1907, JANUARY (2).
Vol. CXLVI.] [Part 868.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
HELD JANUARY 28TH, 1907, 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.]
GEO. WALPOLE, 1, NEW COURT, LINCOLN'S INN, W.C.
THE ARGUS PRINTING COMPANY, LIMITED,
CORNER OF TUDOR STREET AND TEMPLE AVENUE,
On the King's Commission of
OYER AND TERMINER AND GAOL DELIVERY
The City of London,
AND GAOL DELIVERY FOR THE
COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, AND THE PARTS OF THE COUNTIES OF ESSEX, KENT, AND SURREY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,
Held on Monday, January 28th, 1907, and following days.
Before the Right Hon. Sir WILLIAM PURDIE TRELOAR, Bart., LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir WILLIAM RANN KENNEDY, Knight, one of the Justices of His Majesty's High Court; Sir J. T. RITCHIE, Bart., Sir J. SAVORY, Bart., Sir Q. F. FAUDELPHILLIPS, Bart., G. C. I. E., F. P. ALLISTON, Esq. D. BURNETT, Esq., F. 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; 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. FOURTH SESSION.
LONDON AND MIDDLESEX CASES.
OLD COURT; Monday, January 28.
(Before the Recorder.)
DEARLE, Amelia (32, factory hand); pleaded guilty to having been entrusted with, and received, £4 18s. and £2 10s., in order that she might pay £4 18s. to Fanny Prestige and £2 10s. to Lilian Jones, did fraudulently convert the same to her own use and benefit Prisoner had hitherto borne a good character. She had been for one week in custody on this charge. She was now sentenced to one day's imprisonment.
BRAZEL, Charles (21, grocer); pleaded guilty at last Session (see page 250) to forging and uttering an endorsement on an order for the payment of £3 11s. with intent to defraud. He was now formally sentenced to three weeks' imprisonment, as from January 8, and discharged, on the assurance of the Court Missionary, Mr. Franz Smith, that his friends in Glasgow would be willing to receive him.
DOUGLAS, John (58, clerk); pleaded guilty to forging and uttering a request for the payment of 5s. with intent to defraud; and to stealing a watch and chain, the goods of Thomas Stickland, and feloniously receiving same. Sentence, 12 months' imprisonment in the second division (or, the Recorder intimated, the authorities might decide to deal with prisoner under the Borstal system).
COPLESTON, Arthur Kennard (46, labourer); pleaded guilty to feloniously marrying Mary Elizabeth Griffiths, his wife being then alive. He had previously borne a good character. Sentence, 15 months' hard labour.
ROBIN, Charles Salisbury (30, painter) ; stealing a post letter containing a postal order for 5s., the property of the PostmasterGeneral, he being employed under the Post Office. Prisoner stated that he had yielded to temptation in consequence of great domestic trouble. [Pleaded guilty] Sentence, six months' imprisonment in the second division.
WORSFOLD, Henry (21, postman) ; stealing a poet letter containing a postal order for 5s. 6d., the property of the Postmaster-General, he being employed under the Post Office. Sentence, nine months hard labour. [Pleaded guilty]
WHITE, Albert (28, painter), BROWN, William (56, labourer), WOOLFE, William (26, gardener), and PEARCE, Frederick (26, groom); pleaded guilty to maliciously damaging a plate-glass window, value £40, the property of Frank Lecey and others. Nothing was known against prisoners, who apparently broke the window in order to get locked up, being unemployed and homeless. Sentence, each, four months' hard labour.
REID, James (32, musician); pleaded guilty to breaking and entering the shop of James Strong and stealing therein four razors and other articles, his goods, and feloniously receiving same. He confessed to a conviction of felony, at Brentford, on October 20, 1906, in the name of James Rowlands. Other convictions were proved, Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.
There being a question as to whether prosecutor was in a condition to give evidence, Dr. LOWTHER was called, and expressed the opinion that he was.
WILLIAM SOUTHALL . On October 27 I was foreman watchman at the Lynn Ice Works, Shadwell. It was my duty to see that all the men were at work and to visit them at various times during the night. Prisoner was a watchman. Between 8. 40 and 9 on the 27th I went on my usual round. At prisoner's office I found the door was locked and he was not there. When he came back I asked him where he had been. He said he had lost his keys and had been looking for them. I admit that I used some bad language to him for being away from his work. I was leaving the place when I received a blow at the back of the neck. I cannot say who hit me, but there was no one present but prisoner. I became unconscious and was taken to the hospital.
Cross-examined. I have been foreman of watchmen at this place for about 14 months; I was formerly a police-constable; I had to give that up as I had bad feet. On October 27 I had seen prisoner about half-past five; he was then at his post. About 8. 30 when I went again the door was locked. I deny that I found a key in the door, that I let myself in and shut the door after Mr. I do not know that a key was found on my person. I had had some drink on this night, but not much; I don't know whether prisoner was drunk
or sober. Very likely the language I used was calculated to anger him. I don't remember Whether I threatened him.
HENRY SALTER , clerk at the Rotherhithe Tunnel works. On this night I heard prosecutor quarrelling with some one outside the door of the Lynn Ice Works. Prisoner was saying, "Where the h—are they? How the b——h——am I going to get in?" then, "Oh, you are to b——fool; that is what I call you." I did not hear the replies. I went to my own office; ten minutes later I heard a police whistle. I went with other men to prisoner's office; there I saw prosecutor lying insensible.
Cross-examined. Prosecutor is ordinarily a very loud-speaking man; prisoner is very soft-spoken; he is very deaf indeed. I could not distinguish what he said in reply to prosecutor. It was not a very violent quarrel.
FREDERICK WILLIAM DAWSON . About 8. 40 on this evening I heard a police whistle; I saw prisoner leaving the icehouse, carrying a lamp and blowing the whistle. He said to me, "I have knocked a man out." A policeman came, and I went with him and prisoner to the office at the ice works; prosecutor wee lying on the floor insensible. I went with the policeman on his taking prisoner to the station; I will not say that prisoner was drunk; he was violent and riotous; he had to be held down.
Cross-examined. Prosecutor was lying an the big office, on the left side as you go in. The only furniture in the room was a desk, a press, a footstool, and a high stool. Where prosecutor was lying there was nothing near him that he could have struck against; he was lying in the centre of the room.
Police-constable FREDERICK BURRIDGE, 226 H. In response to a police whistle I proceeded to the ice works and saw prosecutor lying insensible on his back in the middle of the room; he was lying full length—not huddled up. Prisoner was standing by the side holding the police whistle; he was drunk. On charging him with maliciously wounding he said, "Yes, Southall is my foreman; I have not seen him to-night as I know of; I aim very sorry; I have not seen him since five o'clock; if I done it it was in defence of myself. "He was very violent, and I had to get assistance to take him to the station.
