhouse. In consequence of his instructions, on July 15, at 8.30, I went with a pair-horse landau to the Great Eastern Hotel, East India Dock Read. After waiting there a short time the two prisoners, with another gentleman, came up. They asked if I had come from Poplar Workhouse to drive some of the Guardians to Leatherhead. I told them I had. They then got in, and I drove to the Institution for
the Indigent Blind, near Leatherhead, arriving about 1 p.m. It is a little before you get to the town. The distance it about 26 miles. The three gentlemen went into the institution and remained there about two hours. I waited in the grounds. I then drove them into Leatherhead, put up the horses, and they went in to dine at a public house or hotel. One of them said they should stay there three or four hours, as they intended going for a drive into the country. I left Leatherhead between 7 and 8 p.m. There was a little bit of practical joking, and one of the gentlemen got into the landau without his hat. He said, "They are having a dark; they have hid it somewhere." The others walked to the station, and this gentleman told me to drive to the station too, which I did, and then another got into the landau, and we drove to London, the third returning by rail. I do not know whether it was one of the prisoners or the stranger who went by rail. We got back to Poplar at about 11.30. I usually got orders from Madeley. The word "special" means out of contract—outside contract prices. I sent in my quarterly bill to the Guardians early in October, charging this item at £2 15s., and received cheque about three weeks after the account was sent in. This is my receipt (produced).
Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I first became contractor to the Poplar Board of Guardians on March 25,1905, under a contract for a year. This was my second quarter's account. There art only two special items in it besides the Leatherhead journey. I have not received any special orders this year. I know nothing about the Local Government Board Inquiry. The order produced it signed by Madeley. It had the word "special" on it when I received it. Madeley said nothing to me about the word "special" when he gave me the order. He said nothing about sending in my bill to the Guardians then or at any time. I should take it at being an official order that I should have to tend the bill to the Guardians. Madeley sometimes gave me orders on the telephone, and they would then be confirmed by an official order like this, so that I had an official order to vouch every item of my bill. This order was not given by telephone; I was at the workhouse, and he handed it to me. The drive to Leatherhead was on Saturday, July 15. I cannot be sure which of the Guardians I drove from the inn to Leatherhead Station, or who drove up to London with me. I think it was one of the prisoners and the friend.
Cross-examined by Mr. Young. I put my horses up at the inn, not in the institution. It was the ordinary course with a long drive like that to stay four or five hours. I may have stayed only 1 1/2 hours at the institution. The word "special" does not mean special price, but outside contract. Leatherhead was not one of the places I had contracted to go to. Gibbs never gave me any order that I know of, [To Mr. Muir.] At the end of the journey I asked these gentlemen if there were any complaints, and I think they gave me 3s., 4s., or 5s., I could not say which.
Re-examined. The signature to the order is Madeley's; that was his usual style of signing.
JOHN HENRY FOWLER , secretary to the Principal of the School for the Indigent Blind, Leatherhead. It is my duty to attend visitors who call at the institution, and keep a visitors' book (produced), in which I have this entry; "July 15, 1905.—We have this day visited the institution, and are perfectly satisfied that everything is being done for the welfare and comfort of the inmates. Poplar Guardians—A. Smith, Robert A. Gibbs." I saw the two defendants. They arrived in a vehicle driven by Clover, and remained from 12 to two p.m., I am sure about the time. There was only one patient from Poplar—a blind boy. Prisoners looked over the institution.
ERNEST JOHN MARSH , solicitor to the Poplar Board of Guardians. The resolution of the Board of November 7 directing me to take proceedings against four different guardians was communicated to me officially by Mr. Lough. I was not present at the meeting. I proceeded to obtain evidence with a view to prosecution. I investigated both cases of the two pairs of guardians, one against the prisoners and one against Bacon and Phillips. My managing clerk telephoned to Clover. The case of the visit to Hampstead against Bacon and Phillips at first appeared to be very similar to this, because there was there a charge of 5s. for cab and train, and a charge on the same date in Clover's account, but on November 7 Bacon and Phillips called at my City office and saw my managing clerk and voluntarily made statements. Clover then made a statement which corroborated to a great extent their statement. I applied for a summons against the prisoners because there seemed to me to be a prima facie case made out on the evidence I had before me at the time. At the result of my investigations, I came to the conclusion there was a prima facie case against these two defendants, and not against Bacon and Phillips, and therefore I only applied for process against the prisoners. The Clerk to the Guardians laid the information. I prepared it down at the police court. I applied orally to the magistrate in open court, stating the facts, and he said if I laid the information he would grant the process, and I could have a summons. Accordingly I set out what I thought was sufficient of the facts to justify the information. There were two information, one against each defendant, and Mr. Lough deposed to the same on oath. What happened after that went they sent up the summonses from the police court for me to draw, and I laid them before Mr. Clarke Half, and summonses were drawn, two on each prisoner, for conspiracy and for obtaining the money by false pretences. The case came on before Mr. Dickinson on November 16. Mr. Dickinson pointed out that the resolution of the Guardians of November 7 was of a mandatory nature as regards the issue of the process in all the cases then reported to them, which included the present case and the allegation against Bacon and Phillips. That was during the case against the prisoners, and I rather think it was because Bacon and Phillips' names were brought in by the defending solicitor prisoners
were committed that day. The next day, on counsel's advice, I applied verbally for summonses against Bacon and Phillips, Political considerations had nothing whatever to do with my preferring the charge against the prisoners. As far as my political opinions are concerned. I should rather have gone against the other two. There was no interference whatever of the Guardians with my direction to prosecute after the resolution was passed.
Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. On paper, so far as the report of Mr. Lough was concerned, the two sets of defendants were in the stone position. Smith and Gibbs had charged for cab hire and, railway fares, and the same item appeared in Clover's account and had been paid by the Guardians. Phillips and Bacon had charged for cab hire and railway fare, and the same item appeared in Clover's account and been paid by the Guardians. My managing clerk received an explanation from Phillips and Bacon which by itself would not have been sufficient, but I had in addition Glovers statement on the subject on the telephone that he had driven one guardian to St. Jude's Home, Hampstead, and had brought home two—Phillips and Bacon. So that there was a justification for charging railway fare and cab for one. My managing clerk told me that Mr. Bacon finding that Mr. Phillips did not turn up for the cab, took a train to find out why Phillips had not turned up, for which he said he paid 6d. Phillips stated that he was at work at Waterloo on his own private business, and had taken a cab from Waterloo on Hampstead, which prima facie would account for the 5s. charge for train and cab. That explanation satisfied me, so that I did not see there was a prima facie case for a prosecution. So far as I know, Smith's attention was not called to the fact that this item was in Clover's account until after he was summoned to the police court. It would not be my duty to do so. He could nave done what the other Guardians did—come and make a statement to me which I could have tested. Both Smith and Gibbs called on me on the evening of November 7 to know what I had done in the matter. I did not tell them that Bacon and Phillips had satisfactorily explained their item. I did not invite prisoners to offer any explanation; as a matter of fact, I told them if they made any explanation or statement not me, of course I should be bound to use it against them. I did not see Phillips and Bacon. I said at the police court that it was impossible to prove that they did not take a cab. As regards the £1 I stated that on the account there were no details at all, and that the auditor had marked across it in red, "They say for expenses." Mr. Dickinson said it was not right to ask him to try the case, and in the interests of public justice he thought the fact should be laid before an independent counsel for him to advise whether there was a case for prosecution. I will not say he did not say it was not the business of the prosecution to go into the defence. I do not remember it. I said the inquiries made rather upheld the statement of the two Guardians, and Mr. Dickinson said, "Then do not ask me to grant a summons, and in the interests of the public
I think the papers should be submitted to an independent counsel." I then said, "Then may I repeat the application?" and Mr. Dickinson said, "Certainly." I obtained summonses against the prisoners for obtaining sums of money by false pretences, which were duly served. No committal was asked for on the false pretence summonses. Mr. Clarke Hall said, "In this case I appear for the prosecution. There are four different summonses in this case, and I think my friend, Mr. Robinson, who appears for the defendants, will not object to their being taken together." Mr. Robinson did object, and said, "I suggest that the prosecution should elect which case they will take first," and the magistrate said, "Yes, I think that will be the best," and then Mr. Clarke Hall said, "There are two summonses for alleged conspiracy which must be taken together. I propose to take the case of conspiracy first," and then proceeded to open the facts, and at the end of the case for the prosecution there was no request at all to commit for anything except conspiracy, and they were committed for conspiracy only. I suppose the summonses for take pretences are in the hands of the Court—they have not been heard.
Cross-examined by Mr. Young. I prepared the information against Bacon and Phillips on the evening of the 16th after they had given their explanation. Bacon was present at the Guardians' meeting on November 7 when the resolution was passed to prosecute him. After they had given the explanation to my managing clerk, I was satisfied in my own mind that if I took proceedings against them it would he dismissed, and would therefore be putting the Guardians to unnecessary expense. I did nothing in regard to it with the Guardians. When I appeared with the information before Mr. Dickinson, I told him I thought before he issued the summonses he ought to know what facts I was in possession of. [To the Recorder.] I charged Bacon and Phillips with conspiring to obtain £1. The Magistrate pointed out to me that the resolution was mandatory. There was no detail of how the £1 was spent, and I had no confidence that they had not, in fact; expended £1 in expenses. The only case against them was that they had obtained 5s. for a train and cab, and at the some time there was a charge of £1 1s. for a conveyance, and the explanation they gave, which was corroborated by Clover, was that only one guardian came down. [To Mr. Young.] On the information before me. I did not see how I could possibly hope to obtain a conviction against them. I had seen no guardian at all on the matter. I did not think it necessary to approach Mr. Crooks to get direction as to whether an emergency meeting should be called before I made an application to the magistrate. I should have reported to the Guardians in due course that the information I had at my disposal did not warrant an application for summonses. I had nothing to go upon except the statement of the auditor written across the account, "They say for expenses." That is a matter not of criminal proceedings, but of surcharge by the Local Government Board auditor. If the magistrate had not said the resolution was mandatory open me to apply I should not have done so. I did not have the information sworn to.
Re-examined. Mr. Dickinson suggested that the whole matter with regard to Bacon and Phillips should be put before counsel. It has been pot before Mr. Horace Avory and is in his hands now. He has adjourned the consultation for further evidence. He upholds my opinion on the evidence as it stands, and says that he cannot advise a prosecution, but suggests that further evidence be obtained. The prisoners called on November 7 alter the resolution was passed, before I had taken any proceedings. I told them that anything they said if they incriminated themselves of course I should be bound to use against them.
Mr. Muir submitted there was no evidence of say conspiracy to go to the Jury; that the statements of the prisoners to Gordon on October 15 did not amount to a confession.
Mr. Young made the same submission on behalf of Gibbs.
The Recorder said the point was a very strong one; that he would not withdraw it from the Jury, hot would reserve the point for the consideration of the Court of Crown Cases Reserved, If it should become necessary.
ALBERT SMITH (prisoner, on oath). I carry on business as a builder and estate agent at 73, Aberfeldy Street, Bromley. and reside in Romford Road, Forest Gate. I have been in business about 24 years. I collect for large estates to the amount of £12,000 a year, and have a turnover in my business as a builder of over £2,000 a year. I am not in need of money. I have been six years a member of the Poplar Board of Guardians, having been elected twice. I belong to the party called Conservatives, or Moderates, which it by a long way in a minority on the Board. From time to time the Guardians place paupers at different institutions, and it is the custom for certain members of the Board selected by committee to visit those institutions, going here and there where they are sent. I had no part whatever in the selection of Mr. Gibbs to accompany me to Kesteven or Leatherhead. A printed form was supplied me fixing the visit to Leatherhead for July 15, 1905, on the day preceding. I asked Mr. Lough for £5 on account of expenses for the visit to the five places we had to go to. We only went to Kesteven and Leatherhead. I did not order the landau. A day or two before I went to Leatherhead I met Madeley outside the recreation ground, and asked him which was the best way to go to Leatherhead. He told me the best way was to go to London Bridge, take train to Leatherhead. and a fly up to the institution; but he followed that up to saying, "If it is a fine day I should certainly drive down the whole distance." I said, "What will that cost?" He said, "About 18s. each." I said, "Well, I will go over to Bush and see what he will drive me down for." Bush was a jobmaster in the East India Dock Road. Madeley said, "You have no need to go over there. If you leave it to me I
can get you a brougham much cheaper," with the result that I said, "All right, but it is on the strict understanding that the bill comes in to me." He turned round and said, "All right, I will see to that." I did not know he was going to Clover. I agreed to take the carriage, but I said to Madeley, "The account must come in to me." I always expected and intended to pay for the hire of that landau. I invited Mr. Peacock, an ex-Guardian, and now a Councillor of Poplar, to accompany me. In pursuance of that arrangement on July 15 Peacock, Gibbs, and I proceeded to the institution at Leatherhead, stayed there about two hours, had lunch, and took a conveyance, for which I paid 12s., to Dorking, returning to Leatherhead about 6.40 p.m. I took a fly from the inn to the station, and a first class ticket to London Bridge, arriving there at 7.40, and home by cab to 7, Aberfeldy Street, Poplar. There was a little practical joking with Peacock. I was expecting an account for the landau all the time, and in October, 1905, not having received that account I presented the account of expenses at the request of Mr. Lough, amounting to £2 2s. 6d. Why I put it in that form was, seeing that Poplar was aflame at the various expenses put forward at that particular time, and there was an inquiry to be held, I did not think it was anything contrary to what had been done on many occasions before—that is to say, legally I was entitled to and could charge £3 for that journey. I made it up in cabs and rail and that like to the sum of £2 2s. 6d., expecting my bill from Clover to come in, which I would have paid independently of that £2 2s. 6d. At that time I did not know anything about Glover's account—not up to the time I was ordered to be prosecuted. Up to that time I had always charged first-class fare and all the other Guardians were allowed it. I do not say they always charged it. I will not say it was a fictitious account; really I paid more than the £1 6s. in coming back and in the carriage down there. I made it up as an approximate account to meet my expenses. Lough asked me to send in the account; he did not ask me for details. I thought it was more satisfactory in that form, and gave details amounting to what I should have expended in the ordinary way. I have, never seen Clover's account. I did not know he had been ordered to supply a brougham for the Guardians. I thought it was ordered for myself alone, and expected to pay for it. Had clover presented the account I should have paid it instantly. I did not know Madeley very well, as I have not made myself acquainted with the interior of the workhouse so much as I ought to have done. I simply did it that way because he told me it would be much cheaper if he got it for me than I could get it. I received £5 and the balance of £1 17s. 6d. on October 17 for the two visits. I paid no portion of that to Gibbs, for the simple reason that I had spent considerably more than the £6 17s. 6d. in the two visits—over £10. I had £5 in my pocket when I went to Leatherhead, and very little left when I got home. I paid everything—Gibbs's fare to Kesteven and all the expenses at Leatherhead. I never discussed the matter with
Gibbs; he did not know what I paid or what I received. After the Local Government Board Inquiry by Mr. Davey, four or five months' ago, followed the audit of Mr. Gordon in October, 1906. Mr. Davey's Inquiry commenced June 14, 1906, and was an inquiry into the expenditure and administration of the Guardians. Gibbs gave evidence against the general policy of the Board right through, especially on the meat question. Crooks, the Chairman, and Gibbs were at loggerheads. (Q) Did the Inspector find that the charges made by Mr. Gibbs as to the administration of this workhouse were well founded? [The Recorder. We are not concerned with this general inquiry. All we are concerned with is the alleged fraudulent conspiracy of the prisoners.] The rates have been 12s. in Poplar, and are now 11s. 4d., and the Inquiry was at to how they came to be so high. At the audit I stated that these expenses for cab and rail had been incurred. As I have said, seeing that Poplar was aflame at that particular time I did not think it wise to say anything else in the account, seeing that I had had a cab home and a carriage down at Leatherhead, and I had spent the £1 6s. which I charged. My attention has never been drawn to Clover's account until I was ordered to be prosecuted, and I do not know what I am prosecuted for now. [To the Recorder.] I did not know until I was ordered to be prosecuted that the Guardians had paid twice over for this visit to Leatherhead, and at the time I was prosecuted I was still of opinion that I was liable to pay when the account was sent in for this landau. The summons was served by Inspector Godwin. It only stated that I had conspired to defraud the Guardians of £1 6s., and I was not aware until at the police court that the Guardians had paid for the landau. Madeley left for New Zealand about a fortnight after Mr. Davey's inquiry had commenced. I did not know Clover. I have never until now had a charge brought against my honour. I have lived all my life in Poplar and Blackwall, and am to be found by anyone who wants me.
Cross-examined. I have been six years a guardian come next April, and am quite cognisant of the course of business. I did not know that orders for vehicles were sent out by the workhouse master. I could not say I have never heard of it. I did not know who drove me to Leatherhead until a considerable time afterwards. About two months ago I heard it in Bow. I have frequently driven on visits, but always at my own expense. I do not remember any specific dates of such visits. During the last two years I only recollect visiting the Girls' Home at Hadleigh and the institutions at Leatherhead and Kesteven. I did not know that the Guardians were frequently driven and that they were entitled to go by carriage at the expense of the Union. I considered I was entitled to go by cab and first-class train. I applied personally to Clover for my account eight or ten months ago, when I first heard he drove me. I asked him in the "Swan" public house at Bow. I said, "When are you going to send in my bill?" Mr. Warne was present. Clover said, "That will be all right. I will send it to you later." Nothing
more was said. We had a sherry each and went home. My solicitor stated that at the police court. Warne is subpœnaed on my behalf I do not know whether he is here. He is a fishmonger at Bow. I am in the habit of buying eels of him. I had no idea what the lardau would cost. I had paid £3 10s., £4, and £5 for a landau The cost is nothing to me if I wanted to enjoy myself. I consider £2 15s. is not much to pay for a, landau and two horses. Madeley told me he could get it cheaper than I could, and I left it in his hands. I do not recollect asking the driver anything about what it would cost. I had left it to somebody else and I did not interfere. The vehicle that took me to Leatherhead I was going to pay for myself. if I think fit, out of my own personal pocket to spend my money I do not charge the Guardians. I thought it was indiscreet to charge for the landau because remarks were being made about expenses at Poplar, and I thought the landau would not look well. My account way presented on the same day or a day or two before it was paid—a long time before the inquiry. [To the Recorder.] There had been public comments on the extravagance of the Poplar Guardians for some considerable time before. There was always comment as soon as the rates went up, naturally. I do not say I made out a purely fictitious account; it was not a fictitious account. I did not take a cab from Poplar to London Bridge Station. I put it down because that was the way I would have gone, and as I was allowed to have a cab, and seeing that I was going to personally pay for the landau, it practically meant that I did have a cab, whether it was a victoria or landau, or whatever you like to call it. I will say it is indiscreet; I will not say it is untrue. I will not say it was true. It was not a lie. I knew it was not true as far as my taking a cab there went. I did take one back. I put down 5s., and that was untrue, and I knew it was untrue. We had another conveyance at Leatherhead which cost 10s. for the drive to Dorking; that was a purely personal matter for which I should certainly not charge the Guardians. [To Mr. Hall.] It was not true that I had a cab, 5s. to the institution and back, but I spent the 10s. on another conveyance to Dorking. I was charging the Guardians for that—I say yes and no. I was going to pay for Clover's conveyance, and I was entitled to be allowed £3. I meant to convey that I was entitled to 5s. each way. If I had gone by train I say I was entitled to a cab to the asylum. I say I am allowed 10s., and I can spend it how I like, because that is the legal charge that I am entitled to from the Poplar Board of Guardians. If I had gone that way it would be 5s. cab to London Bridge, 8s. for the fares to Leatherhead, 5s. to the asylum, and 5s. back, and 5s. cab to Poplar, and, knowing full well that I had to pay for the conveyance that took me there, and seeing that I did not come back in it, I was entitled to that £1 6s. As to the conveyance to Dorking, I may be indiscreet in putting it in that way, but I am entitled to the 10s. I do not see how I can answer your question in any other way. All I was asked by
Mr. Lough was to give the amount that I had expended, and that was all I did in the Kesteven case, and no question was raised. I gave the gross amount, and was paid it I say I was very indiscreet in giving this fictitious account. I think Mr. Gordon stated more than was said at the audit. He did not tell you what I asked him for. I asked what money I had to pay him, and said I would instantly pay him. Before any charge was brought against me, I asked what I had to pay, and I would pay it before I left the room. I only knew he had sent for me to inquire about the £2 2s. 6d. He did not examine me. He only asked did I have a cab, and I said "Yes." That was true, back from London Bridge. I would not say that he asked me if I had a cab from Poplar to London Bridge. He asked me whether I had these cabs, and I said, "Yes." [To the Recorder.] I do not dispute Mr. Gordon's evidence. If you like to put it in that way I told him what was untrue. If I had thought that bill had been paid I would never under any circumstances have some mine in. In the one bill I was asked for I only covered the approximate cost of my visit, and I was very indiscreet in putting details in the other, seeing if it were put in a lump sum it would have been instantly paid, and no question asked about it. I did not tell Mr. Gordon the fact because Poplar was aflame at the time—I thought it was not policy to answer that question. That was my idea.