Cross-examined. Before the magistrate I did not mention prisoner's violence. I was not asked. In the office in question there is a desk, right back behind the door; the fireplace, with a fender round it, is a good bit away from the desk.
HENRY TIDY , house-surgeon at the London Hospital. Prosecutor was admitted on October 27; he had two email wounds on the back of his head; he was partially conscious; the wounds were quite consistent with blows from either the wooden stick or the iron bar produced; there must have been two blows Prosecutor's improvement My our hospital being very slight, he was sent to Whitechapel Infirmary, on November 8.
Cross-examined. The wounds were about four inches apart; they were only superficial wounds. Prosecutor had been drinking, but I consider he was sober.
Police-constable BURRIDGE, recalled. The wooden stick and iron bar produced were found in the office. I found on the prosecutor the key of the outer door.
Dr. HERBERT LOWTHER, medical superintendent at Whitechapel Infirmary. Prosecutor was admitted on November 8. The certificate sent with him by Dr. Tidy said that he had been suffering from concussion of the brain and cerebral irritation. On admission he was very slinky, unable to stand, rambling in speech. His mental condition was quite consistent with his having been wounded by a blow on the head; there was nothing to show that he had suffered from insanity prior to this.
Cross-examined. His feet were scaley; that might be from rheumatism or gout; a man with feet in that condition would be more prone than an ordinary man to slip or stumble.
Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I never touched the man; the iron had been missing a fortnight. On October 27 I was there watching; about 9 p.m. I went out; when I got back I could not unlock the door; I had two keys; I thought the latch key had dropped out; I cut the string; the two keys were tied together; I put both in to try the door, and could not unlock it; I went into the market to see if I could see some one to come and stand at the door; I went half-way across the market and had a look round; I could not see anyone; I ran up to the public to see if I could get some one to come down; I saw a man there, but he would not come; I went back and found one key was gone; then I thought there was someone inside; to make sure if anyone was inside I blew my whistle; then this man came and opened the door; he fell back, cutting his head; I do not remember anything more after; for two hours I lost my memory."
This concluding the case for the prosecution, prisoner was put into the box and swam. He appeared to be very deaf, and the Recorder suggested that, as he would only repeat the statement made to the magistrate, his counsel might leave the evidence where it was. Counsel assented. A witness to character was then called, and described prisoner, whom he had known for four or five years, as a steady, sober, peaceful, hardworking man.
Verdict, Guilty of unlawful wounding, under great provocation; recommended to mercy.
Sentence, Four months' hard labour.
NEW COURT; Monday, January 28.
(Before the Common Serjeant.)
CRONEY, Charles (36, labourer), and SULLIVAN, Mary Ann (28, flower seller) ; feloniously making counterfeit coin; feloniously possessing a mould and other tools for making counterfeit coin; and possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter the same. Croney pleaded guilty.
Mr. Partridge prosecuted.
Detective-Inspector FRANK WENSLEY, H Division. On the evening of January 16, about half past nine, in company with. Inspector Knell and other officers, I went to 14, Margaret Place, Bethnal Green, the buildings being let out in furnished apartments. There is a common front door, and then doors to each of the rooms. I went to the front room on the ground floor, knocked at the door, and heard a woman's voice call out, "Shut up. Who's there?"I shouted out, "Police. Open the door." I pushed against the door and burst it open. The door was locked, but the box of the lock was not very strong, and it did not require much bursting. On the door opening I saw Croney hurrying towards the open window. Sullivan, who was behind the door, had an apron on, and her arms under her apron. I ran after Croney, and took three counterfeit sixpences out of his right hand. On the table I saw a piece of slate, two counterfeit sixpences, a saucer containing silver sand, two pairs of scissors, a file, two knives, a vice, and some lead. On the hob I saw a saucepan containing hot lead or metal of some sort, also in a corner of the room a bag containing plaster of Paris, some granulated tin, and other metal. Croney said, "You have got it all now." and Sullivan said, "That is all there is." I looked under the bed after that, and there found two saucers. In each saucer there was a quantity of cyanide of potassium, two pieces of copper wire, and there were seven counterfeit sixpences in one saucer and eight in the other. Whilst I was making further search Croney jumped up, seized the saucer, and emptied a portion of the liquid into his mouth. He was taken to the London Hospital and given an emetic. The woman made an attempt to reach one of the saucers. She afterwards said, "This is the first day we have been making it, because we have been going out with our barrow." She made no reply to the charge at the station.
Inspector FRANK KNELL. I was with last witness on January 16, and noticing that Sullivan had something under her apron I caught her arm, and from her hand took a mould containing a sixpence which was hot. I also took from her three counterfeit sixpences. I beard her say this was the first day they had been at it.
MARGARET CLARKE , wife of John Clarke, caretaker in Margaret, Place, gave evidence as to the letting of the room to the female prisoner. The male prisoner was occasionally there, but witness could not say whether he lived there or not. The women brought the rent on a Friday.
WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , Inspector of Counterfeit Coins at H. M. Mint. The mould (produced) contains a counterfeit sixpence with the gate attached. I have seen a number of other counterfeit sixpences. They are all from the same mould. There are also (produced) metal, a file marked a little in the teeth, a slate, knives, scissors,
a vice, cyanide of potassium, etc. All these articles are the paraphernalia of a coiner.
MARY ANN SULLIVAN (prisoner, not on oath) said she wished to call her fellow-prisoner to say that she was innocent. On the day in question she had been out all day selling. When she came home at half past nine, before she had time to take her hat off, a knock came to the door, and before there was time to open it it was burst open, and in came five men. Two seized herself and three Croney. Croney had lived with her as her husband for eleven weeks.
CHARLES CRONEY (prisoner, on oath). I wish to testify to the fact that this woman is perfectly innocent. On Wednesday, January 16, she had been out selling, and I was just starting to work on the mould, and had put some metal in. She came in unexpectedly, and seeing what I was doing she snatched the mould off the table and put it under her blouse, having expressed a determination never to allow me to do anything of the kind again. She had hardly done so when the police hammered at the door. She had taken the mould with the intention of breaking it up, and the sixpences she had taken to do away with.
Cross-examined. I did not hear her say this was the first time we had made counterfeit coin. When the police entered I was struggling to get possession of the mould. I brought the coining apparatus and the sixpences there about half an hour before she came in, I know that cyanide of potassium is a very dangerous poison; I fully intended to take it, having decided that I would far prefer to do away with myself.
To the Court. I got the cyanide of potassium the same evening. Everything was done the same evening.
Verdict, Sullivan, Guilty.
Detective-Sergeant ARTHUR WOOLLARD proved that Croney on April 2. 1900, was sentenced at this Court to seven years' penal servitude for possessing counterfeit coin, and was released on October 20, 1906. The remainder of that sentence would expire in November, 1907. 1908. He was also sentenced to seven years in 1894 for possessing 1908. a mould, and his convictions date back to 1886; so that of the last 1909. 20 years a considerable portion has been spent in prison. The female 1910. prisoner is a married woman, and left her husband on October 20 of 1911. last year, her real name being Williams. The information of the 1912. police is that she was suspected of being the associate of persons who 1913. uttered counterfeit coin, but hitherto she has not been charged.
Sentences, Croney, Five years' penal servitude; Sullivan, Six months' hard labour.
Mr. Partridge prosecuted; Mr. Louis Green defended.
GOLDER ABRAHAMS . I have a fish stall in Wentworth Street, Spitalfields, which I was attending in the afternoon of January 3. Prisoner bought two bream for 9d. and tendered in payment a five-shilling piece. I handed the coin to a neighbouring stall-keeper, named Aaron Cohen, and asked him for change. Prisoner was standing by and could hear what I said. Our conversation was in Yiddish. Cohen said the five-shilling piece was bad, and prisoner then tendered a two shilling piece, which Cohen also declared to be counterfeit. Cohen subsequently gave the coins to a constable.
Constable FREDERICK DANIELS, 50 H. R. On the afternoon of January 3 I was called to Cohen's stall. In prisoner's presence Cohen said, "Here is a present for you." I took the two coins in my hand and asked him where he got these from. He said, "From this woman," pointing to prisoner. I then spoke to prisoner, and asked her where she got the money from, and she said, "From my husband. He got them in change for a sovereign at a tobacco shop, but I do not know when." I took her to the station, where she was charged, and replied in Yiddish through the interpreter. Shortly afterwards her husband came to the station, and in the presence of prisoner said, "Lock me up. I gave her the money when I changed a sovereign at the tobacco shop in Hanbury Street. "Prisoner and her husband live in Spital Street, a turning out of Hanbury Street. I subsequently went with the husband to a tobacconist's shop in Hanbury Street kept by Abraham Blumenthal. The prisoner was searched at the station by the female searchers, who in her presence said that nothing had been found upon her. I searched the home and nothing was found there. I know that the husband has been working for a Mrs. Gottlieb, a cap maker, for some years and that he and his wife are respectable people.
To Mr. Green. I told the magistrate I could not recollect changing gold for prisoner's husband, and I cannot now recollect doing so.
WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , Inspector of Counterfeit Coins at H. M. Mint. I have examined the coins. The five-shilling piece is one of the most perfect counterfeit crowns I have ever seen. It is rather light, as all counterfeit coins are, but it is a very fine coin.
Prisoner's statement before the magistrate: "If I had known or had had any idea that the money was net genuine I would not have uttered it to anyone. I have no witness, but people know I am respectable and not connected with this kind of thing."
By direction of the Common Serjeant, the jury returned a verdict of Not Guilty.
Mr. Lawrie (for Mr. Cohen) prosecuted; Mr. Methven defended. Verdict, Not Guilty.
OLD COURT; Tuesday, January 29.
(Before Mr. Justice Kennedy.)
BOWYER, John Thomas (20, carman) ; carnally knowing Annie Elizabeth Bowyer (his sister), a girl under the age of 13 years. Verdict, Guilty of attempt to carnally know. Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.
NEW COURT; Tuesday, January 29.
(Before the Recorder.)
ATKINSON, Robert Albert (32, postman); pleaded guilty of stealing a post letter containing a postal order for 5s. and six postagestamps, the property of the Postmaster-General, he being employed under the Post Office.
Mr. Forster Boulton, M. P., prosecuted; Mr. Symmons appeared for prisoner, and called witnesses to character.
Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.
Mr. W. C. Campbell prosecuted.
WILLIAM CHAPMAN , porter in the employ of Messrs. Sudbury, Limited, hosiers. I remember on the afternoon of January 10 going out to deliver goods at a warehouse in Street. I had with me a barrow with several boxes of mittens it. I went into the ware-house twice, leaving the barrow unattended, and taking as many boxes as I could carry, and when I came back for the rest I found I was 12 boxes short. The time was between 2. 15 and 2. 30. I did not see prisoner or anyone else while I was in Fann Street. The goods were for shipment on the 12th.
Constable FREDERICK POTTS, City Police. On the afternoon of January 10 I was on duty in plain clothes in Aldersgate Street, and saw prisoner with a newspaper parcel hurrying towards Goswell Road. As he kept turning round I suspected him. I asked what he had in the parcel, and he said, "Rags."
Prisoner. I said I thought they were rags.
Witness. He said, "I found it in Aldersgate Street, art the back of Potter's, in Queen's Square." Potters are ticket-writers, and their front entrance is in Aldersgate Street, and the back in Queen's Square. I tore the parcel to see what was inside, and found it contained four short of 12 dozen mittens. I took him to the police station, where they were identified by the prosecutor. A complaint had been made of the loss of the goods about an hour previously at the Moor Lane Police Station. The boxes in which they were originally contained were never found.
PRISONER said he had been out of work some time, and had been trying to get a job in the printing line, and was making his way from Queen's Square, when he found the parcel with which, when arrested, he was on his way to the police station.
Verdict, Guilty of feloniously receiving.
Detective THOMAS RADCLIFFE, C Division, proved that on April 3, 1906, prisoner was convicted at North London Sessions, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment for stealing a parcel from a truck within 100 yards of where the present offence was committed. Witness had seen prisoner daily in company with a gang of thieves.
Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.
Mr. Sidney Clarke prosecuted; Mr. Arthur Page defended.
Detective-Sergeant SIDNEY WYBORN, E Division. On January 8 I arrested prisoner on the charge of bigamy. He said, "I thought the was dead. I have not heard anything of her since June, 1905. I have been to Greenwich two or three times to try and find her, but they would not tell me anything." I produce two certificates, one of the marriage of prisoner to Mary Maude Horn, at Holy Trinity Church, Gray's Inn Road, on December 27, 1903, and the other of his marriage with Fanny Ayre, at St. Peter's Church, Baton Square, on December 24, 1905.