Cross-examined by Mr. Young. At the audit the auditor sat in the middle of the room, Mr. Crooks next then Mr. Ford, I sat next to Ford, and Gibbs sat next to me. The auditor did not pass the account over to Gibbs. Crooks was protesting against this, and other people were speaking at the time. I was merely saying the way I went and the way I came home. If Gibbs had asked for the account he must have seen it, but he never asked for it, and it never was handed to him. I saw it because I went round and saw it. It was not offered to Gibbs in any shape or form. Gibbs was sitting fourth from the auditor. The auditor did ask the question of Gibbs, and Gibbs said he left the details to me. He did so; he never had anything at all to do with it whatever. I entered into no account with Gibbs at all. He was not aware of anything until the paper was read to me. [To the Recorder.] I do not think Gibbs saw me go from the inn down to the station in a cab, because he and Peacock, were in the yard. I came out, went round the corner, and took the cab straight away to the station. He knew of my intention to go back by train. I told him I was going; I would not stop any longer. They were having an argument in the brougham that was in the yard, and I would not stop, and went away round the corner. I do not think he knows any further about it.
Re examined. When I say I did not tell a lie, I conceived myself to be entitled to the same amount in a different sense, and to more. I had no intention to defraud; it never entered my mind.
ROBERT HYETT GIBBS (prisoner, on oath). I have lived in Poplar eight years in one house, and within a mile of it on the other side of the river in another 20 years. I am a refreshment caterer, having 12 establishments in London, and paying rates in eight boroughs. I was the only Guardian on the Board returned unopposed. I am a Moderate—the proper term is independent of all parties. Before this charge there has never been any accusation brought against my honour nor have I been charged with any offence. I was selected by the committee to attend this institution and report. I do not know who were the committee. Smith and myself were appointed directly we were elected. I had nothing to do with the selection. My connection with Mr. Smith was an accident. Smith came to my establishment and said, "What about that run we are going to have. Shall we go by rail or road?" I said, "I leave it in your hands entirely. If you like to go by road I will join you certainly with pleasure." I left it all to him. I had no knowledge whatever of his obtaining £5 on account, and he never told me he had done so then or since. I first heard of it when this case was commenced at the police court after the summons was served; I heard it during the evidence. Smith never discussed with me any accounts at all with reference to these matters. I did not know from whom the carriage had been obtained. On July 15 I was at Smithfield soon after 4 a.m., and arranged my business so as to be free for the day. I rushed back home and changed and started for Leatherhead at about 8.30. We arrived at the institution at about 12, came back to the inn at Leatherhead, the carriage was put up, and we had luncheon. After we had tea—it was a very hot summer's day—I fell asleep in the garden of the hotel, having taken off my dust-cost and hat, and they were missing. There was a joke about it. I said, "Well, they will have to pay for another one; it did not matter for me." Smith took objection to the nonsense, but one of the maids found my hat and coat, and that settled it. Smith would not have any more of it, and he got into the carriage and went home. I lost sight of him. Peacock and I went up to the station afterwards to endeavour to get Smith to come back with us. I lost sight of him; he got away and left me in the landau. We waited some time to get smith back, as I did not like his going away like that; then we drove back to London. I gave the driver about half a dozen shillings, which has not been repaid to me. After Smith went away I paid all the other expenses. We were liberal as gentlemen would be. I did not spare a shilling or two. I have never charged either the Guardians or Smith with that; I never thought of it. On other occasions I have spent many a sovereign and never thought of asking the Guardians for it. It is a fact that Guardians going anywhere can charge their expenses. As an instance, £34 were spent on a visit to Evesham. There is a surcharge with regard to it, but I think it stands in abeyance. During the whole of my tenure I have asked Mr. Lough for 19s. The Board deputed me to go to Hadleigh to send a family to Canada, for which I. charged 10s. On another occasion I charged 3s. I should not have asked for that money only the lad
came round with his notebook and said, "Do you want anything, Mr. Gibbs?" So, as it happened, I had that 3s. I suppose I have spent pounds without charging anything. In fact, I have lost £1,000 by belonging to the Board. With regard to signing Clover's cheque, the cheques are passed about the Board room for anyone to sign. I did not look at the cheque specially beyond putting my signature to it. The account would not be annexed to the cheque. Clover's account might be £84 or £200. He is paid quarterly. I am on the Finance Committee. I never had the account produced in my hand. I have signed a hundred cheques. On that occasion I should have signed many; I sign more cheques than any member of the Board. The account would be examined by one of the clerks in the office and recommended for payment. This account is initialled by Mr. Bacon, the chairman of the Finance Committee. Probably he would be the only member in attendance. I did not go into the items. The cheques and accounts are not put together. The accounts are passed at the Finance meetings, and the cheques are never produced until the Board meeting. I am prepared to say the accounts were not on the table. The accounts are brought before the Finance Committee and the cheques before the Board meeting, which may be an hour later, or on another evening. When signed the cheque was in a book; there would be other cheque books also. Probably the practise would be for the cheques when signed to be taken out and attached to the accounts afterwards. The cheques are signed when other business is going on; I have repeatedly done it myself when matters on the agenda did not interest me. I remember being before the auditor when others were in the room, and some inquiry was made into Mr. Smith's account. Mr. Lough wrote me a letter to attend. I. was seated about four or five seats away from Mr. Gordon, almost at the end of the Board table. I should have said the whole proceeding was rather humorous especially with regard to Smith. He danced round the inside of the circular Board table and said, jingling money in his pocket, "If you want any more, here you are—have it" He was excited. The clerks on the other side were all tittering over it. I remember the exact words Mr. Gordon used. He said, "Do you repeat what Mr. Smith says, Mr. Gibbs?" I said, "That is all right. I corroborate what Smith has said." I said, that I had nothing at all to do with the accounts. I left it to Mr. Smith; that is all. Nothing had been said at that time about the brougham. There was no accusation made against me. I never heard of it until the emergency meeting, and I was amazed, staggered. I had not a word to say for myself. I had not heard directly or indirectly about Clover's account. It is not true—it is vile—to say that I conspired with Smith to obtain money from the Guardians. I suppose I am picked out for this charge because I am a Moderate. I have always exposed the extravagance of the Board, particularly on this meat contract. I fought it right and left. I was told I should be ruined if I persisted in it—if I interfered with Crooks' and Lansbury's and the others' preserves. The meat contractor apologised and took the
meat back in consequence of my action. I condemned a whole load of it one day. I brought Crooks down, in the stores. They would not let me do anything in the matter. I said, "I tell you what I am going to do if you let this stuff go through; I am going outside to fetch a couple of butchers to look at it." I turned to the storekeeper Phillips at the time, and said I would supply the stuff at 16d. a stone. We had somewhere about 4,000 or 5,000 people to feed outside. They were coming in droves, the lowest people you ever saw. I repeated this on the Board, and we got an apology from Blott, the butcher. At least 15 of the Board jeered me, told me they did not want experts. I was called by Inspector Davey to give evidence about this very matter, and I called Crooks to account for it, because he professed to be the friend of the working man, and here was the very thing that he would not help me in.
Cross-examined. I do not think I grasped sufficiently what the auditor was questioning Smith about. I heard the auditor ask Smith whether he had driven in a cab, from Poplar to London Bridge. I knew that he had not taken a cab, but I think the view I took of it was that we had had a more expensive affair than a cab. The answer smith gave was untrue, and I said I corroborated, but I corroborated the whole of the statement. There was a lot of frivolity, I must say. I am sorry to say I corroborated the statement Smith made about the cab. I did not grasp the full meaning of it. Of course, I admit it was improper to do it. I ought not to have done so. I did not grasp it then. Smith had not told me about the account before I went into the board room. I do not think I had seen him for a long time. In fact, I may state that I got to disgusted with the whole arrangements of those two visits, out of the five or six we have had, that next time I will take my wife. I do not went to go that way. I did not go to the board room with Smith. I did not think I was going to the audit for that; I thought it was something important, I cannot say I knew it was in reference to the Leatherhead account. [To the Recorder.] I have never seen the account. I now see it for the first time. I cannot say if the auditor had it in his hand. He made remarks about the various items. It never crossed my mind that it was a fictitious account put in by Smith—it was treated in such a light manner.
Re-examined. When before the auditor I could not say that it did not cross my mind that the inquiry was into nothing but extravagance—it would be on some accounts—something to do with the auditor's matters. I do not think I knew what specifically. Nothing had been mentioned to me about Clover's account until the emergency meeting.
EDWARD JOHN FORD , stevedore, Vice-Chairman of the Poplar Board of Guardians. I am one of Mr. Crooks's party, not of that of the defendants. I do not know any party whale on the Board. I have known Smith very well indeed since he has been a member of the Board the last six years. I am bound to say that he has always had the good opinion and the confidence of the Board ever since he has been a member, and he has mine now.
To Mr. Young. I know Gibbs. The general reputation of Mr. Gibbs is just as good, only I do not think he has won the friendship of the Board so much as Mr. Smith has done. There is absolutely no reason to question his honesty or his integrity as a member of the Board.
To the Recorder. I can say that the general reputation of Mr. Gibbs for honesty and integrity is excellent.
(Tuesday, November 27, 1906)
Verdict, Not guilty.
FOURTH COURT; Saturday, November 24.
(Before Judge Lumley Smith.)
Mr. Leycester prosecuted. Mr. Forrest Fulton defended.
JOHN KUYPER , chief officer of the steamship Ijstroom. My ship belongs to the Holland Steamship Company, Amsterdam, and plies between Amsterdam London, and other parts of England. On Friday night, October 12, we were lying at the Brewer's Quay, Barking. A coil of rope was lying on deck with one end made fast to a barge. It was also made fast to the ship. It was missed at six o'clock the next morning. The loose part had been cut off, the part attached to the barge being left. About 90 or 100 fathoms were missing. The police were informed, I think, the same day. The ship sailed on Sunday, the 14th, and returned to London on the 18th. After the prisoner was arrested I saw a long piece of the rope, with a paint stain upon it, at the Mansion House.
Cross-examined. A new rope is about 120 fathoms.
Re-examined. That would be the length of the whole rope, includeing the piece made fast to the barge.
GEORGE CHARLES JOHNSON , foreman to Robert Hough. Hough is a Marine store dealer in Narrow Street, Ratcliffe. On Saturday, October 13, a quantity of white Manilla rope was brought to the shop between eight and 8.30. I first saw it on the scale. I said, "Whose rope is that?" The prisoner answered, "It is mine." I have known him for six or seven years. I had been there several times before with smaller quantities of rope to sell. He was standing near the gate. I told him the price was 14s. per cwt, and told the scalesman to weigh it. I next saw prisoner at Wapping, when I had to pick him out.
Cross-examined. I went to the Wapping Police Station on the 20th with Sergeant Holden. He had previously made inquiries about
this entry in the book where he found prisoner's name and address I was shown nine or ten men in a room. We were not very busy on the morning of the 13th, only doing our own van work. We had had two or three other deals. Another man (Doyle) came there before prisoner to sell rope. I did not see the rope prisoner brought put on the scale. I told the salesman to enter it in the book as white Manilla rope, 14s. per cwt. I told him the name (Williams), and he put it down. The cashier gave the address. He would get the address before paying the money.
Re-examined. It is the same rope that was afterwards handed over to the police (produced).
PERCY JAMES PERRYMAN , scalesman to Hough. I was on duty on October 13 and saw the rope on the scale. I did not see anybody with it. Johnson asked me to weigh it up, and prisoner was at the scale. I weighed it and called out, "4 cwt 3 qrs. 14 lb" I entered the name "Williams" and went back to the office. That is all I had to do with it. I have known the prisoner for three or four years. He has been in the habit of coming to the shop.
Cross-examined. My attention was first called to this matter when Sergeant Holden called on the 18th, when I turned up the books and saw the name "Williams," and then I recollected him selling the rope. That is the only lot I weighed that morning. I do not know if any other lots were sold. Johnson also weighs them. It was he who gave me the name "Williams." I went to the police-station and identified prisoner. I had no conversation with him. This is the book with the entry [produced].
To the Jury. It is a record book, kept according to the Merchant Shipping Act by marine store dealers. The rope was wet and would weigh more.
ROBERT PERCIVAL WHITE , cashier to Hough. It is my duty to pay people who come to sell things, and I enter the transaction in a book. I get a note of the transaction from the scalesman and enter it up in a book. I get the address from the person who comes for his money. This book came up to me on October 13, and I entered as exact copy of the entry that is there. I put it down at first as "Williamson," and altered it when he came for his money. I enter the weight, time, trade, and folio in the book. The time was nine a.m. When I arrived at nine this book was in my office. I saw prisoner some time after nine. I have known prisoner several years. I knew the address and repeated it to him and wrote it down. I paid. him in cash. I did not know the rope. I did not see it again until it was brought to the police station. Prisoner had sold other ropes to me within two months of this transaction. I have a note of the exact number. There were six sales of rope to us since the beginning of September, and this month, varying from 8s. 9d. up to £2 10s.
Cross-examined. The book is put in my office alter the account is made up. I pay through a small wicket slit; sometimes I call out the name. I repeated the address to him and he took the money I did not take any receipt. A good many names of persons appear
in the book not personally known to me, though, of course the majority are. I went to identify the prisoner and saw eight or 10 men in the yard. I walked up to him and said that is Williams. I paid for other lots sold that morning. There are five lots between eight and nine o'clock. If people deal in rope they are bound to call themselves marine store dealers, I understand.
Re-examined. The entries were made as soon as I came. The weight in this case was 4 cwt. 3 qrs. 14 lb. You can judge whether it is wet or dry by the price; if wet it is a lower price. The Thames runs at the end of our street, and if you wanted to wet it, it would be very easy to do so. The price of 16s. 6d. would not be for wet rope. That would be in fairly good condition. The top price was 17s. The second entry is "Williams "—the third "W. Moss, 3 cwt. 2 qrs. 21 lb., price 14s." That was wet in all probability. The next is "Balsam—white Manilla rope, 1 cwt 2 qrs." "Nicholls, 1 cwt. 0 qrs. 14 lb., price 14s." That was wet or inferior. Then, "Lee, 2 qrs. at 16s.," that is 10.15 a.m. The next is 10.30, "May, 1 cwt at 12s., 11.40," "4 cwt 2 qrs., Oakley, 17s., 12.50." I cannot say the exact time I saw the prisoner, but I should think between 9 and 11. I should see a man I paid through the little slit or wicket.
G. C. JOHNSON, further examined. Doyle is a stevedore and only brings in pieces that they sling the bow up with—seven yards each, and that is 3 1/2-inch rope. This is 5-inch to 5 1/2-inch rope, I should say. It was Moss who brought in just over 4 cwt. that morning. It was all head rope for barges; running 15 yards, and then they are cut in pieces—what they break off to hook on to tugs and such things. Some of the pieces might be three or four yards or two yards. It is broken by pulling the barges along. It is nine-strand; this is three-strand. That is a different thing altogether to this. It is the same kind of rope I saw on the scale when prisoner was there.
Cross-examined. I did not notice the paint on the rope till it was at, the police station. The entries "W. M. rope" mean white Manilla. The other rope was different—all short pieces.
P. J. PERRYMAN, further examined. I weighed other parcels that day. The rope was on the scale while prisoner was standing by. I know the rope by the size. I never weighed any other rope that morning. The entry "W. Moss—W.M. rope, 14s., 3 cwt 2 qrs. 21 lb.," was Johnson's.
Further cross-examined. The only reason I can speak to this being the rope is the size. My attention was directed to the sale about eight days after. I looked at the entry and saw the name "Williams."
ALBERT HELDON , Police Sergeant, Thames Division. I received information of the theft of this rope on Saturday, October 13. I made inquiries and found it on the 16th at Hough's, when the ship was at sea. She returned on the 18th. On the 19th I got two of the men from the ship to see the rope, and on the 20th I arrested prisoner at 42, Belgrave Street, Stepney. I told him I should arrest him for stealing or receiving about 110 fathoms of Manilla rope stolen from the steamer Ijstroom on the night of the 12th, and I had discovered
part of the same rope on the morning of the 16th at Hough's. He said he knew nothing about it. I told him I should take him to the station. He then said, "What time did you say?" meaning what time he sold the rope. I said, "Between eight and nine." He said, "I could not be in bed and sell rope at the same time. I have not sold any rope to Hough for two months." I took him to the station and he said, "I know nothing about it," and then, in answer to the charge, he said, "All right, sir." He was put up with ten other men and identified by Johnson, White, and Perryman as the man who brought the rope and received money for it on the 13th. He said nothing then. He was taken before Alderman Sir Whittaker, Ellis at the Mansion House, when I gave evidence of his arrest. Sir Whittaker asked him if he had anything to say as to the accuracy of my statement. He said, "I did say I did not sell it, but I did and I "——and then he was remanded till the 26th. He had not a solicitor representing him then.
Cross-examined. What I say the prisoner said was mentioned in the presence of Mr. Myers at the Mansion House, his present solicitor. Mr. Myers asked me if my notes were made at the time prisoner was arrested. I told him, "No." They were all made within three-quarters of an hour, except that, which took place at the hearing. I mentioned the words. I put it down the same morning. We were at the Mansion House. I told Mr. Myers so. It is the last entry on the last page. I asked Sir Whittaker to grant a remand as I had not got all the evidence, and prisoner then said, "I did say I did not sell it; but I did and I—, "and then he was remanded There was another officer in court (Hartland) who heard it. At the warehouse I first saw Moore, the foreman. I also saw White. I asked for the books, which they produced and showed me the entry. Prisoner was identified after I saw the witnesses. I had previously been there and seen the rope.