Cross-examined. Prisoner said, "I thought she was dead. I have made inquiries and have been unable to trace her."
WILFRID EDWARD HORN , 26, Crayford Road, Erith. On December 27, 1903, I was present at Holy Trinity Church, Gray's Inn Road, when prisoner was married to my sister. My sister is still living. I last saw her this morning within the precincts of the court. I do not exactly know when my sister left her husband. I remember prisoner coming to see me not long after she had left him and asking me if I knew where my sister was. I staid I did not know anything of her whereabouts. I have not since beard of him.
Cross-examined. When he came to see me he said that Mary had left him. He had come down for the express purpose of finding out whether she was there. I heard afterwards that she had been to my mother's at Greenwich.
I had known him since about the first week in July, 1905, when I was first introduced to him. I was a barmaid at the time. He made no statement to me about his having been married until after the marriage. Then I heard tend asked him about it. He said he had been married but she was dead. I had been living with him before the marriage.
Cross-examined. I did not see much of prisoner till the end of October, when we began walking out. I knew him as a hall porter. From August, 1905, I was in employment at the same flats as prisoner. I left my situation as barmaid and went to act as housekeeper to a lady at Russell Priory. He has been a. kind and good husband to me and I am very fond of him. Vincent Horn was the under porter. Five or six months after I had been married I remember someone asking on the telephone for Mrs. Rayment, my husband's mother, who sometimes works there. Vincent Horn fetched me down and said, "Is your name Rayment?" and I said, "Yes." I never asked Vincent Horn where his sister was.
VINCENT GORDON HORN . I have been employed as a porter at Priory Mansions for two years. I went there in January, 1905. I used to attend to the lift when Rayment went to dinner. I went to lodge with prisoner and my sister. In June, 1905, I remember trouble between prisoner and my sister, who left him on June 15 of her own accord because of a quarrel and ill-treatment. He used to knock her about, and on one occasion threatened her with a carving-knife. Prisoner was in the habit of drinking too much. When she left she left a note: "You have told me to go so often I have now taken you at your word. I can work for my living." Before her marriage my sister was a domestic servant. I have since that continued to work with, the prisoner, and continued to live with him for about a month after his wife left him. During that time he made no inquiry of me about his sister. I did not know where my sister was gone to. About a month after she left, I know there was a letter in her handwriting. From the time I ceased to live with prisoner I used to go home every night. I saw my sister there once or twice. She has gone back to service. I did not tell prisoner I had seen my sister or discuss the matter with him. I recollect that my father, who was living with my mother at Greenwich, came several times to see prisoner after his wife had left him. Prisoner's earnings were £1 a week and makings. He could at any time have communicated with father, mother, or myself.
Cross-examined. I am now living at 67, Coldbath Buildings, Clerkenwell, and have been married since September 16. My sister Mary is staying with me now. After my sister left on June 15 I went with prisoner to see my cousin Alice at New North Road to ask if she knew where Mary was, and she said she did not. She was at mother's two months after she left prisoner, but I did not tell him that, as he never made any inquiries. I am still on good terms with prisoner. My sister had had a child before she was married to Rayment,
but that was net the cause of unpleasantness. The note my sister left was as I have stated, and not in this form, "Do not look for Mr. I have gone to do away with myself"—no such thing.
SIDNEY THOMAS RAYMENT (prisoner on oath.) I am hall porter in Russell Priory, Southampton Row. I was married in December, 1903, to Mary Maude Horn, and we lived together till June 15, 1905. On that day when I went home at half-past six all the dirty things were packed up on the table, and on the mantelpiece was a piece of blue paper written in red ink as follows, "Do not look for Mr. I shall most likely have done away with myself"—something like that—"I mean to do away with myself," or something to that effect. I was much distressed at that, and got a cab and went over to her cousin's place in the New North Road. I also sent a telegram to her mother's, who replied that they had not heard or seen anything of her. I also went to her mother's place, but could not hear a word The following day I went to her brother's at Erith. I continued to make inquiries for a long time, and I asked her brother on and off for some weeks. After an interval I went to Greenwich again to see her mother and father, but without result My wife's father also came up to Russell Priory—in fact, worked there one season, and when I asked about the whereabouts of my wife he said he knew nothing about it. Not hearing anything of my wife, I married Fanny Ayre in December, 1905. Up to that time I had heard nothing to lead me to believe my wife was alive. I thought she had gone and drowned herself.
The Recorder. Why did not you describe yourself as a widower in the marriage lines instead of describing yourself as a bachelor? Witness. That is what I ought to have done.
Cross-examined. Neither my wife's brother Wilfred nor Vincent told me she was dead. Her father told me he did not know what to make out I formed the opinion that she was dead after I had inquired everywhere. I received a letter from her in Judy asking me to send her clothes to her mother's address, and stating that there upon the postage would be paid. I telephoned to several hospitals and police stations. I took five or six journeys to Greenwich to make inquiries. The letter in July commenced, "Sid, I think it now time to let you know that I am still alive, for which no thanks are due to you. I absolutely refuse to live with you any more." Then reasons were given. "You can go and get a divorce if that suits you better. My linen being no use to you, may I ask you to send it to my mother's home, the cost of which will be paid at Greenwich? There are one or two things I am at present in need of." I admit that did not look much like committing suicide.
The jury asked if it was necessary to go on with the case.
The Recorder said they must hear the learned counsel to the end, but he was absolutely horrified by the suggestion put forward. The
law used to be that, there was no defence to bigamy except absence for seven years, but the judges on the question being referred to them decided that, if a jury should come to the conclusion that there was good ground for believing that death had occurred, that might constitute a defence. It was, however, never contemplated that a man should act as prisoner had done and marry six months after his wife had left him, describing himself not as a widower but as a bachelor. It was really trifling with the time of the jury. To give a false description in the register was a criminal offence, as the law required that all particulars in a marriage certificate should be carefully stated.
Detective-Sergeant WYBORN stated that prisoner bore a very good character. He became acquainted with Ayre a very few weeks after his wife left him, and a short time afterwards went to live with her. Both the women had had children before.
The Recorder, in passing sentence of two days' imprisonment, entitling prisoner to immediate dismissal, pointed out that the object of the statute was to prevent innocent and virtuous women being entrapped, and as Ayre had been living with prisoner before the socalled marriage she had sustained no injury in that way.
Mr. Darker prosecuted.
CHARLOTTE LARRANCE , married woman, 88, Fielding Road, Bedford Park. Prisoner is my brother. On January 24, 1897, I witnessed his marriage to my sister, Alice Garrard, at St. Jude's Church, Brixton. I saw her alive six weeks ago. She only lived with him a very little while, something like a week.