FRANCIS HARTLAND , Thames police constable. I was present when prisoner was brought up at the Mansion House, and heard Holden give evidence of arrest. Prisoner, when asked by Sir Whittaker Ellis whether he had any questions to ask, said, "I did say that I did not sell the rope; but I did——, "and he was about to make some further remark when Sir Whittaker Ellis said, "Make no statement here; but you will be remanded for a week, if you have no questions in ask the officer." That is all that passed. The rope was placed by Hough's man on the scale on October 19, and weighed by Johnson in my presence. It was then damp and weighed 4 cwt. 2 qrs. 11 Ib.
Cross-examined. I made no note of that statement at the police-court. I remember all that was said. I went with Holden to the warehouse on October 15.
THOMAS JAMES WILLIAMS (prisoner on oath). I have never been convicted or stood in a dock before. I am 26, and am a licensed waterman. I worked for six years with Rose and Deering and J.W. Corke and Co., licensed watermen. I also worked for Messrs. Corey of the Victoria Docks, for about six months, and for the Mercantile
Lighterage Company for 18 months. I then took to ferry work on my own account. I had nothing to do with the rope whatever. I never sold it to Hough. I first saw it at the Mansion House. I was not near Hough's warehouse on October 13. It is a mistake. I hate had many dealings with Hough. Watermen occasionally get small Portions of rope. I hive never sold 4 1/2 owt. I have no cart in which I could remove large quantities. I have a boat which I ply for the hour. The river is about 150 yards from Hough's, and yon have to go up a public street. I left home on October 13 at nine a.m. I got up at 8.30 and had breakfast, and when I got out of the door I heard Stepney clock strike nine. I went to Regent's Canal.
Cross-examined. I was not later than usual that morning. My time is all times. I had not been out on the water the night before. My business takes me on the water at all times. I know the Ijstroom and all the ships that ran up in tiers. I know Brewer's Quay. I have not been on board the Ijstroom. She is a new ship. I have been on board several boats of that line on business. I ply from Ratcliffe Broadstairs to Globe Pier. I live eight or ten minutes' walk from Hongh's on the same side of the river. It is not true that I made any such statement at the Mansion House as Holden says, and it would not have been proved against me. The Alderman asked me if I had any questions to put to Holden. I said nothing. Up to that time he had given true evidence. I have known White, the cashier, for years, and have not had wrong words with him. It is not true if he says I have been there selling rope half a dozen times since September. I had not been there three days before that Saturday selling him white Manilla rope. It is absolutely wrong. I had not sold him 3 cwt. of white Manilla rope on September 13 for £2 10s. I know Johnson and Perryman. I have not quarrelled with them. They are wrong it they say I was there on September 13. I did not sell any rope. I don't know why they should put it on me. I was not there for two months.
By the Jury. I only keep a record of small matters—picking up ship sherings and so on. I can sell them at a small profit. My reason for remembering I left home at nine that morning was the seriousness of my arrest. I referred back to what I did that day. I should call a ship new three or four years old.
By Mr. Leycester. The Ijstroom may have been on the line for eight years. I have known her, say, four years. I swear I have never been on board her. I went to the Regents Canal to tee if I could get a job with a barge. I remained there about two hours. I did not see anybody I knew there or the whole morning. I live in lodgings and have a wife and family. What Holden and Hartland say I said at the Mansion House is a pure invention. I said nothing of the kind. I had not then a solicitor.
The jury, after 50 minutes' deliberation, said there was no chance of their agreeing, and the prisoner was released on £25 bail till next Sessions.
OLD COURT; Tuesday, November 27.
(Before the Recorder.)
ATKINSON, Edward James (56, no occupation) ; being an undischarged bankrupt did unlawfully obtain credit to the amount of £25 from Ernest Ampthill Whitehouse without informing him that he was an undischarged bankrupt.
Mr. Metcalfe prosecuted; Mr. Oliver and Mr. G. L. Hardy defended.
HARRY ERNEST WATTS , managing clerk to E. A. Whitehouse, solicitor, Queen's House, Queen Street. I was introduced to the prisoner by a friend at Clapham Junction on August 14, 1905. He told me he had an invention in connection with submarines, and we discussed the matter. He produced plans and sketches, which I went through with him at his apartments. He told me he required some money for his personal expenditure. He said, "You know inventors are always hard up." I told him I would introduce him to my principal, Mr. Whitehouse, which I did on August 16. Prisoner did not inform me he was an uncertificated bankrupt, nor did I know it from any other source. Mr. Whitehouse, myself, and the prisoner had an interview at the office, and Mr. Whitehouse inspected the plans. Prisoner made certain representations with regard to other gentlemen financing him with reference to this patent, up to about £100. We discussed the matter, and Whitehouse arranged to lend prisoner £25, subject to his representations being correct, and instructed me to see Mr. McCully, who prisoner said was financing him up to £100. Whitehouse then left for his holiday, leaving the matter in my hands, and, after seeing McCully, I handed prisoner an open cheque for £25. which he endersed. I then sent a junior clerk out to cash the cheque, and handed the proceeds to prisoner. Document produced is some particulars which he handed to me, and which he signed in my presence. I saw prisoner several times at the office before Mr. Whitehouse returned. In October, 1906, I first found he was an undischarged bankrupt.
Cross-examined. I brought an action in the Mayor's Court against prisoner on August 27, 1906, for a bill of coats, and recovered judgment for £61 5s. 6d. That was for costs incurred with regard to the formation of a proposed company. I did not include the £25 because it was a separate and distinct matter altogether. Prisoner entered an appearance, but entered no plea. I did not hand him the £25 until he had signed an agreement retainer and undertaking produced, instructing us to act as solicitors, and register a company for exploiting an invention in connection with submarines, and agreeing to pay a fee of 100 guineas. The receipt is signed as part of £100 referred to in the agreement of August 19, 1906, on the terms of the signed particulars of August 14, 1905. The £25 was advanced on terms of repayment only. On forming the company we were to receive some shares. We put the matter before a client, and he arranged to put in some money if the thing went through. I have
not seen the report of an engineer on the invention, but I have read a copy of it. The £25 was not put into the speculation; it was a loan for prisoner's daily expenses. We received tome money from clients towards this syndicate, but it was handed back a long time ago for the simple reason that the thing did not go through. The £25 was advanced to the prisoner at his request to enable him to carry along till the syndicate was formed and the invention was floated.
ERNEST AMPHLETT WHITEHOUSE , solicitor, Queens House, Queen Street. I first heard of prisoner in August, 1905, from my clerk Watts, and saw prisoner on August 16. He wanted £100 altogether, of which £25 was to be for his own personal living and £75 to be retained in my hands towards the business that was in contemplation in connection with his patent. I advanced him £25 and was to get a client to advance the £75, which I did. I signed a cheque to prisoner for £25. Prisoner never told me he was an undischarged bankrupt, nor did I ever gather it from any other source. My clerk found it by searching the records of the Bankruptcy Court.
Cross-examined. There were no patents. Prisoner wanted a solicitor in connection with a scheme for bringing out and completing certain inventions. I am not aware whether there was a provisional patent at the time or not. Prisoner showed me some papers and explained the inventions to me. I have had a good deal to do with mechanical patents, and I was able to appreciate the points of what he told me, and I thought well of it. I was to do certain legal work on his instructions. I had nothing except the legal work to do in connection with the syndicate. I take it I was to receive £105 and out of pocket expenses and certain shares if the thing turned out a success I do not know if I had a receipt for provisional protection. In any case it has expired; there is no protection now. I probably at some time or other had shown to me some receipt for some preliminary fees paid to the Patent Office. I do not think I was to receive paid-up shares if I advanced £100. If I found altogether £100 to finance the matter at that stage, that it £75 to be retained in my hands against expenses that might be incurred in the future and £25 for prisoner's personal use, I was not doubt to receive certain, shares. The inducement to advance the £25 was not that I was to receive so many fully-paid shares. What I looked to was the ability to repay me of a man who appeared to be a clever and ingenious man, and who appeared to be a respectable man. It was contemplated that the business would be carried through speedily, as it would have been had there been common honesty on prisoner's part. No terms were mentioned as to time of repayment. I exacted no instalment at all. Probably he would have been sued for the £25 together with the costs had there been a time of repayment fixed. I have got no animus against the men. If I had I should have brought up other cases against him. There is no foundation in the suggestion that but for the bonus by way of shares I should not have lent him the £25. If there was a question of shares be freely and voluntarily
offered me them. It was absolutely a loan to prisoner. He explained that it was for his own personal use, and the other money was for other purposes. He got a lot of money from other people for making models which he never did at all. He got £100 from some friends of mine as well.
Detective-Inspector FRANK HALLAM, City Police. I had a warrant for prisoner's apprehension, and arrested him at Old Jewry on October 16, 1906. I said, "I am an inspector of police. I have a warrant for your arrest," and I read the warrant to him. He said, "Misfortune upon misfortune! As I was about to float a company to explore my two patents I am arrested." [To the Recorder.] He did not suggest that the £25 had been given to him as a present. He said, "I do not owe Mr. Whitehouse a penny."
At this point prisoner withdrew his plea of Not guilty and pleaded Guilty, and the jury found a verdict accordingly.
Convictions proved: Six months' hard labour for obtaining 10s. by false pretences, October 21, 1903, at Dorchester, and at Reading, in 1904, seven months' for obtaining money by fraud; it was stated there were other charges against prisoner. Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.
NEW COURT; Monday, November 26.
(Before the Common Serjeant)
BOYCE, Frederick Lawrence (publisher), WADE, John Rossiter (48, publisher), and DAWSON, James Victor (32, clerk) ; all conspiring and agreeing together to defraud of their moneys such liege subjects of His Majesty as might thereafter be induced to pay money to them for the insertion of their names, addresses, and advertisements in "Dawson's Mercantile Directory and Diaries"; all obtaining by false pretences from George Philips the several sums of 5s. and 5s.; from Arthur Eustace Child, £1 5s. and £1 17s. 6d; and from John Francis Edward Hall 5s., in each case with intent to defraud; Boyce and Wade conspiring and agreeing together and with other persons unknown to defraud of their moneys such liege subjects of His Majesty as might thereafter be induced to pay money for their names, addresses, and advertisements in "Kemp's Trade Directory," "London Commercial Trades Directory," "Trades Directory of London and Provinces," "Collins's General Directory," and "The British Trader Directory." Boyce and Wade obtaining by false pretences from Rudolf Michal Heidler £2 10s., from Frances Lamb £1 10s. and £2, from George Philips 5s., 5s., 5s., 5s., 5s., 5s., 5s., 5s., and 5s., from Arthur Eustace Child 7s. 6d., 18s., 17s., and 17s. 6d., from John Francis Edward Hall 17s. 6d. and 7s. 6d., from Charles Fells Latham 15s., in each case with intent to defraud.
Boyce and Wade pleaded guilty.
Mr. A. B. Gill and Mr. Eustace Fulton prosecuted. Mr. Wildey Wright appeared for Boyce and Wade. Mr. De Michele and Mr. Davidson defended Dawson.
SAMUEL HENRY GARROWAY , printer, 44, Berwick Street, Oxford Street. In October, 1905, I printed a number of order forms and receipts purporting to be in connection with "Dawson's Mercantile Directory and Diaries." The three prisoners gave the order. They all came together. The order was for 200 slips or order forms and 100 receipts. The order form was as follows: "Representative—"DAWSON'S MERCANTILE DIRECTORY AND DIARIES," Order. Please insert the accompanying matter in your next issue, for which we agree to pay the sum of—. October 16th, 1905. Signature—. Trade.—. Address—. Date.—Town—." The receipt form was as follows: "Receipt for subscribers." DAWSON'S MERCANTILE DIRECTORY AND DIARIES," 148, Old Street, London, E.C. Date—. Received of—the sum of—for—. For Dawson and Co. Representative—." A further order was given for some memos. and billheads when the slips and receipts were called for. As far as I can recollect, all three prisoners came each time the orders were given. The billheads were: "Dr. to Dawson and Co. 148, Old Street, E.C., Publishers and Advertising Agents." We also printed the following receipt form: "Receipt for subscribers." DAWSON'S MERCANTILE DIRECTORIES AND DIARIES," 148, Old Street, London, E.C. Received of—the sum of—for insertion. For Dawson and Co.—. Representative."
Cross-examined. When the first order was given I believe it was Boyce who spoke. So far as I can remember, Dawson did not make use of a single expression at either of the interviews. I cannot remember whether all three came to my place on the second occasion. I had no introduction to these people before I executed the order. I made no inquiries as to them or their business, or anything of the kind. I cannot remember how many interviews I had with them or any of them.
Re-examined. The orders were not given In any name, nor were they booked. Cash was paid for the first order, and prisoners came when the prints were finished and took them away.
EDWARD STEPHENS , metal perforator, 148, Old Street, E.C. I am employed by my father. In October, 1905, we had a smell office to let for 2s. 6d. a week. It was not an offices but part use at an office. I recognise prisoner Dawson as a man I have seen at 148, Old Street, but I am not able to say whether he is the man who took the office. I have seen him in and out of the premises. He was only there a very short time. I do not know whether he did any business there. Anybody could sit and write all day if he liked. Dawson came on October 6, and took the office on the 9th.
Cross-examined. I did not let him the premises, and had no conversation with him. There is only one room we let, and there are places for perhaps a dozen people. There are boxes where they can
put their things. Customers have their letters addressed there. I swore before the magistrate: "I cannot swear that I have ever seen Dawson in my life." I said I was certain I had seen him, but would not swear to it.
Mr. Gill said as the identity of Dawson was disputed it would now he necessary to call the officer in the case.
Detective-Sergeant FREDERICK WEST, New Scotland Yard. on October 10 of this year I received a warrant for the arrest of Dawson. I went to 82, Wells Street, Oxford Street, accompanied by Mr. Child, clerk to Messrs. Panhard and Levasseur. We waited some time, and eventually saw Dawson come out, accompanied by a man named Donovan. Child said something to me and we crossed the road. When we got within a yard of the pavement, Dawson noticed the witness Child, and immediately turned round and commenced to run in the direction of Mortimer Street. I caught him by the collar, and Child said, "That is the man I know as Watson." I told Dawson I was a police officer and held a warrant for his arrest for conspiracy with Boyce and Wade. He said, "What, after all this time! I left them a long time ago. What do you say the warrant is for?" I said, "Come inside and I will read it to you." I went with him and Donovan to a room on the first floor of Wells Street, and I there read the warrant to him. He said nothing in reply. I conveyed Dawson to the Vine Street Police Station. At the police station he said, "I will tell you all about it." I told him that anything he said I should put in writing, and it might be given in evidence against him. He then said, "I first met Wade and Boyce about 18 months ago at the 'Clarence' public-house, next door but two from my office, and they asked me to make one or two calls for them, which I did. Boyce and Wade suggested that we should enter into partnership, and bring out a directory entitled, 'Dawson's Mercantile Directory and Diaries.' I saw an office at 148, Wells Street, advertised to let, so I spoke to Boyce and Wade, and it was arranged that I should take it, which I did, and remained there a fortnight. This was in October last year. We all three, Boyce, Wade and I went to Garroways, the printers, in Berwick Street, where we ordered some receipts and slips to be printed, headed, 'Dawson's Mercantile Directory and Diaries, 148. Old Street. London, E.C.' I said to Wade and Boyce, 'We are not going to use this for any other book bat Dawson's.' Shortly after this I collected 37s. 6d. from the clerk to Panhard and Levasseur, Regent Street, and gave him a receipt, and I told him it was for the book I was going to bring out, not for advertisements that had appeared. Boyce and Wade, after we had the first lot of receipts printed, again, went to Garroways, the printers, and had some more receipts printed, and they did not take them all away. These receipts (produced) are all in my handwriting. and were given me by Boyce and Wade. 32, Charing Cross, with the exception of one that I got from Donovan. I collected the money, and handed it to Boyce and Wade, together with the counterfoils.' The receipts, representing sums of money collected, were received
from Child. They were shown to Dawson, who admitted that they were in his handwriting. One of the receipts it at follows: "16, Leyland Street, Harpurhey, Manchester, February 12, 1906.—Received from Messrs. Panhard and Levasseur, Regent Street, the sum of 37s. 6d. for one trade insertion in the 'Mercantile Diary and Guide to Manufacturers, Merchants, and Shippers.' Lancashire and Yorkshire Advertising Company. Representative, J. Watson "—the signature being that of the prisoner. Another receipt it: "The 'Manufacturers, Merchants, and Shippers' Trades Diary." with London, Provincial, and Foreign Sections. February 12, 1906.—Received from Messrs. Panhard and Levasseur the sum of 37s. 6d. for—in the above." That is signed by prisoner Dawson in the name of J. Watson, as representative of the Mercantile Publishing Syndicate, Fetter Lane, E.C. On February 17 there is this receipt, signed by prisoner: "Murray's Commercial Directory and Traders' Guide.' Published by H. A. Murray and Co. (56th edition), London, Liverpool, Glasgow, Paris, New York, and Sydney, N.S.W. Received from Panhard and Levsseur, of 141, Regent Street, the sum of £1 17s. 6d., being the amount paid for entry of insertion in the above publication. For the Publishers, J. Watson, Authorised Agent. Date, February 17, 1906." Under date March 12: "'Harris's Travellers, Tourists, and School Guide,' 54, Bow Lane, E.C. London, March 12, 1906.—Received of Panhard and Levasseur the sum of 37s. 6d. (A. E. Child). J Watson." Next: "'The International Business and Professional Guide.' Published by George Lambert and Co., Ludgate Hill, London, and at New York and Paris.—Received from Panhard and Levasseur of—the sum of 37s. 6d. being the amount paid for entry of insertion in the above publication. For the Publishers, J. Watson, Authorised Agent. Date, April 24, 1906." Next: "Established 1882. 'The Mercantile Directory and Provincial Guide.' A classified work for every trade and profession.—Received from Messrs. Panhard and Levasseur the sum of 37s. 6d. for one insertion. Representative, J. Wesson, for K. Russell and Co., Fetter Lane, London, E.G. Date, May 7,1906." Next: "'The Standard London sad Provincial Directory.' Published by Charles Nolan and Co., Granville House, Arundel Street, Strand, London, W.C. May 17, 1906.—Received from Panhard and Levasseur the sum of 37s. 6d. for one insertion in the above. Authorised Agent, J. Watson." Next: "'Graham's Universal Trades Directory, with Professional and Court Sections. Date, May 22, 1906—Received from Panhard and Levasseur 37s. 6d. for one insertion in above. Graham and Co., College Chambers, Holborn, W.C, J. Watson." There is also another receipt purporting to be on behalf of the "Standard London and Provincial Directory," under date June 15, 1906. In each case the receipt is in the handwriting of the prisoner Dawson. A receipt purporting to be in respect of "Bryan's Countries Directories." 32, Charing Cross, S.W. dated August 20, is also in the handwriting of the prisoner Dawson; also a receipt dated January 25, 1906, purporting to be in respect of "Bradshaw's Business Guide," published by Bradshaw,
Sons, and Co., London, Glasgow, Cardiff, Belfast, and Paris. One receipt, dated November 16, 1905, purporting to be in reaped of "Dawson's Mercantile Directory and Diaries," is signed "J. White," in the handwriting of the prisoner.
(Tuesday, November 27.)
Detective-Sergeant WEST, further examined. The receipt of March 5, 1906, purporting to be in respect of "Dawson's Mercantile Directory and Diaries," signed "for Dawson and Co. Representative, J. Watson," on one of the forms printed by Garroway, is in the handwriting of prisoner Dawson. On September 6 I went to 32, Charing Cross, where Boyce and Wade occupied two rooms on the top floor, the address given as the office of Bryan's Counties Directories. On September 13 Boyce and Wade were in custody. On that day I searched the premises, 32, Charing Cross. I found a letter in the handwriting of the prisoner Dawson and signed "V. Dawson." It is dated from the Queen's Hotel, Queen's Road, Brighton: "Dear Fred,—I did not come down until this morning, and it was simply pouring with rain—and the wind! I could not do anything until after dinner. I have enclosed papers that I have done; only taken 5s. yet. Mr. Short is ill in bed, for the last 14 weeks, and his manager tells me I am the thirty-first that has called this year; he will not pay anyone. The same with the Sussex Dairy, the Grand Hotel; they say no one has ever been employed there of that name. They will pay the amount if I produce the order signed by the manager. I have passed four on the same game to-day. I shall not want to stop alter to-morrow, I don't thank, but hope to take some money. Shall call at Post Office Thursday morning. Hoping you are all keeping on soda and milk. Yours, etc., V. Dawson." I found also forms of receipt for "Bryan's Counties Directory," similar to that supplied to Messrs. Panhard and Levasseur; I should think quite 100. I also found one counterfoil form of order for "Dawson's Mercantile Directory and Diaries," but no documents relating to "Bradshaw's Business Guide."
Cross-examined. I said at the police court that Dawson had been connected with Boyce and Wade about 18 months as the result of inquiries I made. I found several order forms in blank relating to various directories. I have never seen the three prisoners together. I should say no genuine business has been carried on at Charing Cross. A lady clerk was employed there, Miss Beatrice Hatherly. I cannot say that in any case a representation has been made that a directory has been brought out. I know that no directory has been brought out. Prisoners Boyce and Wade were arrested by another officer. Dawson was not arrested until October 10. He was arrested as the result of my inquiries and the books I found at Charing Cross. As soon as we were ready we arrested him. Old Street has nothing to do with Donovan. I do not know that when Dawson was at Old Street he was in the service of Donovan. Donovan was carrying
on another bogus directory office in Wells Street. I do not remember to have given evidence of handwriting before. All the receipts which are signed in the name of Watson I recognise as being in the handwriting of Dawson. I wrote the statement at his dictation in my pocket-book and he signed it.
Re-examined. Only one of the receipts bears the name of Dawson. There is one in the name of White, and all the others are in the name of Watson. No genuine business was being carried on at 32, Charing Cross. I found a number of genuine directories there—a cab full. They had been mutilated, and pieces cut out, like the one produced. This is the "London Post Office Directory," published by the London Directory Company, of Abchurch Lane. A number of other real directories had been treated in the same way. I found slips with little printed extracts pasted upon them. The following is a sample of thousands: "Kemp's Publishing Company, 32, Charing Cross Road, London, W.C. Manufacturers, Merchant Shippers, and Professional, for Great Britain and Ireland. Not to be used as a receipt. Amount to pay. Town. Fleet. Classification. Hairdressers and Tobacconists.—PHILLIPS, E., Fleet Road, Fleet, Hairdresser and Tobacconist." I found a number of printed volumes with the title, "Kemp's Trades Directory," bearing title pages for the years 1901 to 1906. In some cases there are displayed advertisements pasted in after the book was bound, otherwise there is no difference in the volume except the title-page. I find the same printers' errors. In one or two cases a portion has been omitted or put in twice, but that is the only difference. I also found some volumes bearing the title, "London Commercial Trades Directory," from 1902 to 1906. Except for the name there is no difference between the "London Commercial Directory" and "Kemp's Directory." No change had been made for the six years they wave supposed to be in existence. The address for the "London Commercial Trades Directory" is 32, Charing Cross. The entrance is at No. 32, but the rooms occupied are over No. 33. There is no separate entrance to No. 33. I found slips relating to the "London Commercial Trades Directory" similar to those relating to "Kemp's Trade Directory "; also slips relating to the "Trades Directory of London and the Provinces," the address for that being "Longmans," Brokers, Dashwood House, London, E.C. I did not find any volume bearing the name "Trades Directory of London and the Provinces," and have been unable to trace the existence of any soon volume. I produce slips of the "London Commercial Trades Directory," with extracts upon them. I took possession of a quantity of correspondence, including a letter from "F. K." to Boyce of July 5,1902, in which the following passage occurs; "What about work you promised me, and what are the towns, as I might be doing a bit? Will you please send me a bottle of Jerker (Hardtmuth's Ink Eradicator) as some of my counterfoils are written across cancelled, and I cannot call on the firms, and some I have taken have cancelled on them, so
please see to this as early as possible." The bottle of Eradicator produced was given to me by Donovan in the presence of Dawson. I did not know what "jerker" was until I got into the case. The following is another letter found: "c/o Mrs. Harris, 11, Broad Street, Margate, 10/2/03. Dear Boyce,—Will you kindly let me have what you can for Margate, Ramsgate, etc., as soon as convenient. I have any amount of foreign cuttings for this district, where I have not previously done any business. If you send me cuttings I can arrange them myself. I can't get any ink eradicator down here; if you will get me some and forward it on I'll send you the money for it, with amount for pottage. Trusting business is going well with you, I remain, yours faithfully, George J. Hinchliffe." Other letters from Hinchliffe of a similar class were found. Another letter was addressed from Liverpool: "Dear Fred,—Enclosed find statement of account: Collected, £5 16s.; sent office, £2 10s. 6d.; expenses, 5s. Enclosed stamps 2s. 6d. I have got to jerk all these papers again, the cancel has come back on the majority of them. You must have done these in a very bad light not to have noticed it," etc. That was from Herbert Sidney Banks, one of the canvassers.
The Common Serjeant. Judging from these notes there must have been a good many people in the fraud.
Witness: Another letter from "H. S. B." is written from Derby: "Dear Fred,—I have only taken 5s. to-day. Things are looking very bad for me. I trust you have forwarded me remainder of papers. I am anxious to get on to Sheffield and take some money. Do not keep me stuck here any longer. You need not trouble to jerk; I can manage that. Hope things are going better with you in town." Another, dated from Newcastle, April 11, 1904, commenced: "Please find £2 due to you as per receipt," etc. A postscript was added: "Send old dopes (duplicates) back later, as Nick is going to do the double on some of them."
Further cross-examined. We removed a cab full of books and papers. There was furniture in both rooms, a counter, and some desks. There were no book cases, but some pigeon holes to put the slips in. There was a cupboard full of rubbish. There was no typewriter.
ARTHUR EUSTACE CHILD , chief clerk of Messrs. Panhard and Levasseur, motor-car makers, Regent Street. On October 20, 1905 prisoner Dawson called upon me concerning a notice of Panhard and Levasseur's business in "Bryan's Counties Directory." I agreed to give an order, and he gave me the receipt produced. On January 25, 1906, Dawson called my attention to "Bradshaw's Business Guide," and on that occasion gave the name of Watson. I did not then recollect that he had previously given the name of Dawson. He stated that he had called for money due, 37s. 6d. for an advertisement in "Bradshaw's Business Guide," and incidentally he asked for a renewal of the order. He produced to me my written order and a slip purporting to show that the advertisement had appeared. I believed
that the advertisement had appeared, and that I had given an order for it. I paid the 37s. 6d., and he gave me the receipt produced. On March 5 of this year "J. Watson," otherwise prisoner Dawson, called on me for payment of an advertisement, 37s. 6d., that had appeared in "Dawson's Directory." He produced as before a cutting mounted on a slip, which appeared to be an extract from a directory, with my firm's name and address, together with the order. I believed that the notice had appeared and paid the money. At the same time I cancelled the order; I told him I did not want to renew it. He then signed the receipt produced. I had already paid 25s. for the insertion of the firm's name in that particular directory, "Colonial and Continental Section," on October 10. The receipt in that instance was signed, "For Dawson and Co. Representative, H. Hand." I do not recollect who called on that occasion. On May 22,1906, prisoner Dawson called upon me with reference to "Bryan's Counties Directory," giving the name of Watson, and said he had called for money for an advertisement which had appeared. I paid him 37s. 6d., and he gave me the receipt produced. Besides these, I handed over to the police a bundle of receipts in respect of money paid to Dawson. In each case he stated that the advertisement had actually appeared, and I paid 37s. 6d. I was in company with Sergeant West on October 1 at the time of Dawson's arrest and waited for him outside 82, Wells Street. Dawson came out in company with another man. I crossed the road and touched Dawson on the shoulder. He looked round, sad, on seeing Sergeant West, endeavoured to bolt, but Sergeant West caught him by the arm.
Cross-examined. When Dawson called I took it that he was calling for the firm he professed to represent. The receipt signed by "Hand" is signed by somebody else.
Re-examined. With that exception, all the receipts were signed by Dawson. I have paid subscriptions to other persons for advertisements. To my knowledge, Dawson never told me he had nothing to do with "Dawson's Directory." He appeared to be a canvasser, and he never mentioned the fact when he called in reference to "Dawson's Directory" that that was his own venture.
GEORGE PHILLIPS , retired colonel, secretary to the Army Scripture Readers and Soldiers' Friend Society. On November 16, 1905, someone called upon me with reference to "Dawson's Mercantile Directory and Diaries," 148, Old Street, London, but I am not able to say it was the prisoner Dawson. He told me money was owing for an advertisement that had already appeared, and produced a counterfoil for a new one, but I cancelled it, as far as I can recollect. I believed the statement at the time, and that there was such a publication as "Dawson's Mercantile Directory and Diaries." I paid him 5s., and he gave me a receipt which be signed, "J. White." On November 28 another canvasser appeared for "Dawson's Mercantile Directory and Diaries." stating that an advertisement had appeared, and I gave him 5s. and he signed a receipt in the name of "C. W. Williams." I had forgotten that I had paid on the 16th. That is partly accounted for
by the fact that my clerk had gone insane about that time and that had thrown the whole thing into confusion. On January 17 of this year someone again called with reference to "Dawson's Diary," and presented a slip with what appeared to be a notice of the society extracted from a directory." DAWSON'S MERCANTILE DIRECTORY and DIARIES, Old Street, London, E.C. [Not to be used as a receipt.] Amount to pay, 5s. Town: London Section. Classification: Societies and Institutions. ARMY SCRIPTURE READERS AND SOLDIERS' FRIEND SOCIETY, 112, St. Martin's Lane, W.C. The sole object of the society is to spread the saving knowledge of Christ among our Soldiers. Colonel G. Philips, Secretary." The telegraph address, "Solemnise, London," is my writing. I paid the money the same day. I think it was on this occasion that the man left the wrong slip and took away the receipt. I believed that in fact the notice had appeared in "Dawson's Mercantile Directory and Diaries," and that it was a real directory. At the same time, he produced an order form with the slip attached to it, signed by me in these terms: "Please insert the accompanying matter in the next edition of the directory, for which I agree to pay the sum of 5s" bearing date July 14, 1904. There was no mention of any directory at the top of the order form. I cannot say whether I ever signed an order form that had not a name upon it. I paid him 5s.
JOHN FRANCIS HALL , advertising manager to the Eagle Insurance Company. On October 23, 1905, someone called upon me—I cannot say who it was—and asked if I would pay a fee for an advertisement in "Dawson's Mercantile Directory." He showed me an order from the gentleman whom I succeeded; also a slip with an advertisement on it. I gave him 5s. and he gave me the receipt produced, signed "E Brew."
Cross-examined. We have many canvassers of directories calling. I cannot give the number; perhaps one or two a month. A good many of our advertisements are done through agents. Applications are made for advertisements which will not appear till the following year. We have some in local as well as London directories, and those are nearly always done through canvassers.
BEATRICE HATHERLY , 18, Burnley Road, Stockwell. On May 15, 1905, I saw an advertisement in the "Daily Express" and called, in consequence, at 32, Charing Cross Road, where I saw prisoner Boyce by whom I was engaged to act as lady clerk. I began my duties on the following Monday and remained 16 months, down to the date of the arrest. On the Saturday (September 8) before prisoners Boyce and Wade were arrested, when I went to business there was a man taking away all the work in a sack—all the papers. There had previously been a large number of documents which we call "dupes "—duplicates of the receipts for different directories. There were also slips of paper with printed cuttings of advertisements. On the duplicates it said, "We agree to pay the sum of—," and the sum would be put in according to what the person wanted to pay; duplicates of orders. I have seen the Ink Eradicator in the office. When they
wanted to remove the writing they Called it "jerking" it. I have seen it used for taking out the word "cancelled" written across order forms and the date, a fresh date being put in with a date stamp, or sometimes in pencil. A week or two before Boyce and Wade were arrested Wade asked me to "jerk" the forms, but I refused. Up to that he had done it himself. As to the "dupes" which have been produced with no heading of the name of any directory, I have seen Wade cutting the tops off, so that if the order had applied to "Kemp's Trade Directory" it could be made to apply to any directory. After the name of the directory had been cut off, the order was attached to a slip with a cutting with the name of a different directory. In the case of the slip taken to Colonel Philips with the order form attached, there was no top to it. It commenced "Order. Please insert the accompanying matter," etc. Of my own knowledge, I know that was printed in respect of the "London Commercial," and afterwards attached to a slip bearing the name of "Dawson's Mercantile Directory." I could not say whether the volumes of "Kemp's Trade Directory" and the "London Commercial Trades Directory" produced were at the office, but there were volumes like them. None of the books were ever sold to the public to my knowledge. Canvassers took them out sometimes. I could not say whether without being sold they were sent out gratis to hotels aid so on; I should not have anything to do with that. I was told by Boyce and Wade not to show the directories to anybody who called. I first saw Dawson there in the winter of 1905, before Christmas; he was one of the canvassers. He came up a week or two before Boyce and Wade were arrested. He would be there every day unless he had work to do in the provinces; when he was in London he came most days.
Cross-examined. I was of opinion that the business was a genuine business. I had the opportunity of studying all the documents. I did not see the persons who called, but only had to do with the inner part of the business. The only thing that excited my suspicions was the "jerking." I have seen Dawson acting as canvasser. He has never paid me my wages nor taken an active part in the business to my knowledge. As canvasser he would receive his instructions from Boyce and Wade. I should say "Dawson's Mercantile Directory" entered into their transactions about six weeks before they were arrested. There were no papers with that name when I first went there. I do not remember a proposal that Dawson should put up £5 and Boyce and Wade £25 for "Dawson's Directory." It would be nothing to do with me. I never heard it said that because Dawson could not find his £25 the directory fell through. I first saw Dawson about November, 1905. I think the idea of "Dawson's Directory" was first started about the middle of this summer. It was then that I first saw papers bearing the name of Dawson. I do not remember the order for slips being given to Garraway. I recollect Mr. Wade mentioning that Dawson had joined Donovan in business, but I could not give the date of that. The papers connected with "Dawson's Directory" continued to be used down to the end. I understood alter
a time that Dawson had left Boyce and Wade, and he had nothing more to do with "Dawson's Directory" in their office. I cannot give the exact date when he left. He never had a seat in their office, but for a year after I went he was there nearly every day. I do not know when he took part in the business of the firm. It was the "jerking" which first aroused my suspicion, and I refused to have anything to do with it. As far as I know, Dawson had no access to the "jerking" box.
Re-examined. I saw slips relating to "Dawson's Directory" right down to the end of the time, but nothing but the slips. I did not know that Dawson was the Dawson of the address in Old Street. I did not know that Dawson had taken the office at Old Street. According to Wade, Dawson was carrying on business with Donovan a months or two before the arrest. I never looked inside these volume ("Kemp's" and the "London Commercial "), and did not know that they were identical. I knew, though "Dawson's Directory" slips were being used up to the end, there was no such directory on the premises. There was a "Bryan's Directory" in the office, of which the police took possession. It had the name of Bryan and Co. in small type on the back at the bottom. I never looked inside it. I never saw "Bradshaw's Business Guide." I do not remember there being any slips at the office of "Collins's Directory" (Collins and Co., Bath Street, Glasgow), like that produced. I cannot say that I have ever seen papers of the "British Trades Directory." (The British Trades Directory Company, Oxford Street, Manchester.) Nothing occurred during all the time I was there to make me suspect it was not as honest business. When Mr. Wade cut off the names of the directories from the order forms and pinned them on to slips belonging to other directories it did make me a little suspicious, but I said nothing about my suspicions. When I saw him making use of the Ink Eradicator, that did not appear to me to be an honest transaction. I did not read letters that came from the canvassers.
To Mr. de Michele. I am under the impression that the name of Bryan was on the office door until July, 1905, two months alter I came. It was there when I went, and suddenly I found it had gone.
ALBERT GRACE , partner in F. Shaw and Co., printers. Arnold Place, Dockhead. About August, 1902, we received an order from Boyce to print a section of a diary, and we subsequently printed 24 sections corresponding with letters of the alphabet. The original order was that a directory was to be produced and 100 copies would be required, but after delivering the proofs we had an order that the 100 copies were to be divided into two directories, "Kemp's Trade Directory" and the "London Commercial Directory," 50 copies of each. At that time I received the following letter: "December 10, Fredk. Shaw and Co., Dockhead, S.E—Gentlemen,—Return herewith rough proofs. They still need a few corrections. As soon as they are done finish off these at your earliest. Please do not omit to change title after you have taken 50 copies of 'Kemp's Trade Directory' to 'London Commercial Trade's Directory.'—Yours faithfully, Kemp's
Publishing Company. Frederick L. Boyce, manager." We carried out these" instructions and printed two fifties. They were identical except for the headings. The printing was finished in the early part of 1903. In 1905 we had a further order for the printing of some advertisement pages and several title pages of the different years from 1902 up to 1906. I cannot speak exactly to the date as I have not my books here. We had numerous transactions with this firm. I have seen the so-called directories at the police court. They were all printed in 1903, and, with the exception of the title-page, there has been no alteration whatever.
Cross-examined. Throughout these transactions we had no reason at the time to think there was anything fraudulent. The different dates did not strike us as being fraudulent. Directories are antedates because they are published considerably afterwards. They are compiled for months before they are published, and canvassers would go and get advertisements months before. The work is made first, and the date is added afterwards. Dummy copies would be made up without a date. If we had suspected anything fraudulent we should not have dealt with these people. The copies produced were bound as well as printed by us. Properly compiled directories are greatly in use amongst the public, not only in the Metropolis, but in all parts of England and elsewhere, and there are innumerable canvassers going about the country getting advertisements for them. There are directories in almost every town and county of England.
Re-examined. It is very unusual to have two different names for the same directory. We did not ask any explanation of that Until the copies were brought to be bound up we did not know that the title-pages were to be prefixed to the matter we printed in 1903. If we had known they were to be so used we should not have executed the order.
Mrs. LYDIA COOK, housekeeper at College Chambers, 249. High Holborn, for 8 1/2 years, gave evidence that no such directory as "Graham's" was published there.
FREDERICK JAMES WILKINS , employed at 54, Bow Lane, E.C., for. 4 1/2 years, deposed that no person named Harris had a room there, and that no directory called "Harris's Travellers, Tourists, and School Guide" was published there.
ARNOLD SPENCER FORD , manager of Granville House, Arundel Street, Strand, gave evidence that there was no firm of Charles Nolan and Co. occupying the premises, nor was the "Standard London and Provincial Directory" published there.
DORSET ECCLES , assistant in the library at the British Museum, deposed to searching for and finding no trace of the following books; "Dawson's Mercantile Directory and Diaries," "Bryan's Counties Directory," "Bradshaw's Business Guide," "The Mercantile Diary and Guide to Manufacturers. Merchants, and Shippers." "The Manufacturers, Merchants, and Shippers' Trade Directory," published by the Mercantile Publishing Syndicate, Fetter Lane," "Murray's Commercial
Directory." Harris's Travellers, Tourists, and School Guide," 54. Bow Lane, E.C." The International Business and Professional Guide." "The Standard London and Provincial Directory," or "Graham's Universal Trades Directory."