MARY JANE FAITHFULL , 14, Studland Street, Hammersmith. Prisoner went through a form of marriage with me on May 26, 1899. I have had three children. He has been a very bad husband to Mr. I was in service, and did not know he was a married man. He was then a carpet planner. I heard of his former marriage three years ago. I taxed him with it, and he said it was not right. I had not been living with him before the so-called marriage, nor had I had anything to do with him.
Sergeant ARTHUR ALLEN, T Division. I produce certified copies of the marriage certificates. I arrested prisoner, who said, "I have done wrong. When I married the woman Garrard I only stayed will her a fortnight, and parted. I was told she was dead. I did not make any inquiries to find out if she was dead. "
The Recorder said this was a very different case from the last, and the gravity of it consisted in the injury to the second wife.
Sentence. Six months' hard labour.
FOURTH COURT; Tuesday, January 29.
(Before Judge Rentoul.)
CAPLAN. Israel, pleaded guilty to publishing a false and defamatory libel of and concerning Morris Mordecai Rosenberg. He was released on his own recognisances to come up for judgment when called upon.
HODGES, William (21, flower seller), pleaded guilty to causing grievous bodily harm to Eli Gilbert, with intent to do him tome grievous bodily harm, and with intent to resist and prevent the lawful apprehension of himself. Several previous convictions were proved. Sentence, Four years' penal servitude.
POLAK, Benjamin (34, capcutter), pleaded guilty at January (1) Session of forgery and; uttering (see page 353). Prisoner had made no restitution, and said that he had no means of doing so. He was sentenced to nine months' hard labour.
INNES, George (54, labourer), pleaded guilty to feloniously wounding Arthur West, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm. He was released on his own recognisances to come up for judgment when called upon.
THIRD COURT; Tuesday, January 29, Wednesday, January 30, and Thursday, January 31.
(Before Judge Rentoul.)
THOMPSON, Robert Henry (39, carman) ; taking Margaret Louisa Kent, an unmarried girl under the age of 18 years, out of the possession of and against the will of her mother, Margaret Louisa Salmon. (Evidence unfit for publication.) Verdict. Guilty. Prisoner (who bore a good general character) was sentenced to three mouths' imprisonment in the second division.
OLD COURT; Wednesday, January 30.
(Before Mr. Justice Kennedy.)
Mr. Charles Mathews and Mr. Arnold Ward prosecuted; Mr. Percival Clarke (at the request of the Court) defended.
Mr. Mathews said that, so far as the charge of murder was concerned, he should, with the sanction of Mr. Justice Kennedy, offer no evidence against the prisoner.
His lordship assented, and on his direction the jury returned a verdict of Not guilty of wilful murder. The trial proceeded on an indictment charging prisoner with feloniously wounding Fanny Church with intent to murder her, or with intent to do her some grievous bodily harm.
ARTHUR FREDERICK GEORGE CHURCH , son of the prisoner, 13 1/2 years of age. On October 27 I was living at 48, Cornwall Road, Tottenham. My father came home about half past eight that night. My mother was standing at the street door; she said to father, "Are you afraid to go upstairs?"He did not answer. They had a few words in the kitchen. I do not know what it was about. After that my three little sisters and I went to bed; we all slept in the same room, but I had a bed to myself. I was awakened about half-past two in the morning by a cracking sound, and I saw father strike mother on the left side of the head with a bobbing foot; there was a lamp alight in the room; they were both dressed. I got up in bed and put my arms round father's neck to try to get the hobbing-foot away; I said, "Daddy, stop that," and I called out to my sister to fetch Mr. Harman; he is a man that lives downstairs, and she went. Father said, "Somebody is trying to let paraffin oil down through the fanlight, and drop it on to the lamp to burn us all up." When Mr. Harman started to come upstairs father called out to him, "If you put a foot on these stairs I will serve you the same." I heard Mr. Harman tell somebody to fetch a policeman. When the policeman came he said to father. "Come with me"; and father said to us children when he went with the policeman, he said, "Good-bye, I am going to be hung; you won't see me any more."
Cross-examined. I do not know whether father was afraid to go upstairs or not. I have heard him say that somebody was after him.
The noise that woke me up mounded as if somebody had knocked up against the table. It was near Mr. Mother was lying on my sister's ted. I heard mother say to father on Thursday night, "I am not going to be murdered"; and I think the night before she slept in the kitchen in a chair, and father said, "It is not you that is going to be murdered, it's me." He did not say who was going to murder him. I had noticed that father had been strange in his manner. I have seem him like it before. Once he stabbed mother in the passage find he was sent to prison for a month; once he out his own throat; that was three years ago.
MINNIE ROSETTA CHURCH . Prisoner is my father, I am 11 1/2 years old, and I lived with my parents at 48, Cornwall Road, Tottenham. On October 26 father and mother were in the kitchen when I when to bed. I slept in one bed with my sisters; Arthur slept in another bed. I woke up in the night and saw father sitting on the bed looking through a glass door that leads to the kitchen; mother was asleep, and I went to sleep again. Some time alter I woke up again and saw father moving the table towards the door, and mother said, "Are you trying to barricade the door so that I cannot get out?"Farther said, "You can move it back again if you like." I did not see anything in his hand. The next night I was woke up again, and I saw father in the same position as before, looking through the glass door; mother was in the room; she was half asleep and half awake, and I went to sleep again. I was awakened by a cracking sound, I was frightened, and put my head under the clothes. When I looked out I saw Arthur trying to get the hobbing-root stand out of father's hand and Arthur called out to me to fetch Mr. Harm an, and I did. He came out into the passage and I went upstairs. I said to father, "You won't touch Mr. Harman, will you?" He said, "If he puts a foot on these stairs I will serve him the same as I have her." He said it loud enough for Mr. Harman to hear it. Mr. Harman said, "What have I done to you, Fred?"When the police came father said, "Good-bye. I am going to be hung."
Cross-examined. I don't remember all that he said, but I remember his saying, "Ada has been running up and down the street all night saying we are going to have a new father"; but she could not have been doing that as she was with me nearly all night. It was after he had barricaded the door that he said somebody was after him. He was looking through the glass door, as if he expected somebody after him.
ROBERT HARMAN . I lived for six months at No. 48, in the same road, with the prisoner and his wife. On October 26 I saw prisoner standing at the front door; it was about half-past eight; he said to me, "It's very cold to-night." Mrs. Church came up then, and said to him, "Why don't you come upstairs, are you afraid?"He made no reply. She then went upstairs and he followed her. Some time after I went to bed. About two o'clock I was awakened by Minnie "Church calling Mr. When I got out in the passage Arthur said,
"Wait a minute; I will tell father who it is." I called out, "Now then. Fred"; and he called out, "All right. Bob." I then heard Arthur say to prisoner, "You will not hit Mr. Harman, will you" He said "If he puts a foot on these stairs I will serve him the same as I have her."
Cross-examined. I had been talking to him some time before I heard his wife ask him if he was afraid. I do not know what he was afraid of I cannot say whether he was drunk or not.
Re-examined. I was living with prisoner in the middle of September last year. One night, after I had gone to bed, I heard Mrs. Church call out for help. My wife brought a lamp, and I saw prisoner and his wife on the floor. I took hold of prisoner's left hand; he was sticking something in her back. I then got hold of prisoner's right hand and I saw a knife fall out of it. We then got up off the floor, and I saw that Mrs. Church was stabbed in the middle of the back. Prisoner said, "I must give myself up, Bob, for stabbing my wife." I went with him to the police station at West Green Road and he gave himself up.
ADA HARMAN , wife of the last witness. Prisoner was not at work on the 26th; he was in and out of the house all day long. I cannot tell if he was sober or not. During the night I was awakened by Minnie knocking at the bedroom door. I heard prisoner call out, "I will serve you the same as I have her if you come up here; you saved her before, but you are too late this timer." My husband then sent for a policeman. I went upstairs when the policeman came, and I saw Mrs. Church lying on the bed in the children's room; she was unconscious; prisoner was fully dressed. He pointed to his wife and said, "Now I shall be hung"; and he also said, "Mr. Aylett has been trying to pour paraffin oil through the fanlight."
Cross-examined. Prisoner was standing at the door about half-past eight; I never spoke to him; he seemed to be strange in his manner to Mr. His wife said to me that she believed he was going out of his mind; she said she was going to see the relieving officer to have him put away. She has told me that he seemed very jealous because Mr. Aylett had come to live next door but one. Prisoner often said that somebody was coming after him to take him away in a hansom cab. There was a fanlight in the room, but there was not any paraffin.
Re-examined. We have lived at 48, Cornwall Road twice. We moved once from 48 to another house in the same road and then back again. I have known prisoner and his wife about four or five years. I never saw much of him, only when he came in and out; I saw more of Mrs. Church. She told me that while he was in prison for stabbing her she thought he was jealous because Mr. Aylett had come to live next door but one to us.
Police Constable WILLIAM FIDDY, 306 N. About 2. 30 in the early morning of October 27 I went to 48, Cornwall Road, Tottenham. Upstairs on the landing I saw prisoner; he said, "Come on upstairs,
constable, come and see what I have done." I followed him to the bedroom; Mrs. Church was lying on the bed bleeding from the head. I asked prisoner what he had been doing; he replied," I don't know; I had to do it." On the table I saw the iron foot-stand (produced); that is a thing used in mending boots; prisoner said that was what he had done it with. I told him I should take him to the station; he said, "All right, governor, I'll come." At the station, in reply to the charge, he said, "It was with the wooden end I done it; I am glad to hear she is not dead." I was altogether in prisoner's company about a quarter of an hour; he appeared very strange in his manner, very excited; he was shaking and trembling; he seemed to be perfectly sober.
JAMES MLL RENTON , House Surgeon at Tottenham Hospital. Deceased was admitted on October 27, and came under my care on November 1. She had a fracture of the base of the skull, also an external wound in the scarp, two inches or so above the left ear, and a flesh wound in the neck; also a fracture of the jaw on the left side in the ascending ramus, close to the neck of it. The injuries might have been inflicted with the instrument produced. On December 6, as labour was commencing, she was dismissed to the Edmonton Union maternity ward. She had then made considerable progress towards recovery.
GEORGE CUNNINGHAM , Assistant Medical Officer, Edmonton Infirmary. Mrs. Church was confined of a child in the maternity ward on the 7th; the child died on the 12th. I first saw the woman on the 13th; her temperature was then about 101; it remained high till the 17th. On that day I diagnosed that she was suffering from scarlet fever. She died on December 31 from meningitis. On inquiry I satisfied myself that she had contracted scarlet fever from infected blankets in the ambulance in which she was brought from the hospital to the infirmary.
WILLIAM HENRY WILCOX , M. D., Lecturer on forensic medicine at St. Mary's Hospital, Home Office analyst. I made a post-mortem examination on January 6. On the left side of the skull there was a depressed crack; one piece, two inches in diameter, was bashed in; there were five radiating cracks, two of which ran down into the base of the skull. The instrument (produced) would have been sufficient to cause these injuries. Assuming a person to be in normal health, the injuries would be most serious and dangerous. The principal organs of the body, the heart, kidneys, and brain, showed marked signs of blood poisoning; both the brain and the spinal cord had meningitis; pus was oozing from an abscess through the fracture at the base of the skull; the abscess was probably due to the scarlet fever. The cause of death I take to be meningitis, with accompanying saptisemia; the abscess would account for both, but it probably would not have caused meningitis had there been no fracture.
Inspector JOHN HAWES, N Division. I have made inquiries at Tottenham Police Station as to prisoner's mental condition. In 1900
he was detained in Edmonton Infirmary, suffering from delusions, for nine days, when he was taken away by his wife. On August 6. 1901 he attempted suicide by cutting his throat.
Dr. JAMES SCOTT, medical officer at Brixton Prison. Prisoner was received on October 27; I have had him under observation for three months, and had a number of interviews with him. As to his state of mind immediately before October 27, judging from his statements to me, which I think he believed, he was in bodily fear of Aylett and he also believed that his wife was in complicity with Aylett. He told me that he thought he heard Aylett's voice coming through tin wall of the house at all hours of the day and night, saying that he would come in and pour boiling water down his throat and kill him; he thought his wife had agreed with Aylett that she should open the door to admit him when prisoner was asleep, so that he might do him violence. I consider that these ideas were insane delusions. A man holding such ideas would, in my opinion, not properly appreciate the wrongful character of the act he did.
Cross-examined. Prisoner told me that on a day in September his tea tasted peculiar, and he felt so convinced that, his wife had tried to drug him that he tried to induce sickness to get rid of it. He told me that his object in assaulting his wife in September was to get taken away, as he feared what might happen to him if he stayed at home. I regard all this as delusional mania. I cannot say that he did not know the nature of the act he was doing; has own statements showed that he acted under the idea of self-preservation. With regard to his statement to Harman, "You saved her life before, but you are too late this time." I think he was confused and scarcely knew what he said; he was in a state of abject terror. As to his words, "Goodbye, I am going to be hung," I will not go further than Chat he did not properly appreciate the wrongful character of his act; I cannot say that he did not know its nature and, to some extent, know that it was wrong; but I do not think he had a proper appreciation. I think he is still under the influence of these delusions, and still believes to some extent in his wife's complicity. He is in my opinion insane to that extent.