Cross-examined. Directories come into the Department of Printed Books, which is the only place where a published book is entered publishers' lists are, of course, sent. They came into the Department of Printed Books through the Copyright Office, and have the publishers" name. There was one of a very suspicious nature of which I could not find the publishers' name, which I thought might possibly be one of those asked for, though the title was not exactly alike. In most of these cases we have directories with very similar titles. It is possible that a single work out of 30,000 in the course of a year might come in under another denomination, but it is not likely that a whole series of titles such as has been put to me should have gone astray. A great many directories are published. I cannot five you any idea of the number, but I daresay there might be 100 in London.
SERGEANT JOHN PROTHEROE . G Division. I have made inquiries with a view to finding the addresses of directories given in tie bundle of receipts handed over by Child. There was one said to be prepared by the Mercantile Publishing Syndicate of Fetter Lane. Mr. de Michele objected to the evidence.
The Common Serjeant. If a man makes inquiries and finds no signs of it that is the best proof of a negative. How else can you prove a negative? You cannot tell whether a thing exists by walking about and looking at the sky.
Mr. de Michele. I say going about inquiring in a place like London whether such and such a thing exists is of no value.
The Common Serjeant. It is only by inquiries you can learn.
Witness. I have tried to find the "Mercantile Publishing Syndicate," of Fetter Lane, and have not succeeded. I made inquiries concerning "The International Business and Professional Guide, published by George Lambert and Co. Ludgate Hill, London," with the like result. The only name of Lambert in Ludgate Hill is the Daniel Lambert public-house. Neither could I find "H. A. Murray and Co." described as of London, Liverpool, Glasgow, Paris, New York, and Sydney, N.S.W.
Verdict, Dawson guilty of conspiracy and false pretences.
Mr. Gill stated there was evidence on the depositions of three other directories which had not been dealt with at all in the course of the case—"Trades Directory of London and the Provinces," "Collins's General Directory," and "The British Trades Directory "—which were not traceable anywhere and the existence of which was entirely fictitious. With regard to those, the same persons had been victimised. They were on all fours with "Kemp's "and the "London Commercial," but no volume was in existence with regard to them. This swindle had been in existence for some time, and a number of people were employed to collect money, many of whom were participators in the fraud, and there was a long list of canvassers who had
been convicted all over the country. Wade was convicted in 1898 for directory frauds. There was no conviction against Boyce, but his brother had been convicted at this Court for a similar offence.
Sergeant WEST. In 1900, Boyce was occupying an office in Corporation Chambers, Manchester, with a man named Stephens, where they pretended to publish "Kemp's Directory." The directory we found at Charing Cross is bogus from beginning to end. It contains advertisements that are repeated over and over again, and the middle of the book is made up of title-pages. Although the book is dated 1901, it contains a portion of the Lancet General Advertiser, dated 1901. Boyce, to my knowledge, has never been in trouble before. He was originally employed by Stubbs, the Directory people, and while there enjoyed a very good character. Since 1901 he has been at Charing Cross with Wade, and during that time we have had numerous complaints from the provinces. One thing he hat done is this: if a canvasser of theirs gets arrested anywhere in London and sends for him he goes and tells the magistrate that the canvasser is in his employ, and he does not know why he is using a bogus order, although his order form is attached to it, and in that way he has got two or three discharged, knowing perfectly well the thing emanated from his office. Wade, according to the police report, was convicted at the Sheriff's Court at Glasgow in 1898, and sentenced to three months' hard labour for this class of fraud. Dawson, in 1893, was sentenced sit the South-Western Police Court to six months' hard labour for stealing as Percy Joyce; on June 28, 1897, at Brighton Sessions, five months for stealing rings; on April 5, at Oxon Sessions, 12 months' hard labour and three years' police supervision for stealing two gem rings. He never reported himself to the police, but two days after his liberation in April, 1899, joined the army, and served two years and 161 days in South Africa, being finally discharged as unfit for service on a pension of 14s. a week.
Sentences, Boyce and Wade, Three years' penal servitude; Dawson, 18 months' hard labour.
Mr. Gill called attention to the fact that the magistrate had commended the police.
The Common Serjeant. We do not know what the police operations were, but this was a very successful and extensive fraud, and the police appear to have acted with discretion. One cannot inquire how information reaches the police.
THIRD COURT; Monday, November 26.
(Before Judge Lumley Smith.)
Mr. Charles Mathews and Mr. Ganz prosecuted; Mr. Percy R. Simner defended.
Mr. Mathews stated that the indictment was founded on the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1885, sec. 5, subsec. 2, which makes it an offence for anyone to unlawfully and carnally know "any female idiot or imbecile woman or girl, under circumstances which do not amount to rape, but which prove that the offender knew at the time of the commission of the offence that the woman or girl was an idiot or imbecile." In the present case the girl was a deaf mute, of the age of nineteen, said to be imbecile within the meaning of the subsection. The Act gave no definition of the word "imbecile." Sir Mathew Hale (Pleas of the Crown, Vol. I., p. 23) laid down that "a man that is surdus et mutus a nativitats is in presumption of law an idiot." In the Oxford "English Dictionary" "imbecile" was defined as meaning "mentally weak; of weak character and will, through want of mental power." In Maudsley's work on "Responsibility in Mental Disorders." Vol. III., p. 63, it was stated, "Imbecility is weakness of mind, owing to defective mental development." Sir John Nicholl, sitting in the Prerogative Court of Canterbury, giving judgment in the ease of Ingram v. Wyatt (Haggard's Ecclesiastical Reports, Vol. I., p. 101), defined imbecility as "a collection of indefined qualities, childishness being amongst them." Mr. Mathews quoted from Taylor's Medical Jurisprudence, Vol. II., p. 488, an elaborate discussion of the differentiæ of "idiocy" and "imbecility." Finally, he referred to a recent case triad before Mr. Justice Kennedy at the Bodmin Assizes (Justice of the Peace, Vol. LXX., p. 546). In that case (very similar to the present) Mr. Justice Kennedy "directed the jury that there must be such weakness that under the will of the man there was no chance for the woman; the woman must be incapable of resisting persuasion, of exercising an act of her own will, or of giving or withholding her consent"; and he left two questions to the jury:—(1) Was the woman an imbecile? (2) Did prisoner know it?
The case was tried at length. Summing up, Judge Lamley Smith left to the jury the two questions put by Mr. Justice Kennedy in the cast cited. The jury answered each question in the affirmative, and found prisoner guilty. The police testified that prisoner had hitherto borne an excellent character. Sentence, Four months' imprisonment, second division.
THIRD COURT; Tuesday, November 27.
(Before Judge Rentoul.)
WRIGHT William (26, traveller) ; having received the sums of £5 18s., £3 and £2 7s. 5d. respectively, for and on behalf of Soran Jansen Katterhaj, did fraudulently convert the said moneys to his own use and benefit.
Mr. Thorne prosecuted; Mr. Purcell defended.
traveller, paid not by salary but by commission. At first he was strictly forbidden to take money, but difficulties arose, and then he would occasionally collect money for us; it was his duty to pay it immediately to tie cashier. Finding that he had collected some money that he had not paid over I called him into my office on October 26, and locked the door. I asked him, "How is this?" He said, "I don't know how it is that I ever had temptation to do such things." I asked him how much he had collected. He said, "£115 18s."
Cross-examined. I do not know that some of my customers haft complained that the eggs we warrant as Italian eggs are Russian eggs. At the interview, after locking the door, I said to prisoner, "I want my money"; I may have said, "I don't want to prosecute you," Before the magistrate I said, "I only want my money, then I will not press the charge." Prisoner was remanded to Brixton Prison. I went to the prison; I did not see prisoner, but I sent in a letter to him saying, "I would let you know that the magistrate has been persuaded to let you free if you can set the £100 before trial on Thursday morning.—Yours friendly, Katterhaj."
Mr. Purcell submitted that after these admission his Lordship should stop the case. It had always been the practice where a prosecutor set the criminal law in motion, not for the purpose of punishing crime, but to collect a debt, that that was resented by judges and to fact disallowed.
Judge Rentoul, having during the adjournment consulted the Recorder and the Common Serjeant, said they agreed with him that the improper conduct of the prosecutor offered in itself no defence to this charge. Being a foreigner, prosecutor probably had no idea that he was doing anything unusual or improper.
J. KATTERHAJ, son of prosecutor. I act as cashier, and I have the books before me. I find that on September 12 £5 18s. was paid to prisoner by a Mr. Davis; it was not paid in to us by prisoner. On September 18 £8 14s. was received by him from Mr. Davis; that was not paid in. On September 18 prisoner received £2 7s. 6d. from Mr. Jones; that was not paid in. The three receipts for these amounts (produced) are in prisoners writing.
SERGEANT WILLIAM SMITH , M Division. I arrested prisoner on October 26. I told him I had been making inquiries as to moneys received by him on behalf of Katterhaj which he had failed to account for. He said, I am sorry to say I have had the money; I have lost it betting; I stood to win £100 last Wednesday, but the horse was beat by a short head; if it had won I should have paid it back; I can find the money it you give me time." At the station he made no reply to the charge.
Cross-examined. Katterhaj was present when I arrested prisoner, and heard him say he could find the money if given time. Katterhaj asked me what he should do; I replied that the matter was entirely in his hands, that if he liked to give prisoner into custody I would arrest him. Katterhaj asked me to wait until he had consulted someone in the City; I waited; when he came back from the City he said that the person he had
consulted had instructed him to go on with the matter. I then arrested prisoner on the charge of embezzlement. That was the charge at the first hearing before Mr. Baggallay; after hearing the evidence he said it was not a case of embezzlement, and I then re-charged prisoner with fraudulent appropriation under the Larceny Act of 1891. When the charge was first read over to prisoner, he said, "I did not steal the money."
No evidence was called for the defence.
Verdict, Guilty. Prisoner stated that if allowed out on bail he would probably be able to refund some of the money. He was released on his own recognisance in £40 and an approved bail to a similar amount, to come up for judgment at the next Sessions.
Mr. Symmons prosecuted; Mr. Turrell defended.
FREDERICK JOHN WESTCOTT . In my professional name of Fred Karno I send out a number of companies to different music halls in London and the provinces with pantomime sketches. Each company has an acting manager; be draws from the music hall the payment for the troupe; he keeps a weekly balance of £10 and pays salaries out of it. Prisoner was acting manager of the Town Troupe. In September I went to America and returned on October 9 Mr. Bell, my cashier, made a statement to me, in consequence of which I saw prisoner. I asked him how he had got into such a muddle. He said, "I can't explain it; I have paid some of the boys and forgot to put it down; I will I pay you £1 a week back." I agreed to that; I did not then know of the Clegg matter, the subject of this charge. On October 12 prisoner sent word that he was ill, and he left my service. Subsequently I was shown prisoner's balance sheet containing an entry of £2 paid to Clegg and the receipt produced, which is in Clegg's name, but in prisoner's writing. The four letters produced are in his writing. [These letters contained admission of guilt and appeals to the prosecutor's mercy.]
Cross-examined. Prisoner has been in my employ nearly two years. I know Clegg's writing; if I saw this receipt I should know that it was not in Clegg's writing. Vouchers for salaries are obtained by the acting manager from the different men. I do not know that there was anything wrong in prisoner signing the receipt in Clegg's name, but he should have paid Clegg the money. There is no attempt to disguise the signature to the receipt.
JOHN CLEGG . I am in a comedian employed In the Town Troupe at £3 a week. In the week ending September 8 I had started on the Monday at the Hackney Empire; on the Thursday I was sent to Clacton; there I was paid for the half week, £1. I have never received the £1 due for the first three days at Hackney. The receipt produced for £2 is not signed by me; we always signed our own receipts; I never authorised anyone to sign for me. On the Wednesday I said to prisoner, "What about my money?" He said, "Oh, you will see about that at the end of the week."
Cross-examined. We are always paid by the manager of the troupe we happen to be with; up to the Thursday morning prisoner was my manager.
THOS. SCOTT BELL , cashier to prosecutor. The sheet produced for the week ending September 8 is in prisoner's writing; it came to me in the usual way; it shows a payment to Clegg of £2; among the receipts accompanying it was one for £2 purporting to be signed by Clegg. On prisoner absenting himself from business an investigation of the books was made, and it was found that his petty cash was wrong.
Cross-examined. I did not know Clegg's writing; I knew prisoner's. I did not notice that the receipt was in prisoner's writing; there is no disguise about it.
Detective F. R. HEDGES, P Division. On November 2 I arrested prisoner at Swanley; I read the charge to him. He said, "This is a surprise." On the way back to London he said, "Johnny Clegg worked three days for the company and left on Saturday; he was away; I signed the note in his name; I could not see him. Is there anything else against me?'
Prisoner's statement before the magistrate: "I admit signing the receipt and I admit obtaining the money, but not with any wrong intent."
Captain WILKINSON, secretary of the National Association for the employment of Reserve Soldiers. I engaged prisoner in November, 1902, as a shorthand typist; at that time I could not find a soldier of sufficient experience. He was with me over twelve months, when he left to take up a confidential position with Lord Anglesey. I was extremely sorry to lose him; he was one of the best clerks I ever had. I have since employed him for temporary work, and notwithstanding all I have since to-day I should do so again. He is a good, honest man according to my experience of him. He is married and has one child.
HENRY WILLIAM CHIPPENDALE (prisoner, on oath). I signed this receipt in Clegg's name on September 8. I had known Clegg for a long time. He had worked with the company I had charge of on the 3rd, 4th, and 5th; on the 6th we left for Clacton. On the Friday I received the usual cheque to pay salaries. I thought I had authority to sign the receipt and forward the £2 to Clegg. I am sorry that I omitted to send it to him; it entirely slipped my memory. I remained in prosecutor's employ six weeks after this.
Cross-examined. The whole matter slipped my memory until the day I was arrested. When I was spoken to about my petty cash this matter of Clegg's did not occur to me. I got behind with my cash gradually; I was a little out every week; this was partly due to my making advances to members of the company. I did not think there was anything wrong in signing the receipt in Clegg's name; I see now that it was wrong, but I had no fraudulent intention.
Verdict, Not guilty.
OLD COURT; Wednesday, November 28.
(Before Judge Rentoul.)
MAY, Edgar (carman), HAZLEWOOD, Charles (26, carman), and NOBLE, George (28, carman) . All stealing a load of granite setts the goods of the Stepney Borough Council, and feloniously receiving same; all conspiring and agreeing together to steal the goods of the said Council; May stealing three loads of granite setts, the goods of the said Council, and feloniously receiving same. Noble pleaded guilty. The first charge tried was that against May and Hazlewood for stealing one load of granite setts.
Mr. George Elliott and Mr. Thorne prosecuted; Mr. Symmons defended May.
Police constable GEORGE ROBINSON, 194 K. On October 24 I was on duty in Glengall Street, Poplar, about 11 a.m. I saw Noble in charge of a horse and cart loaded with granite setts; Hazlewood was by the side of the cart talking to him. I thought there was something wrong and kept them under observation. Noble drove the cart into Marshfield Street, into May's yard. Hazlewood remained outside. Presently Noble came out and Hazlewood jumped into the cart with him. I obtained the assistance of Police sergeant Yoell, and we followed them into Lorne Street; there Hazlewood was holding the reins, sitting in the cart. Noble and May were talking together in Plevna Street. When they caught sight of us watching them May and Noble parted; May continued along Plevna Street; Hazlewood drove off in the direction of East Ferry Road. Noble went in the direction of Galbraith Street. I stopped Hazlewood and told him I should arrest him, as I had reason to believe that the load of granite setts that I saw him with with Noble had been deposited in a yard close by. He said, "I only came for a ride with Noble." I took him back to where the other constable bad arrested Noble.
Cross-examined by Mr. Symmons. I know that May went to the police station after the other prisoners were there. May was not charged until about a week after the others. I have been in the district seven years. I know May as having that yard; there is a passage leading to the yard; there is stabling for a number of horses and carts. I saw the granite setts in the yard; they had been unloaded close by another lot of stones. It was by their movements that I judged that prisoners saw that I was watching them.
Sergeant FREDERICK YOELL, 72 K. On October 24, at 11 a.m., I accompanied Robinson to Lorne Street, where I saw Hazlewood sitting in a cart; we went to Plevna Street. There I saw Noble standing talking to May; on seeing us they parted, going in opposite directions. I stopped Noble, and, after speaking to him, arrested him.
Cross-examined by Mr. Symmons. Noble and May were talking together about three or four minutes before they saw us. I judged that they saw us from their movements. I mean that, seeing us, they separated. Noble did not try to run away; in fact, he came towards me.
Police-constable J. B. SMITH, 115 K. On October 24 I went to May's yard and saw some granite setts there. I saw a lad named Havard who made a statement to me. About 10 past 11 May came into the yard. He said to me, "I suppose this stuff belongs to the carmen—it is no food. I supposed they were only going to take it to the shoot. I wish I had never seen it; this means trouble for me."
Cross-examined by Mr. Symmons. I could not say who would have the decision as to charging May; a C.I.D. officer took the matter up and made inquiries, and then May was arrested.
JOSEPH KNIFTON , checker to C. and A. Knifton, trading as Henry Crane, contractors. About October 24 my firm had a contract with Dick, Kerr and co., to cart away materials in connection with the new tramsline from Bloomsbury to Poplar. Noble was in our employ as carman; Hazlewood was in our employment, but he was not in work on the day in question and would have no right to do anything about this job. At 9.30 a.m. on October 24, Noble's cart was loaded up with stones taken from the commercial Road; they would be taken in ordinary course to Blythe's Wharf, Ratcliff. We had no contract or arrangement with May. I gave Noble a delivery sheet for this cartload; I have seen the sheet since; there is no receipt of these stones on it. In delivering the stuff to Blythe's Wharf Noble would not have to go near May's yard.
Cross-examined by Mr. Symmons. Noble started off with a load of stones; I do not know what became of them. King and Templeton were two men in our employ; they went out with loads that morning; what became of them I do not know; they have not come back to draw their money.
ARTHUR HAVARD , labourer, 30, Marshfield Street, Cubitt Town. On October 24 I was employed by May. I got to the yard at 7 o'clock in the morning. May was there then. There were no granite blocks About 8.30 I was in the yard when I saw a load of granite stones come in. The carman said to May, "Where shall I shoot these stones?" May said, "Anywhere there will do." The man shot the stones and then pulled his cart up. The name on the cart was Crane. I left May and the carman in the yard and went to breakfast. When I came back from breakfast there was no other load of stones there. I was not there when Noble came later on; I saw no other stones but those delivered.
Cross-examined by Mr. Symmons. I was only doing little jobs for May, not working for him properly. I did some chaff cutting for him. I never worked for May before or since until that day. I understand what I am saying; I never worked for him before or since. I was not in the yard the night before. I am certain that I left May and the carman together when I went to breakfast. Before the magistrate I said, "I do not remember the time the carman came." I should think, roughly speaking, it would be about 8.30. I said at the police court, "I went to breakfast between half-past eight and nine; I did not leave May in the yard." I am sure now that I left May in the yard with the carman. A lad named Sutherland had a job with me chaff-cutting; he was there when I first went into the yard in the morning; he left at 8 o'clock. I did not say at the police court that he returned before 8.30. He was not back when Crane's carman came. According to the depositions I said "Sutherland was away from 25 to 8 to 25 to 9"; that is wrong. I signed the deposition, but I have been to the solicitor since
It is not right that I saw Sutherland a few days afterwards, and said to him "I went up to the police station and told them I had made a mistake and they nearly locked me up;" nothing of the sort.