To the Court. I think there is hardily any lunatic who does not know to some extent the nature of his acts and also their quality. The whole point is what we include under the word "know"; though a person may know to some extent, there may be lacking a proper appreciation of the character of the act; there may not be proper reasoning control. The old idea of monomania is not now accepted as a rule; it is considered by psychologists that, if a person has insane delusions, they indicate a diseased state of mind.
Verdict, Not guilty of wounding with intent to murder; guilty of wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, but that prisoner was insane a: the time, so as not to be responsible in law for his act. He was ordered to be detained during His Majesty's pleasure.
NEW COURT; Wednesday, January 30.
(Before the Recorder.)
OWEN, William (43, bird dealer) ; stealing 28 lb. of rubber cable, the goods of Siemens Brothers and Co., Limited, and feloniously receiving same; feloniously receiving one piece of manganese bronze, the goods of Vickers, Sons, and Maxim, Limited, well knowing it to have been stolen; feloniously receiving certain aluminium and other fittings, the goods of Trevor Chinnock Davis, well knowing them to have been stolen.
Mr. J. P. Grain and Mr. Eustace Fulton prosecuted; Mr. Basil Watson defended.
Sergeant HENRY TARBARD, R Division. About nine o'clock on the morning of January 12 I was on duty in plain clothes in Albion Road, Woolwich, with Sergeant Webber, when I saw prisoner driving a high cart which appeared to be rather heavily weighted. I called upon him to atop, and Webber said, "I wish to speak to you." Prisoner said, "Do you want £20?"I said, "What do you mean?" He replied, "Do you want 20 golden sovereign?"I said, "No; we wish to see what you have in your cart." He said, "You do not want to look in there; I will make it £30." I said, "We do not do business like that," and I got into the cart. He then said, "I will make it £30 each, and you can have anything I have in the shop." I had not told him we were police officers, but he knew it very well. I told him to drive into a back street. He wanted to get home, but eventually, after a lot of pressure, did as directed. I then searched the cart and found about 2 cwt. of copper wire in sacks, 84 lb. sheet lend, a lot of cable wire, which is not the subject of a charge, 84 lb. mixed metal, 28 lb. brass, and 28 lb. rubber cable casing. Those were sill in separate sacks, and on the top of the cart there were two bird cages. When we had got the property on to the ground I said to him: "Where did you get this?" He said, "It came from Erith. I would not tell you who brought it for £1. 000. It has come from Erith. It is stolen, but has never been missed, and no one will know if you let me go." He also said, "I have two gold rings at home you can have. "I told him he would have to go to the station. On the way he said, "I will tell you where it has come from if you let me go." I said, "I can promise you nothing." He said, "It has come from Callenders'. Now will you let me go?"Callenders are cable manufacturers at Erith. At the station he was charged with the unlawful possession of the whole of the property found in his cart, and, in reply, said, "All right." The 28 lb. of rubber was afterwards identified by Mr. Diselhorst, manager to Messrs. Siemens, Bros., and Co. Other property identified was a piece of manganese bronze, some brass fittings belonging to Messrs. Vickers, Sons, and Maxim, and some bicycle brake fittings (564 pieces in all) belonging to Mr. Davis, of Bishopsgate Street.
Cross-examined. Prisoner's shop at No. 13, Church Street, Woolwich, is from 25 yards to 30 yards from the Dockyard gates. A police officer is on duty at the Dockyard gates day and night, but not within sight of the shop. An officer on duty aft the gates could not see the shop at all. I did not take the cart back to the shoo because I did not wish to take it back. I do not think that to search a possibly innocent man's cart in the street was quite unnecessary. I know that about five weeks ago a man named Martin was charged before Mr. Baggalley with receiving coal, and that after three hearings he was acquitted. It does not strike me as an unreasonable thing for an innocent man to suggest that he would pay £20 father than be taken to the police-court three times and eventually acquitted. Prisoner is ostensibly a dealer in birds, and there is nothing to indicate that he deals in anything else. I do not know than one side of the shop is kept far furniture dealing, or that he goes frequently to Caledonian Market to buy stuff of all sorts. I should not say you could buy such stuff as he is charged with stealing at the Caledonian Market. I also searched prisoner's house. Property was found there that we could not find owners for. I did not find £20 there. As to prisoner's statement that some of the wire came from Callenders', I am sure I did not mistake Callenders' for Caledonian.
Sergeant JAMES WEBBER, R Division, gave corroborative evidence.
WILLIAM DISELHORST . I have been in the employment of Messrs. Siemens Bros, for a great many years. The rubber produced is the insulation if the cable, and cannot be very much more than six weeks old. It has been cut off cables. I identify it as the property of Messrs. Siemens.
Cross-examined. We have been missing stuff for the last thirty years. We have cables all over the works, and cannot tell where the rubber is taken from. We employ about 2,000 men, and there is a lot of pilfering of anything that can be put into the pocket. We try our best to put a stop to it, but cannot do it. It is valuable to us even in its present state—I should say from 3s. 6d. to 4s. per lb.—but I should not say it is worth that in the open market. I have never been to Caledonian Market. As to how I identify the rubber, I took one or two pieces and had them analysed. There are besides marks on the rubber; for instance, the pure rubber inside is laid on in a particular way, and it is easy for anyone who knows about the manufacture of this rubber to tell that it is our rubber. The analysis is quite clear, too. There are five or six different things which coincide exactly. I cannot go into all the details. The rubber (produced) round wire is not our rubber. We spread our rubber over with a solution on both sides. This has not been spread on both sides, and therefore the overlapping at this stage is white. Other firms make rubber like this.
Messrs. Vickers and Co. They do not sell manganese bronze in that state, but only in a finished state. This piece was cast about three months ago and is well preserved, and has been rough machined quite recently.
Cross-examined. If a piece of manganese was rubbed up the moment it was cast it would change in appearance if moisture got to it. The finished piece I have here is changing even now. The atmosphere would affect it even if it was wrapped up. If the material of the covering was a good conductor of moisture it would keep its appearance. The piece produced has not shown any discoloration whatever. We employ about 3,000 hands, but I do not admit that there is generally someone we cannot detect who is carrying off small articles. Manganese bronze like this would not be sold at Woolwich Arsenal.