Re-examined. In addition to May there are 12 other carmen using the yard; I have been to the yard on other occasions and got jobs from the other carmen; on the day previous to this I was in the yard in that way.
ROBT. COSTELLO , foreman to Dick, Kerr and Co. On October 24 I was on the Commercial Road work and saw three carts of granite setts loaded; two were loaded in King and Templeton's carts, to be taken to Blyth's Wharf. The two sheets produced are the delivery sheets to had; the word "materials" here has been altered to "rubbish" and the words "to L.C.C. shoot" have been put in place of "to Blyth's Wharf "; that is not in my writing.
Cross-examined. Anyone looking at the sheets would, perhaps, not notice the alterations.
ALFRED COLLINS , street inspector to the Stepney Council. On October 25 I went to May's yard; May was there; I saw there three or four loads of granite setts which I identified as the property of the Council. There were other blocks of stone there which May said he had purchased of a contractor named Prior. On October 26 I want and fetched away the loads, the property of the Council; May was there; he made no claim to them.
Cross-examined. It would not be part of my duty to order this prosecution. I am certain of the identity of these granite setts. At the west end of Commercial Road the paving was formed of Guernsey and Aberdeen stones; that is unusual; these loads are Guernsey and Aberdeen.
Sergeant WM. EUSTACE, K Division. On October 23 I saw May at Thames Police Court. I told him there were two men in custody named Noble and Hazlewood, charged with being concerned together in stealing loads of granite setts, the property of the Stepney Council; would he tell me what he knew about it, and I would take it down in my book. He said: "About 11 a.m. yesterday Noble came to me in Plevna Street, and said, 'I have got a lot of old pitchers for you.' I said, 'I don't want them.' He said, 'I have shot them up.' I said,' You had better go and pick them up, as I don't want them.' Noble went away. I did not see Hazlewood. I never saw Noble before in my life. I cannot say why he should put the stones there. I had not ordered any stones in, and I cannot say how he came to know me. About 12.15 the same day I went to the yard, and there saw about three loads of stone which had been shot there. I am positive I was not in the yard between 7 a.m. and 12.15 p.m. that day. I cannot account in any way for their being there except what Noble told me respecting the one load." On the 1st November I saw May and told him, "This is not true; you were in the yard between 7 a.m. and 12.15 p.m.; you were seen there with a boy." He said, "Those who say so are liars." He was then arrested and charged, and made no reply.
Cross-examined. It was on the statement of Havard with others that I decided to arrest him. I found from Havard that May was in the yard between 7 and 12.15.
Mr. Symmons submitted that there was no case against May; his Lordship thought the case must go to the Jury.
(Defence of May.)
EDGAR MAY (prisoner on oath). I am a carman and greengrocer, and have been in business for 26 years. At my yard in Marshfield Street I have got 15 horses and ponies and carts, and other carmen use the yard; On October 24 I left home to go to business at half past five in the morning. I was to the yard till 10 past 7, when I left; up to then no stones had arrived. I went out as usual to call for orders. I went first to East Ferry Road Engineering Works and saw Mr. Hooper; I was there about 20 past 7. I then went to a coffee shop; then to the Globe Rope Works at a quarter to eight and saw Mr. Noakes; I left there about 8.20. I then went to Malthy's at Millwall Docks; I got back about five to nine, had my breakfast, and started on my greengrocer's round, along Lorac Street, Galbraith Street, and Plevna Street; I have notes of the customers I served. In Plevna Street a man came up to me; I had not seen him in my life before. It was Noble. He said "I have got a load of old pitchers for you." I said, "I don't want them." He said, "Don't say that; I have shot them up." I said, "You had better go back and pick them up again;" and I thought he would do so; he went away. I did not notice any police watching us. After going my round I got back to the yard between 11 and 12; I saw the constable there. He said, "I see you have got a lot of stone here." I said, "I thought there was only one load; I see there are three or four." I said, "The best thing I can do is to go round to the station;" and I went the same day. I never saw Hazlewood until I saw him at the police court, and I never saw the cart.
Cross-examined. It was the policeman who told me that the two men had been arrested; that was getting on for 12 o'clock. Between 12 and 1 I went to the station. Noble only spoke to me about one load; he did not mention King and Templeton. I cannot tell you why these loads should have been put in my yard. Havard is a boy who goes behind the brakes in the summer time and gets pence from the drivers for odd jobs. I have known him for six or eight months. I did not see him in the yard when I went there that morning. I cannot tell you why Havard should say was there when the carman brought the load; it is not the who he was.
WM. NOAKES , manager of East Ferry Road Ropeworks, swore that May was with him from 10 or 15 minutes to 8 till 10 or 15 past & Witness was certain of the date, because on that day at 12 he called at May's yard and saw a policeman there. Police-constable Smith was identified in Court by witness as the man he saw there, and the officer said that he saw him there that morning.
Mr. Elliott said that, as representing a public body, he felt that, after the evidence of alibi, it would not be proper to continue the case against May. The jury accordingly returned a verdict of " Not guilty." On the other indictments, of conspiracy and of stealing and receiving other two loads, no evidence was offered, and a verdict of "Not guilty." was entered.
HAZLEWOOD (not on oath) said that he knew nothing about these stones. On this morning he was out looking for work and he met Noble; he went with him to get a ride back home. It was untrue that he drove the cart; he simply turned the hones round, and waited at the side of the cart.
The jury found Hazlewood " Not guilty" on this indictment and on the others, on which no evidence was offered.
NOBLE was then brought up for judgment. He declared that the plea of "Guilty" had been entered in error; all that he had said was that he was "guilty" of delivering the load in May's yard, but not of stealing it. A long discussion took place as to the course to be adopted in an almost unprecedented situation. It was pointed out that one result of the plea of "Guilty" having been taken had been to exclude in the case of the other two evidence which would otherwise have been admissible; further, that Noble had been at the back of the dock during the trial, and must have known that all through he had been treated as having pleaded "Guilty." Eventually, though with great hesitation, Judge Rentoul decided to enter a plea of "Not guilty," and the jury were re-sworn accordingly to try Noble.
In his summing-up later, the learned judge observed that this was a precedent that he thought should not be followed, and he even questioned the rightness of the course in this particular case.
Mr. Thorne prosecuted.
The witnesses, ROBINSON, YOELL, KNIFTON and COLLINS, repeated the evidence they gave on the last trial.
Prisoner. It was half-past 10 or quarter to 11 when I went with the load to May's yard.
Judge Rentoul. All through the last case we were assuming that this load was taken there by you at 8.30. If what you say is true, your original plea of guilty altered the whole course of the last case.
HAVARD. It was not this man who brought the load at 8 30.
Judge Rentoul. May's alibi was all directed to the early hours up to 8.30. Of course he might also have been able to prove an alibi as to the later period; but the whole thing is extremely unfortunate.
Prisoner in his defence (not on oath) said that be loaded his cart as stated by Knifton and made his way to Blyth's wharf. He had got to White Horse Street when a man, a stranger, ran to him and said, "Where did you fetch them setts from—from Joe Knifton's?" He replied, "Yes." The man then handed him a ticket and told
him to take the load to May's yard, which he did. He could not recognise the man again. On his way to the yard he met Hazlewood, who asked him to give him a ride home. In the yard he saw a boy; he could not be certain that it was Havard; he asked the boy where he should shoot the stuff. The boy said, "All right, shoot it there." He asked where May was, and the boy said, "Round the corner." He then went out to look for May; he did not know May; a coal chap pointed out May standing with his greengrocer's cart; he went unto May and said, "I have shot a load of pitchers in your yard." May said, "You had better take them back." He left to go back to the yard, when the police stopped him and arrested him.
Verdict, Not guilty. The charge of conspiracy of course lapsed, as the result of the other trial.
OLD COURT; Wednesday, November 21.
(Before Mr. Justice Grantham.)
Mr. Charles Mathews and Mr. Arthur Gill prosecuted; Mr. Kingsbury defended.
DR. WILLIAM BRUCE GORDON-HOGO , Coroner for Middlesex, produced the depositions taken by him in longhand at the inquest on October 18. Prisoner gave evidence on oath, after the usual caution, and afterwards signed his deposition. (The evidence of prisoner was then read.)
EDWARD HALL , of Gunnersbury. I attended the inquest as a newspaper reporter. I took a fairly full shorthand note, not a verbatim note, of the evidence of prisoner; my transcript contains nothing that prisoner did not say. (The transcript was then read.)
Cross-examined. Witness said that he was only taking a report for his paper, but he followed the evidence very closely. He admitted one or two clerical errors in the transcript.
EMMA MADELEIN PARSONS . I keep a day school at 9, Queen Anne's Gardens, Chiswick; about sixty boys and girls attend it, girls from the age of 4 to 16 or 17, boys to about 10 or 12. Young Chisholm attended school down to October 4 last. On that day, at about a quarter to 12, my attention was called to him by his class mistress; he was pale and suffering from a bad headache. I took him to the dining-room to rest on a couch; I gave him some cakes and porridge. He was not well enough to go home, and I sent to his mother to say that I was looking after him instead of his going home to lunch as usual. Mrs. Chisholm came about 20 past 2 and took him away in a cab.
Cross-examined. I did not consider the boy seriously ill. Perhaps two or three times in a term one of our children may have some slight complaint. At this time I had not heard of any diphtheria in the neighbourhood;
none of my scholars was ill with any infectious disease. The boy was slightly feverish and a little cold; I did not take his temperature.
Re-examined. He seemed a little shivery as a child would be who was slightly knocked up. On taking the porridge he was sick; I thought it might be the appearance of measles, but on inquiry I found he had had measles. Since October 16 we have had three cases of diphtheria among our scholars, two boys and one girl. An examination was made of the premises, and nothing was traced there to account for the cases; the three pupils have gone on satisfactorily. The first child was taken ill six days after this boy died; that would be nearly three weeks after he left the school; the three bad been attending the school whilst young Chisholm was there.
(Friday, November 23.)
THOMAS HILL BISHOP , registered medical practitioner, Bedford Park. I knew prisoner very slightly about six years ago; I attended some of his children, not this boy, I think. On October 16, about 8 a.m., I received a letter from prisoner. I have destroyed the letter; it told me of the death of the boy during the night, and requested me to call at the house. I went to 13, Rushhall Avenue at once and saw prisoner. He told me that the boy had been brought home from school by his mother on October 4; that be appeared to be in a high fever and complained of headache and sore throat, and that later he had difficulty in swallowing, and swelling appeared in the glands of the neck; he had difficulty in speaking, and there was a very offensive smell of the breath; there had been a discharge from the nose, and food when swallowed had returned through the nose. I asked him whether the boy had passed away suddenly, and he said he had. I asked to see the body; prisoner told me I should find it somewhat wasted and thin; he attributed this in part to the difficulty experienced in feeding. On these particulars I told prisoner at once that the boy had suffered from diphtheria; that was before I had seen the body. He told me he had considered the illness to be mumps, owing to the swelling in the glands of the neck. I saw the dead body, but did not then examine it I told prisoner it would be my duty to report the case to the coroner, and that I did at once. I afterwards made a post-mortem examination of the body. It was well grown, considering the boy's age; it was slightly thin and wasted; the muscular tissue was wasted and poor. I examined the back of the throat and nose by artificial light; there was a quantity of purulent discharge there; the nostrils were blocked with a blood-stained discharge; the soft palate and the tonsils were swollen and inflamed. On the lining membrane of the throat were two raw-looking patches, and a further quantity of purulent discharge. I took two specimens; one I sent to the Clinical Research Association. I came to the conclusion that death had resulted from paralysis of the heart, the result of diphtheria. The diphtheria germ throws out a quantity of virulent poison into the blood, which acts upon the nerve centres of the heart and also on the heart muscle itself, and produces paralysis. The symptoms which reveal the existence of diphtheria are: swollen neck, feeble articulation, discharge
from the nose, the regurgitation of food through the nose, and the offensive smell of the breath—the two latter are not in any way indicative of mumps. Taking the ordinary course of the disease, within the first two or three days the false membrane would appear, probably, on the tonsils, with the swelling and the bad-smelling breath. There would be external swelling in mumps also, but no false membrane and no discharge, and the swelling would be in a different position. I am acquainted with the anti-toxin treatment for diphtheria; it has been very successful. It is most effective when adopted in the early stages, but it is used up to the tenth or twelfth day with beneficial effect. In addition to this treatment, stimulants are commonly employed. Strychnine is a good stimulant, and a direct antidote to the diphtheritic poison. Further, the throat should be syringed at very short intervals with an antiseptic solution. Where there is difficulty in swallowing, food is administered by means of a tube passed through the nostrils. Without speaking positively as to this case (because I did not see it during the illness) I think that with medical treatment, applied early and properly, recovery should take place; there is of course a percentage of fatal cases. This was a strong healthy boy, and I think probably if treatment had been applied early he would have recovered; apart from the saving of life, I have no doubt that treatment would have prolonged the life. Having regard to the condition of the heart, it is not right that the boy should have been allowed to get up from day to day; he should have been dept rigidly in a recumbent position. I treated two or three subsequent cases spoken to by Miss Parsons. On inspection of the school premises nothing wrong was found with the drainage system. My opinion is that the infection was certainly spread from this first case, I cannot definitely say how. A common way is by what are known as carrier cases; without suffering from the disease, a person may carry about the poisonous germs and infect others; carrier cases have frequently been found in school epidemics.
Cross-examined. I have been in practice about 15 tears, for 10 years in Chiswick; I have had one or two cases a year of diphtheria. Diphtheria is frequently epidemic, but we do get isolated cases. As to symptoms common to diphtheria and mumps, swelling of the glands, fever, difficulty in swallowing, stiff neck, some pain, some difficulty in swallowing, and vomiting, these occur in both. The expert would undoubtedly distinguish between the two diseases; the average layman might not. Mumps is usually a trivial complaint, but I have known serious cases. A child would not show considerable symptoms in mumps after the first 4 or 5 days; the swelling might last a fortnight. Both these art known as acute specific diseases, and they are as a rule epidemic, and highly infectious. When I saw prisoner on the 16th, he was naturally very distressed. The description he gave me of the boy's illness was not given in reply to my questions; be himself gave me such a clear picture of the course of the illness that I at once formed an opinion of its nature. Before the Magistrate I said that the death was due not to paralysis of the heart but to synoope; I consider the two terms synonymous, in connection with diphtheria, I did not rely on the bacteriological examination of the
Clinical Research Association for my diagnosis, but as confirming my observations. Prisoner did not use to me the word "regurgitable"; he told me that food returned through the boy's nose; I did not question him about it in detail. The bacillus of diphtheria might be in a healthy person's throat without his knowing it; its presence there is not in itself conclusive of the presence of diphtheria, without some other lesion in the throat, for example, If an examination is made during life, the false membrane is invariably found in a case of diphtheria; that is my experience; I will not say that diphtheria cases are not known where no false membrane appeared; on the other hand, in the case of a person in perfect health, bacteriological examination might reveal the bacillus, although diphtheria was not present. High fever is common in many ailments, especially amongst children; so with sore throat, difficulty in swallowing, offensive breath, and discharge from the nose. Regurgitation is symptomatic of diphtheria; it is not a certain sign without other confirmation. It is possible, with children, to have cases of diphtheria where the illness appears to be very slight, and the fatal termination may come quite suddenly. In any severe case I should expect the child to be able to express his likes or dislikes as to food. In all child illnesses there is more or less wasting. There may be cases in which the false membrane would not be visible on examination of the throat. The inflamed condition of the mouth and throat might be due to other causes than diphtheria. The deposit on the tonsil in cases of tonsilitis might, to the untrained eye, simulate the appearance of the false membrane. The antitoxin treatment was first generally used in this country about 1894. In no given case can it be said with certainty that it will effect a cure; but I repeat that I am of opinion that it will prolong life; I say with certainty that I am of opinion that it would; I cannot give a more direct answer than that. According to the Metropolitan Asylums Board Report, in four years before antitoxin was introduced, the average death rate from diphtheria was 30.39; in 1905 it was 9. I have not made an exhaustive study of the statistics. [Mr. Kingsbury read from the last Report to the effect that in 1888 the mortality rate was 59.3; in 1889 it was 40.5; in 1890, 38.5; in the following years a further drop, and in 1894, 29.3. Since 1894 (the year in which antitoxin was introduced) the greatest drop was 6.5 per cent; the point made being that previously to the introduction of antitoxin, the percentage had for some years been steadily falling, while since 1894 the reduction had not been maintained.] Referring to the three subsequent cases, the first boy was taken ill on October 21. During young Chisholm's illness, there would be no communication from the Chisholm house to the school; but it is possible that whilst he was at the school be infected some of the other children, and they may have acted as carriers. I admit that it is possible that this boy and the others may have been infected from some common sources, but we looked for that common source and failed to find it. I do not know of any serious disagreement in the profession as to the use of strychnine. [Dr. G. O. Garrett was quoted as saying, in a paper published in the St. Thomas's Hospital reports, that he rejected both strychnine
and alcohol at stimulants, believing them to be positively harmful.] I do not know that there are members of the profession who look upon the serum and antitoxin treatment with great suspicion. The first of the serums introduced was that discovered by Koch, for the cure of tuberculosis; Koch himself did not herald his tuberculin at a cure for all tubercular diseases; his hand was rather forced.
Mr. Justice Grantham expressed the view that this line of evidence was rather wide of the mark.
Re-examined. Every case most be diagnosed according to the combination of symptoms it presents and not upon one single symptom. A medical man of average capacity and experience called into this case would have had no difficulty in diagnosing it.
To the Jury. It is hard to say whether an inexperienced layman could distinguish between mumps and diphtheria; it would depend upon his knowledge. In diphtheria the critical stage is reached at varying periods; it might arise in the first two or three days; there is no general rule.
JAMES SAMUEL AUSTIN WALTER , M.D., F.Ch.S., a Director of the Clinical Research Association. On October 7 I received in sealed packets a swab taken by last witness and a portion of the throat of this boy. I found diphtheria bacilli (the Klebs-Loeffler bacilli) in both. I made a culture and developed the germs. On examining the portion of the structure of the throat I found an inflamed, slightly abraided surface of the mucous membrane and covering that a considerable number of diphtheria bacilli.
FRANCES MAUD TURNER , 96, Beaufort Street, Chelsea. I have been a Christian Scientist eight or nine years; I am not a "healer," I am a "practitioner"; the latter word conveys the right meaning; the "healer" we understand in Christian Science is God. I understand the functions of a Christian Science practitioner to be to pray; anybody who believes in prayer and that God will answer prayer can be a healer. I believe all Christian Scientists are believers in the efficacy of prayer; there are a great number of practitioners. As a practitioner a payment is made for my services; the maximum charge is one guinea a week; four shillings for a single day's attendance. [To the Judge.] The healers or practitioners appoint themselves; the efficacy of our prayers depends upon our faith and trust in God. [To Mr. Gill.] Before becoming a Christian Scientist I was trained as a nurse at the Middlesex Hospital in 1888; I was there about four years; then I took a few private patients. Among my cases I had one of diphtheria; there was a doctor attending to that. [The Judge: What is the "science" about Christian Science—We understand that it we put into practice the teachings of Jesus we shall bring out as scientific results as he did.] I also had a case of mumps, but I had only casual acquaintance with it. I knew prisoner before October 6 last; I knew he was a Christian Scientist and he knew I was one. On that day he came to me and asked me to come down and see Mrs. Chisholm as their little boy was ill. He seemed very anxious about the boy. I went to the house on that day about noon. The boy was in bed; there were two beds in his room, or rather a bed and the cot on which he lay. I
spoke to the boy, and prayed as we understand it in Christian Science for about 20 or 30 minutes. According to our belief the efficacy of the prayer should have been that the boy would get well. [To the Judge.] That is what you hoped; I suppose you mean that a miracle should be brought about? I do not think I would understand it like that; I believe that those who believe in prayer will get the results of their prayers to Jesus.—Then as far as human care is concerned it would be a miracle—something outside human care?—Yes.—If there is anything in it, why should not the patients always get well?—They would if our faith and trust in God was sufficiently strong.—I suppose your faith was sufficiently strong?—It evidently was not in this case. According to one's past experience and one's trust and confidence, if we will grow more and more into an understanding we shall get further results. [To Mr. Gill.] I attended again on the 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th, and again prayed. I made no examination of the boy's throat. On the 6th I had noticed a swelling on the left side of the neck but it was much better on the 8th, and went on improving. I also noticed on Home little squares of butter muslin that he had been using as a handkerchief a little blood-stained matter, not dark at all. I mentioned the fact to Mrs. Chisholm, and asked her what I should do with the muslin pieces. She said we will burn them. Besides Mr. Chisholm and this boy there was another son, aged 22, in the house, and a maidservant. I do not think the eldest son or servant ever came into this room. There seemed to be not a marked, but a steady improvement in the boy's health. On the 11th, my suspicions were first aroused as to what the case might be. On that night I sat up with the boy in order to relieve the mother's anxiety. During the night my suspicions were aroused as to whether it might be diphtheria; I had some thought of other things, such as sore throat, but diphtheria was the first that crossed my mind when I began to think about it. In Christian Science we hope and expect the recovery to be quick, and it occurred to me when I sat up with him why he had not got better more quickly. I suppose it was the difficulty in swallowing that suggested to me diphtheria; I can remember nothing else very definite; he was swallowing better than he had been doing on the 8th, but not so well as he should have done. On the night of the 11th when I sat up with him I should say it was not as a practitioner or healer, or as a professional nurse, but rather as a friend to relieve the mother. On the 12th Miss Jones was called to the case, and took up her residence in the house. I did not see her till the 13th. She took charged the case and slept in the boy's room. I was there again on the 14th and 15th. On the 15th I went between 11 and 12 and continued my praying. The boy seemed better and stronger; the swelling had gone down and the swallowing was better; he was sitting up in a chair. The voice was not a natural voice; he spoke huskily. On that evening after 9 o'clock, Mr. and Mrs. Chisholm called at my house, and spoke about their anxiety and worry. They brought me a letter from Miss Jones: I have been unable to find the letter. After reading the letter I wondered what their anxiety was about, because one passage in the letter was to the effect that I need not come round. No statement was made by Mr. and Mrs. Chisholm of any fear that the illness would terminate fatally. Mr. Chisholm
said the boy had hiccoughs, and he thought that was a bad sign. They seemed anxious that I should go round with them. Nothing was said about my being saved the trouble and annoyance of a public inquiry. I asked them whether they would like to change the practitioner, and they said No; then I asked would they like to have a doctor? Mrs. Chisholm replied: "If God heals not the sick, then they are not healed." I said I was quite willing to go on with the case if they were satisfied, and we talked a little about their fears, and so on. I offered to go round with them, but they seemed to think it unnecessary. I cannot indicate what the nature of their fear was; I should call it a nameless sort of fear, principally on the part of the mother. Christian Scientists believe that God is the only healer. This interview lasted some little time; they did not accept my suggestion that I should go back with them, and they left me. Shortly afterwards, about half-past twelve in the early morning of the 16th, I had a message to go to the house. On my arriving there I found that the boy had died about twenty-nine minutes to one. In cases of infectious diseases we Christian Scientists always report them to the medical officer of health; we always fulfil the requirements of the law. The Christian Science parent is at perfect liberty to call in a doctor if he chooses in any case. Speaking personally, I should always report a case of infectious disease. (The Judge): How can you tell if you make no examination?—If I felt doubtful about a case I should ask the medical officer to come round.—How could you feel doubts; you made no examination here?—No, because I believed it was a case of mumps. (To Mr. Gill): When I thought of diphtheria on the 11th I did not report it, because it was only a suspicious thought in my mind. I spoke to Miss Jones about it. I did not look in the boy's mouth; if I had I should have been none the wiser; it might have been an ulcerated throat or it might have been laryngitis.
Cross-examined: I had eight years' training as a nurse; I should be able to recognise measles or scarlet fever without any examination; in the same way I say I thought here that it was a case of mumps, and considered it quite a trivial matter. Throughout the illness Mrs. Chisholm took a large share in the nursing; by the night of the 12th the seemed worn out, and that was why I sat up with the boy, not because I had any dread about his illness. When I spoke to the boy on the 6th he seemed an intelligent, sharp boy; he seemed quite conscious of what was going on; he was not in a state of high fever, so far as I could observe, all the way through. From the 6th onward there were signs although not very marked, of improvement each day. I never saw any large quantity of food returned through the nose; there was never anything that could be called regurgitation at all. The boy would sit up in bed occasionally, but would not get out of bed. I remember talking to him once about a little story book, telling him the name of it and what the story was, and he took great interest in it. I used to ask him if he felt better, and he would say "Yes, I am better." I really believed be was getting better, both from that and from his appearance—his eyes and so on; he never complained of feeling worse. As to my religious beliefs, they may be summed up in this: I believe all the promises made
by Jesus, and that if I had the same faith that Jesus exercised when upon earth I have a right to expect similar results. The meaning I attach to the word "Science" is that, given that faith, I get constant results; but we practitioners recognise our imperfections and do not claim to be successful in every case. I am in no way dependent financially upon the practice of Christian Science; I frequently attend people without payment. As to his Lordship's question about a miracle, the meaning of the word "miracle" is, a wonder. I do not consider it wonderful that I should find these promises that I speak of fulfilled. I did not make an examination of the child, because I hold that a physical examination would not assist me. Throughout the course of this illness it never occurred to me that this boy was going to die, or that there was any serious danger. I thought he had some trivial childish ailment. In talking it over with Nurse Jones, on the 13th, I came to the conclusion that it was mumps; the symptoms were not diphtheritic symptoms according to what she told me. On the night I sat up with him he was sleeping easily and breathing freely; he was not delirious at all and did not complain of excessive thirst or pain, and he seemed to enjoy his food. There was not much to distinguish him from a perfectly healthy boy. When prisoner and his wife called on me that last night neither of them said they feared that the boy was going to die. In a newspaper report of the inquest it is stated that Mr. Chisholm spoke of some conversation with me, in which he said to me, "Will you stick to your guns?" No such conversation ever took place. When I suggested that they might like to call in another practitioner it was not because I was apprehensive of the result; all I was anxious about was as to why the boy did not get on more quickly. The same newspaper report represents Mr. Chisholm as saying to me, "Are you prepared to face publicity?" No such question was ever put to me; the possibility of an inquest was never discussed.
EDITH JONES . I have been living at prisoner's house since October 17. I have had training as a hospital nurse; I was at Devises Hospital for four years; then for 18 months at Moorfields Ophthalmic Hospital, afterwards at an Eye Hospital in Tunbridge Wells, and for two years I was a sister at the Sussex County Hospital at Brighton; then I went to a native Government Hospital in Egypt; this brings me to 1902. My experience was of medical and surgical cases mostly. I had one case of diphtheria in Egypt; I have not had a case of mumps. In 1902 I became interested in Christian Science, and for the last four years I have been nursing in Christian Science; that nursing simply means sitting up with the patient, looking after his comfort, feeding him, and so on. On October 12, at Mrs. Chisholm's request, I went to her house at 9.30 p.m. I was not paid, but by arrangement I attended on this lad; I slept in his room and was with him until he died. Prisoner generally came into the room before he went to business in the morning and in the evening when he came home. On October 13 I noticed that the boy did not swallow as easily as an ordinary person. On the 14th a little of his food come back through the nose. His voice was rather hoarse and his breath offensive. I never made an examination of his throat. On the 14th or 15th I had a conversation with Miss Turner; we discussed whether the
boy might not be suffering from diphtheria. I did not know that discharge of food through the nose was a symptom of diphtheria. Occasionally the boy got out of bed alone, but I never saw him walk about. On the evening of October 15 prisoner seemed very depressed about the boy, and I suggested that he and Mrs. Chisholm should go and see Miss Turner. At that time I thought the boy was better; I certainly did not think him worse. He began to get worse between 10.30 and 11; he was awake then, when he generally used to be sleeping; at 11.30 he got paler and got restless, moving his arms about, and was hiccoughing; about midnight he was sick, and at 20 to 1 he died.
Cross-examined. I have had no special training in infectious diseases, and no special experience of diphtheria. When I first saw the boy on the night of the 12th his breathing was easy and he slept comfortably; there was no feverishness. From that time I saw a steady improvement in his condition; I never thought he was going to die. On the 13th he asked me for some macoaroni for lunch; he took interest in all that was going on. On the 15th, in the afternoon, he asked me to get him the newspaper and read him the football news. His death was quite sudden. I never discussed with prisoner or Mrs. Chisholm the possibility of there being any fatality; both of them seemed devoted to the boy. The discharge of food from the nose was never more than a mere drop or so; he vomited only twice. He was able to articulate so that I could understand him practically up to the hour of his death.
WM. HT. WILCOX , M.R.C.P., official analyst to the Home Office, with a number of appointments at St. Mary's Hospital. I have had considerable experience of the treatment of diphtheria cases. I have heard the whole of the evidence in this case before the magistrate and in this court, I agree generally in the conclusions come to by Dr. Bishop. This boy died from paralysis of the heart following on diphtheria. Antitoxin, strychnine, and antiseptics are the proper treatment of the disease. The boy's life would probably have been saved if this treatment had been adopted; the chances would have been greatly in favour of saving the life; I have no doubt that the life would at least have been prolonged. The use of antitoxin has generally caused a reduction of about 70 per cent. in the case mortality. According to the Metropolitan Asylums Board report, for boys of 10 the mortality from diphtheria during last year was 5.8 per cent.
Cross-examined. There are no regular duties attached to my position as Home Office analyst; that is rather an honorary title; I have made one analysis in the last two years. I am medical registrar at St. Mary's Hospital, and I have a consulting practice. As registrar at St. Mary's I have had the supervision of several hundred cases; I was house physician there, and have treated several cases almost entirely by myself. I base my opinion as to the cause of death in this case upon the history of symptoms given by the nurse. By far the commonest cause of death from diphtheria is paralsyis of the heart; syncope is also a common cause of death. It is impossible to distinguish between the two; syncope is the term given for the end brought about by paralysis of the heart; they are practically synonymous terms. In these cases the child becomes
restless; in a short time he has an attack of vomiting; then he becomes pale, and then there is syncope; that is very common. I do not think the layman would be able to distinguish between diphtheria and mumps without some special training or knowledge. (Q) Can you in any given case say with certainty and precision that the use of antitoxin would prevent a fatality? I would not say with absolute certainty; I would not speak with certainty as regards human life, which is always uncertain; my opinion is that it would prolong life in any given case.
(Saturday, November 24.)
Cross-examination continued: A sudden death from diphtheria is a common occurrence; there might be, up to the last few hours, no grave symptoms which would attract the lay observer. There may be cases of diphtheria in which the false membrane is not visible on examination. [Witness was cross-examined on the statistics issued by the Metropolitan Asylums Board; he admitted that a good many cases were sent to the Board as diphtheria which were not diphtheria at all, and other ailments which proved to be diphtheria. In 1905 there were 908 causes wrongfully certified as diphtheria out of 4,148; the explanation was that cases were sent to the hospitals by doctors before bacteriological examination, medical men, especially in poor districts, being naturally anxious to prevent infection and to give the patients hospital advantages.] I have heard that some doctors disapprove of the antitoxin treatment, but I have never met one who did so; there are people who disapprove of everything; I do not know of any recognised authority who disapproves of it. Dr. Goodheart is a well-known authority on treatment. [Mr. Justice Grantham intimated that it was not worth while to go in such detail into the merits of the antitoxin treatment.] As to the three cases occurring in this school after Chisholm's death, they may have been due to infection from this case, but it was possible that all four cases arose from a common source.
Mr. Kingsbury said that it had been his intention to call the defendant as a witness, but since this prosecution had been begun this family, as though they were not sufficiently afflicted before, had lost their eighth child. Mr. Chisholm had two grown-up sons—one an officer in the Navy and the other an officer in the Army; but to-day he had only the naval lad left. His son who was in the Army was out in South Africa and was taking part in the suppression of the Ferreira raid when he was attacked with illness and died. In these circumstances he had not the heart to call Mr. Chisholm.
Mr. Justice Grantham said that no reflection would be made on the non-calling of Mr. Chisholm. They all sympathised with him very much indeed.
medical superintendent to the smallpox ships; I was transferred to the North-Eastern Fever Hospital on its opening in 1892, and to the Park Hospital in 1897. At the last hospital I have had 750 oases of diphtheria a year. I have heard the whole of the evidence in this case. I consider It reasonable that the case should have been mistaken by a lay person for one of mumps. I have known two cases of diphtheria wrongly diagnosed by medical men as mumps; there are cases which cannot be definitely diagnosed till after death. I can quite believe that here everybody thought the child was recovering up to October 15. If at the sudden change on that night medical aid was called in it would have been of no avail. In a given case it cannot be said with precision that antitoxin or strychnine or any other treatment will effect a cure, or prolong life. There are certain forms of diphtheria, mainly affecting different parts. The forms affecting the wind pipe act mechanically, partly by interference to breathing, and in that group of cases relief is given by surgical means, and in that group great benefit has resulted from antitoxin treatment; there is another group affecting the back of the throat in which the poison is much more abundant in all probability, and much better absorbed, and in those cases diphtheria acts by producing alterations in the heart muscle, in the nature of a degeneration, usually fatty; such deaths have not been prevented by antitoxic treatment. The deaths from suffocation have been greatly reduced, and (in diphtheria) the deaths from heart failure have been more frequent. The antitoxin apparently does not prevent the alteration in the heart muscles, and such cases are beyond our aid. No treatment can alter the fatty changes of the heart in diphtheria. Having regard to the history of this case I believe it was of such a nature that the child was foredoomed to death from fatty degeneration and that neither antitoxin nor strychnine treatment would have been of any avail. As to the Metropolitan Asylum Board statistics, the mortalities given are hospital-admitted mortalities, and there has been a great change in the class of cases admitted to hospitals. A better means of diagnosing diphtheria has been discovered, and many cases not previously taken to be diphtheritic are now so regarded; large numbers that are admitted are not severe and there is no great prospect of death. This increase of the number of patients admitted has reduced the recorded death rate to a certain extent.
Cross-examined. I agree that this boy died from diphtheria. If I had been called in to see him at the first I should of course have looked at his throat; I should have taken a swab and taken cultures if I had considered I wanted a confirmatory diagnosis. I think I should have suspected diphtheria if I had made an examination. I would have given antitoxin if I had diagnosed diphtheria; not strychnine; I think strychnine would have hastened the death, if I am right in thinking that there was fatty degeneration of the heart. Persons with the following symptoms—persistent vomiting, a peculiar pallor with a look of anguish accompanying, serious alterations in the rhythm of the heart, extreme slowness generally, and some pain below heart—do not recover, whatever the treatment.
Mr. Kingsbury said he could call people who were in the house at the time of the boy's illness, and they would say that they believed he was only suffering from mumps. He, however, did not want to prolong the case by calling those witnesses.
He referred to the case of Rex v. Senior (1889, I.Q.B., 283). There, Mr. Justice Wills, in a case stated to the C.C.C.R., said, "I told the jury that they must first of all be satisfied that the death of the child had been caused or accelerated by the want of medical assistance; secondly, that medical aid and medicine were such essential things for the child that reasonably careful parents in general would have provided them;" and submitted that he was entitled to call evidence to show that prisoner was a "reasonably careful parent."
Mr. Justice Grantham thought that that would be opening the door too wide.
Mr. Kingsbury also tendered the evidence of a number of witnesses, occupying different positions in the City of London, merchants, professional men, and working men, to say that from their own experience they had adopted the views held by prisoner.
Mr. Justice Grantham excluded the evidence: the jury would know without evidence that there was a body of people who believed in Christian Science.
Verdict, Not Guilty of manslaughter; Guilty of the misdemeanour of neglecting the child in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to his health.
Mr. Justice Grantham said he felt that the defendant had acted wrongly from a mistaken notion of what was right in the case of his child. At the same time, although the defendant had committed a breach of the law, he thought it was a case in which he should be justified in dealing with him as be dealt with other offenders who had been led astray by wrong notions as to what they thought were their rights. It was not necessary in this case that he should inflict the degradation of imprisonment upon the defendant, as this was the first time a case had been brought into Court where a person of his particular views had been charged with neglect of duty towards a child. He therefore trusted that this would be a warning to him and to others who belonged to his persuasion that they must not neglect their children and give way to their own particular views, the result of which might be the death of a child or, as in this case, the illness of a child. He thought he should meet the justice of the case by allowing the defendant to go out on his own recognisances in £100 to come up for judgment if called upon. He hoped it would be a warning to him and to others that the law was strong enough to meet a case of this kind.
OLD COURT; Tuesday, November 20.
(Before Mr. Justice Grantham.)
JELLEY, John (29, plasterer) pleaded guilty , to taking Mary Alice Johnson, an unmarried girl under the age of 18 years, out of the possession of and against the will of Mary Ann Johnson, her mother, with intent that she should be carnally known by a man; taking Mary Alice Johnson, an unmarried girl under the age of 16 years, out of the possession of and against the will of her mother; carnally knowing Mary Alice Johnson, a girl above the age of 13 years and under the age of 16 years; and making a certain false statement with intent that the same should be inserted in the Register of Births for the Sub-District of Leyton (Births and Deaths Registration Act 1874—37 & 38 Vic., c. 88, s. 40). To an indictment for carnally knowing Mary Alice Johnson, a girl under the age of 13 years, prisoner pleaded not guilty; this last indictment was tried.
Mr. Symmons and Mr. Kershaw prosecuted.
Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.
NEW COURT; Tuesday, November 20.
(Before the Recorder.)
WALKER, James (24, stone cutter) pleaded guilty , to attempted burglary in the dwelling-house of Frances Turner, with intent to steal therein. Being found by night unlawfully having in his possession, without lawful excuse, a certain implement of house-breaking, to wit, one knife: he also confessed to having been convicted at this court of felony on November 17,1902; a long list of previous convictions proved.
Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.
FOURTH COURT; Tuesday, November 20.
(Before Judge Lumley smith.)
HOLDER Henry (21, labourer) pleaded guilty , to breaking and entering St Matthew's Church, West Ham, and stealing therein two contribution boxes and the sum of 5s., the goods and moneys of Herbert Edward Selwyn and others, and feloniously receiving same.
Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.
NEW COURT; Wednesday, November 21.
(Before the Recorder.)
GUNN, James (32, labourer) pleaded guilty , to obtaining by false pretences from Havilland Montague Durand, a banker's cheque for £5 with intent to defraud; obtaining by false pretences from Philip Armstrong the sum of £3 10s. and from Sidney Collett a railway ticket and the sum of £1 9s., in each case with intent to defraud; he also confessed to being convicted of obtaining money by false pretences at West London Police Court, on June 11, 1900, in the name of James Macpherson alias Joseph MacIntosh ; other previous convictions were proved. It was stated there were 30 similar cases of defrauding ministers and charitable people now alleged against prisoner.
Sentence, five years' penal servitude and three years' police supervision.
Mr. W. A. Metcalfe prosecuted; Mr. Daniel Ward defended.
Verdict, Guilty of indecent assault.
Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.
FOURTH COURT; Wednesday, November 21.
(Before Judge Lumley Smith.)
Mr. Daniel Ward for the prosecution; Mr. Grantham for the defence.
Counsel for prosecution stated that the libel complained of was a letter written by the accused to the effect that the prosecutor had committed adultery with his wife; that a copy of the libel had been sent by accused to the School Board Committee who employed the prosecutor. As the accused has agreed to withdraw all imputations upon the prosecutor contained in this libel, the prosecution proposed to offer no evidence A verdict of Not guilty was accordingly returned.
Mr. Allan Ramsay prosecuted; Mr. Cohen defended Curtis.
SOLOMON SORRITCH , 29, Victoria Dock Road, tobacconist. I am a Russian, and have been in England 6 1/2 years. On October 7 these two men came to my shop; Barnett asked me for a cigar; after he paid me he said, "Look here, will you buy some jewellery from me?" and I took one chain. He told me it was gold and every piece marked 18 carat. He pointed out the mark on the links and said, "It is good gold and every link is marked, it is 18-carat and the chain is worth £8." I said, "I don't know how much they are worth; you give me some time and I will go out," and I took out £2 in sovereigns and handed them to him. He said, "It is not enough." I believed at the time that the chain was gold. I wanted to go out of the shop and Barnett said, "Where are you going to take the chain?" I said, "To the pawnshop." He said, "If you go to the pawnshop you will get locked up." I said, "Why? He said, "I will tell you—that is pinched." I said, "Give me the £2 back, I do not want anything to do with you." He said, "I cannot give you the £2 back, I gave it to the Englishman." He said, "Do not be frightened—it is pinched." He showed me a lot of rings and chains in a handkerchief. I said to my missus in the shop parlour, "I am frightened
to take that chain." She said, "The best way will be, I will talk to him in the shop and you go quickly to the police station." I ran quickly and told the policeman. Afterwards I identified prisoners. Prisoners started to run away and the police stopped them. I spoke to Barnett in English.
Cross-examined. This happened on the same night that he was locked up, whether it was October 7 or 17. I have never bought or sold jewellery in my life. Barnett said it was worth £100. I did not believe it. He offered it to me for £8. I did not know him before and never saw him before. He said to me, "Do not be frightened." When I gave him £2 I did not think it was genuine. When I parted with my £2 I thought I was buying, as I would buy tobacco, to buy and sell. I wanted to wear it on my waistcoat.
Re-examined. The handing of the £2 to Barnett was to get the metal tested. There was then no sale. As to the date, it was the same evening as the prisoners were locked up. I did not speak to Curtis from beginning to and. He is an Englishman and the other man is Jewish.
To the Court. I did not intend to buy any of these things. They showed me one chain and said it was worth £8. I thought they were dealers' travelers. I had not agreed t buy anything. As soon as he told me it was pinched I did not want to buy it. Before I went away to the pawnshop I had not made a bargain that I would buy these things.
Detective JOSEPH PAYNE. On October 17, at 10.15, I was in Victoria Dock Road with Detective Edwards, and I saw Sorritch with the two prisoners. He said, "These are the men that sold me the jewellery." I took Barnett into custody and handed him over to a policeman, and gave chase after Curtis who had run away. He was caught in Swanscomb Street. In the middle of Swanscomb Street I saw him throw something away, but I cannot identify it. When Barnett was arrested he did not make any remark, but on the way to the station he said, "Is that the lot we sold; what did you do with the nine rings and there chains?" (pointing to prosecutor). Curtis when charged said nothing. I found on Curtis three rings and a scarfpin which he was wearing; he also had a swivel marked 18 carat—there was nothing found on Barnett. It is all spurious.
Police constable BARNES, 285K. The date of the arrest was October 17. I was on duty in Barking Road and heard a whistle blowing in Woodstock Street. I turned and saw a crowd. I turned up Swanscomb Street, and doubled along Baking Road. I entered it from the other end and stopped Curtis at the back of Swanscomb Street and Barking Road. I said, "What are you running for?" and he said "Nothing." Sorritch came up and said, "There are two detectives after them." I said to Curtis, "You must come with me," and on the way he said, "He has got a good cop." He had run 300 yards from prosecutor's shop.
LOUISA GREEN , wife of Albert Green, 46, Swanscomb Street, Canning Town. I have not seen prisoners before. On October 17 I picked up four chains (produced) and took them to the police station. It was 20 minutes to 11 at night. I did not see either of prisoners at the time.
is one which pawnbrokers have had much trouble with and It is one which is extensively pledged. I have had two in my possession and lent 30s. on them. They are a good imitation. It is the best thing ever got out is imitation of a valuable ring. Unless you tested it with a file and acid you would be deceived by it. The value of the chain is 2s. or 3s. If it were real gold it would be worth £10. If it were 18 carat gold it would be heavier and worth about three ounces. The ring and chain together would be worth £12 if genuine. £8 would be a good bargain for the chain if genuine.
Detective JAMES EDWARDS, K Division. I was present when Barnett was arrested on October 17 by Payne. He handed him over to a police constable. Curtis ran away and we gave chase and ran a considerable distance until he was stopped. I saw Curtis throw something away is Swanscomb Street.
Mr. Cohen submitted that the Indictment could not be sustained on the evidence on the ground that it did not establish larceny. The case was on all fours with that of Reg. V. Wilson (8 Carrington &. Payne, p. 111)
The Court held that the case must go to the jury; and declined to reserve the point.
GEORGE M. MEARS . I am 16 years of age and in the employment of prosecutor washing out bottles. I never saw prisoner Barnett in the shop. He did not help me to put lemonade on the barrow on the 10th of last month. I have never seen him at all.
Verdict, both Guilty. Curtis sentenced to eighteen months' hard labour; Barnett, three months' imprisonment, Second Division.
OLD COURT; Thursday, November 22.
(Before the Recorder.)
TIPTON, Henry John (19, labourer); PENNELL, Arthur (26, labourer); and SAIT, Alfred (46, dealer). Tipton and Pennell stealing 123 pounds in weight of copper wire, the property of His Majesty's Postmaster-General ; Sait feloniously receiving same. Tipton and Pennell pleaded guilty.
Mr. Forster Boulton, M.P., and Mr. Horace Fenton prosecuted. Mr. Louis Green defended Sait.
Sergeant WILLIAM BROWN, K Division. On October 27, 1906, at 1.30 p.m. I saw Sait at his shop. Sergeant Baker was with me. I said, "We are police officers, and I want to see you about some wire you sold to Titchen on Wednesday last." After some hesitation he said "Yes," I said, "Where did you get it from?" He said "I bought it from a strange man. He brought it in one parcel in a sack, and I paid 7d. per lb. for it." I said, "Did you make any entry of the purchase?" He said,
"No, I did not know I ought to have done." I asked for a description of the man and he said, "I only know it was a young man between 18 and 20, about 5 ft. 6 in. in height, dressed as a workman. He told me it was his own property." I told him it was stolen property and I should arrest him for receiving it. At that moment Salt's nephew, Henry Sait, came in and Sait said, "It is about that wire." I said to Salt's nephew, "Do you know the man who brought it here?" He said, "Yes, but I do not know where he lives." I said, "You had better find him." Sait then said to Henry, "He will be round here directly for his money." I said to Henry Sait, "You had better get him inside the shop and keep him—engage him until we come back." I then left the shop with the prisoner. I had only gone a few yards when I saw Tipton arrested by Sergeant Baker in answer to a whistle from Henry Sait. At I went to the station with Sait he said, "Let me down as light as you can." Have you got the wire?" I said, "We got that at Titchen's, He told us he bought it from you." Sait then said, "He is a nice bastard to give anyone away. I can see what it is—it is either him or me, and I suppose I have got to fall." He was afterwards charged and made no reply. The description prisoner gave of Tipton was a fairly good description.
Cross-examined. Titchen's place is about 1 1/2 miles from prisoner's. I know they had had previous transactions. Prisoner is not a registered marine store keeper and therefore not obliged to keep books. I searched prisoner's premises after the arrest and found other property which a man has been convicted of stealing. We charged prisoner with receiving but the magistrate discharged him. The stolen property was brought in whilst we were in possession of the premises. I suggest Sait had purchased it because he told me he had bought it earlier in the morning. It was 1/2 cwt. of solder stolen by a servant at a factory.
Sergeant GEORGE BAKER, K. Division. I went with Brown to prisoner's shop on October 27, at 1.30 p.m. and was present when prisoner was arrested. Brown said to prisoner, "We are police officers. You sold some wire to Titchen last Wednesday." Prisoner after some hesitation said, "Yes, I did." Brown said, "Where did you get it from?" Prisoner said, "I bought it from a man I do not know, I paid at the rate of 7d. a lb." I said to prisoner, "But the police had called on you about this wire." He said, "Yes they did call on me." I said, "What did you tell them?" He said, "Hanry told them that we would let them know if any came." Then Brown said, "What sort of man was it brought the wire?" Then he described him as a young man, and we went out into the shop. While we were there, his youngest nephew, Herbert Sait, came in with about 1/2 cwt of new solder, in respect of which we have arrested another man who was convicted. We then told the prisoner we should take him into custody and Sergeant Brown and I went off with him to the police station. When we were a little way up the road the nephew whistled and I went back and he said, "This is the man you want." This was Tipton. I arrested him and conveyed him to the station, and when I let there prisoner said, "That it the man that brought me the wire." I said to Tipton, "You hear what he says." Tipton said, "Well if he says so I suppose it is right."
Cross-examined. I did not arrest Pennell. He said at the station, "I will tell you what happened. Me and Tipton was bird-liming last Wednesday morning in a field near Westbury Road, Barking, when a man I do not know asked us to help him carry the copper wire from the sewer bank to a van. Tipton helped him; I did not. I do not know where the wire went. They drove towards Plaistow police station." I may say they passed the police station; as Pennell said, that is in the direction of prisoner's shop.
RICHARD CHARLES TITCHEN , metal dealer, Canning Town. I know the prisoner Sait, and purchased 84 lb. of copper wire (produced) from him on October 24 for £3 6s., or just over 9d. a lb. The wire is cleaner now than it was. The police took it from my premises. I purchased two lots, but I do not think the first lot was all wire.
Cross-examined. I have been in the trade all my life. This is certainly not new wire; it is old wire. I have had other business transactions with the prisoner, knew his address, and had no difficulty in telling the police where I bought it. When prisoner sold it to me, he knew very well I knew where to find him.
WILLIAM BERRY SMITH , linesman, H.M. Post Office. Wire produced is telephone wire, such as is used on Barking Marshes. The two samples are precisely the same. There has been about 9 cwt. stolen. This is new wire; it is only just oxidised by the chemicals in the air. It has been up, I suppose, about two months.
Cross-examined. Before this new wire is put up and exposed to the air it is perfectly bright.
NELSON BATHURST , sectional engineer, Telephone Department, G.P.O. The price of wire produced is £5 12s. 6d. per cwt. The copper market varies a little, but that is a fair price and what the Post Office pay for it. On this particular section about £42 to £45 worth of wire has been stolen. Over a mile was missing on October 20. [To the Recorder.] Stealing wire has become more common the last two years. These marshes are a particularly lonely place, and there are difficulties in getting across.
HENRY SAIT . I am a nephew of prisoner, and assist him in his business at 72, Epping Street, Plaistow. I know Tipton by sight. I saw him in the shop about October 24, 1906, near the scales with my uncle. The prisoner Pennell was outside the shop.
Cross-examined. P.C. Stephens told me some telegraph wire was missing. He did not say whether it was new or old.
Verdict (Sait), Guilty.
Pennell confessed to having been convicted of felony at Chelmsford on July 2, 1902, when he was sentenced to 12 months' hard labour for stealing old copper at Barking Marshes, and other convictions were then proved against him.
Sentence: Tipton, 12 months' hard labour; Pennell, 20 months' hard labour; Sait, 18 months hard labour.
FOURTH COURT; Friday, November 23.
(Before Judge Lumley Smith.)
Mr. Metcalfe and Mr. Nicholson prosecuted.
WILLIAM BLANDFORD , 1, Sophia Road, Custom House, second steward I was passing by the Liverpool Arms, Canning Town, between 11.30 and 12 p.m. on October 25 when a prostitute accosted me and asked me if I would go home with her. After hesitation I went with her to 17, York Street. At the front door I saw two men on the opposite side of the road sitting on a window-sill. The woman tried to pick a quarrel with me, and asked me if I was not a detective, pimp, or spy, and who were the men. She let me into the door and showed me into the front room and told me to get into bed. That was the last I saw of her. Steadman and another man not in custody came in, and Steadman started hustling me and thumping my head, and said I looked like going through it and he intended I should. I had 14s. 6d. in my pocket and a half sovereign and a 2s. piece and a small pocket-knife. I made for the front door, but it was barred and bolted. Steadman said, "No, you don't set out of here," and he barred me from getting out. I sang out "Murder" and "Police!"and Steadman said, "If you go on like that I am going to shove my fist down your throat and gag you." My waistcoat has never been found. I got out and informed the police and returned to the house with three officers. I went in with them. Steadman was lying under the bed. An officer put his foot under and said "Come out of it," and pulled him and a part of my property out. Steadman said be had done nothing. I saw Mack the same evening. He came into the room and made out he was taking my part, but I am afraid it was only swank and that he intended injuring me. The man not arrested was also there.
By the Court. As soon as I found the woman did not return and heard a voice, I put half-a-sovereign under the mattress in case I was robbed, so as to be able to lay my hand on something that was not part of the 14s. 6d. I had already given the woman 2s. 6d. and a 3d. piece, and she was satisfied. I undressed—she did not I left my waistcoat with the 14s. 6d. under the pillow. The state of my eye is the result of Steadman's blows. Mack defended me at first, but he was afterwards as had as the other, for he would not let me out of the door. I can't say that Mack struck me.
MACK (speaking from the dock). I identify as my property the handkerchief, belt, braces, and tie produced. On the night of October 25 I went in to have a drink and met Steadman there, who was a stranger to me; we got into conversation and I told him I bad had a bit of an argument at home and did not care to go home. He said I could go to his place and have a lay down. He opened the door with a key and went right through into the kitchen. I know no more till the constable came into the room. The constable had this man and he turned round and said, "There's another one there;" and the prosecutor said, "That is one of them," pointing at me.
Police constable WM. BARNES (285 K). At the time in question prosecutor and another constable came to me, and in consequence of what he said I and two other constables and Blandford went to 17, York Street. I knocked at the door, and a voice I recognised as Steadman's said, "Who's there?" I said, "The police, I want to speak to you." He said, "I can't speak to you to night; come in the morning." I obtained access to the premises from the back and entered the front room and saw Steadman under the bed. I pulled him out and said to Blandford, "Is this one of the men?" He said, "Yes; he knocked me about." I said, "This man alleges that you have assaulted him and robbed him of 14s. 6d., and you will have to go to the station." He said, "What! me? He has made a mistake. I don't know anything about it. He said just now it was a woman." I afterwards went into the back room and saw Mack lying on the bed with his trousers and boots on. I called in the prosecutor and said, "Is this one of the others?" He said, "Yes." I said, "I shall take you into custody for assaulting and robbing this man of 14s. 6d." He said, "I don't know anything about it." When charged, Steadman said, "He said he was robbed at 11.30. We never left the Ratcliffe Music Hall till 11.40." Mack said, "All I know is that Steadman took me in for a night's lodging." I searched Steadman, and in the right-hand pocket of his coat I found a pocket handkerchief which was immediately recognised by Blandford as his property (produced). I afterwards searched 17, York Street, and under the bed where Steadman was lying I found prosecutor's belt and braces, and a tie was hanging on the bedstead. I never found the waistcoat.
To Steadman. Blandford had his clothes and portions of women's clothing lying on the table. He had no marks of injury on him.
By the Jury. When they finished thumping my head Steadman flung me out of the door and slipped the bolt and the lock, and turned the latch, or whatever it may be. He told me to get out round the corner as quick as God would let me, before I got any more. I was in the house about three-quarters of an hour. I should say it was between 11.30 and 12.10 that I got to the house.
Police constable JOHN PAYNE (714 K). About 1.30 am. on October 26 I was on duty in the neighbourhood of the police station, and was sent for by the officer on duty. I went with Barnes and another constable and the prosecutor to 17, York Street. I saw Barnes knock at the door and ask for admission, and a man called out, "What do you want!" I recognised, the voice as Steadman's. Barnes said, "I want to speak to you." Steadman said, "You cannot speak to me now; you must come round in the morning." Barnes went through another house, while I remained in front in company with the other constable, and got in at the back. The police station is about a quarter of an hour's walk, so it would take about half an hour for him to fetch me and get back. When I got inside Barnes and I went in the front room and saw Steadman under the bed, and close against him a pair of trousers and a belt, the property of the prosecutor. He came out from under the bed, and the prosecutor then said, "That is the man that struck me on the head." I took Steadman in charge. Then he went to the kitchen and I followed: he tried to shut the door; I frustrated his attempt, and both of us went on
the floor. I blew my whistle, and Barnes, who wm in another part of the premises, came to my assistance. On the road to the station Steadman said to Blandford, "After this I will cut your liver out." Mack was lying on a couch in the kitchen. Prosecutor said, "That is one of the men." Mack said, "I was asleep at the time."
Steadman. I deny using that language on the way to the station.
Prisoners' statements before the Magistrate. Mack said, "I have nothing to say. I have a police constable who will say that I never came out of the music hall till 12 o'clock." Steadman said, "That man Blandford was in the house when I got there. He and the female were quarrelling. I asked what the quarrel was about and the female turned round and said that Blandford arranged to give her 10s. and when he got her in the room he only gave her half-a-crown and used bad language. I showed him the door and hit him on the hat."
Steadman. He was going to take liberties with the woman and give her half-a-crown. Prosecutor put half-a-sovereign under the mattress and he only came back on purpose to get his half-a-sovereign. As to the waistcoat, I do not believe prosecutor ever possessed it.
Mack. I am innocent of it.
The Judge. I do not think there is case enough against Mack. Blandford does not say he hit him; Steadman admits he hit him.
Verdict. Mack, Not guilty. Steadman, Guilty. He confessed to having been convicted at Clerkenwell Green, on July 12, 1904, in the name of Frederick Stanton, and other convictions were proved against him.
Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.
THIRD COURT; Monday, November 26.
(Before Judge Lumley Smith.)
Mr. Alfred Hilldesheimer prosecuted.
Police evidence of the usual character was given. Prisoner on oath denied that she had been in the house on the occasion sworn to by the police.
Verdict, Guilty. Prisoner confessed to a conviction, at West Ham Police Court, on November 13, 1905, in the name of Lily Drinkwater, for assisting in the management of a brothel; other previous convictions were proved. Sentence, Two months' hard labour.
THIRD COURT; Tuesday, November 27.
(Before Judge Rentoul.)
Mr. Horace Fenton prosecuted; Mr. Ernest E. Williams defended.
Verdict, Guilty of indecent assault Police proved that prisoner was convicted at West Ham Police Court in 1902 of a common assault on a girl, and fined £3. Sentence, Four months' hard labour.