Re-examined. They do not put this sort of stuff into rummage sales. This is a new piece.
TREVOR CHINNOCK DAVIS , druggists' sundries man, 89, Bishopsgate. The bicycle brake fittings produced are my property and have my mark on them. They are not newly made, but have never been used. I used to keep them in boxes. When spoken to by the detective I examined the boxes. I had not previously examined them for two or three months, when they were nearly full. When the detectives called my attention to them they were nearly empty. These things related to a motor-cycle business I had had some five years back, and were stowed away.
Cross-examined. I am certain that I saw them safe three months ago. I am the patentee and the owner and manufacturer of the brakes. They were removed from my place at Penge some five years back. I did not take stock when I arrived in Bishopsgate. I only know that the boxes were full. As far as I recollect, Webber asked me if I was the maker of the Chinnock brake and I said "Yes." I found the business did not pay and so I gave it up.
WILLIAM OWEH (prisoner on oath). I sell birds, furniture, and general articles, tools, and everything else. I bought the brake fittings in the Caledonian road about six months ago. I recollect it well. I dare say there are 500 dealers in the Caledonian Market. The man who sold them to me told me they were part of a bankrupt's stock. I tried to see what I could get for them. I asked a man named Mercer. I believe he is here to-day. He was outside when I came in. I bought the rubber last Friday in the Farringdon Market. Albert Mardell was with me when I bought it. The manganese bronze I also bought in the Caledonian Market. I have constantly been to the market with Mardell and his brother. Sometimes I was with the two together. As to why I offered the £20 when I was stopped on the Saturday, I was naturally very frightened, as I
know of Martin having to go three times to Woolwich Police Court and I did not want the trouble and disgrace of going to the police court, though I know the property was come by honestly, and I offered the police £20. Their other statements are a mistake. My shop is within 25 yards of an officer who is on duty day and night at the dock-yard. I have been there six years. There is an officer walking up and down the street all day. I have never had any sort of charge brought against me before, and have never been in a police court in my life.
Cross-examined. I do not know anyone of the name of Perkins. The book (produced) was found on Mr. It contains the entry, "88, Samuel Street, Perkins," in my writing. I do not know that a man named Perkins was employed by Mr. Davis. The Perkins in question was employed at a farm in Little Heath. I do not know why I made the note. He works about five minutes' walk from my shop, and I think I took the address when he wanted some pigeons. I know Robinson and Co., iron merchants, of East Greenwich. They deal in such manganese bronze as was found in my cart. I have called upon them within the last few days with a view to buying bronze like that so that I could prove my innocence. This stuff is sold all over the country. I did not buy any of Robinson's because they did not happen to have any. When I was stopped I was going to Deptford to sell my stuff. I bought all the other goods that were found in the Caledonian Market. You can buy them any Friday you like. The Bicycle fittings were exhibited on the ground for anyone to see when I bought them. I put them in the tin (produced). I have been out on bail, and last Friday I went to find the man who bought them, hut owing to the snow there were very few people at the market, and I could not meet him. I paid 3s. for the piece of manganese bronze I bought the India rubber to sell again, and gave 3s. for that lot. I told the police officers I would give them £20 to let me go, as I did not want to go to the police station if I could help it. They said they wanted what was in the cart. I did not say, "You do not want to look in there. I will make it £30."That is absolutely false. He did not say, "We do not do business like that." I did not tell him the stuff came from Erith; I told him it came from the Caledonian Market. I did not say, "No one will know if you let me go." There were two gold rings in the house belonging to my wife. Tarbard did not say he could not promise me anything. I did not say the stuff came from Callender's. I do not know Vickers, and have never been near their premises. I know Siemens' works. I do not live far from there. I knew the two officers by sight, and they knew me; they have known me for years. They have been to my shop before—on police business; perhaps with inquiring minds or possibly with longing eyes. They have never bought anything of Mr.
Re-examined. I have been at the shop six years, and no charge has ever been brought against Mr. They did not buy a canary or even a note book.
WILLIAM MERCER , 14, Douglas Street, Deptford, foreman metal and rubber sorter, of Messrs. Donal, McCall, and Co., Greenwich, metal and rubber merchants. I have had 20 or 23 years' experience of the rubber trade. I have compared the two specimens of rubber (produced). Most rubbers are very similar. I should not like to swear that the rubber taken from the prisoner was Siemens'. I have bought Siemens' rubber from other firms. The Last lot I inspected was 16 tons. I remember that some months ago prisoner showed me a sample of aluminium brake fittings, and asked me the value of them. It. was on a Friday, and he said he had been that day to the Caledonian Market. I have known him some years.
Cross-examined. As foreman I naturally had a great many other things to think of, but I remember this circumstance. My firm buy cable strippings, but not in such small quantity as was found in prisoner's cart. We have to strip it when we buy it, and cut it into short lengths. We should buy old rubber without inquiry.
MOSES MERCADO . I both buy and sell in the Caledonian Market. It is possible to both buy and sell brake fittings, and iron and rubber goods there. You can buy nearly everything in the world there. There are 500 sellers, I dare say more.
Cross-examined. They never make inquiries there. You buy a pig in a poke.
WILLIAM MARDELL , coal merchant and goods contractor. I know prisoner, and have been with him to Caledonian Market often, and have seen him buy stuff of all sorts, old furniture, any small articles, old rubber, piping, leather, metal work, anything. I have seen him buy watches. There are plenty to be sold there. I was so satisfied as to prisoner's character that I stood bail for him in £200.
ALBERT MARDELL , brother of last witness. I know prisoner, and have been to Caledonian Market with him, and have seen him buy things of all sorts. I am with my brother in business, but not in partnership.
Verdict, Not Guilty on all the indictments.
FRENCH, George (59, journeyman tailor) ; stealing a suit of clothes, the goods of Walter George Brooks, his master, and feloniously receiving same; stealing an overcoat, the goods of Morris Bick, and feloniously receiving same.
Mr. J. S. Henderson prosecuted.
ALONZO EDWARD TAYLOR . I am a partner in the firm of Walter George Brooks, Godliman Street. I remember prisoner coming to the premises on December 29, 1905, and asking for work, and I gave him a new suit that had been returned to alter. He was to take that suit to the top floor of our building, where we have a workshop. He went up to the workshop, and I did not see him again nor the suit. The value of the suit was 50s. It belonged to a customer. I saw
the prisoner about two or three months ago coming up the steps of the Cannon Street Station of the Metropolitan Railway. I said, "Mr. French?" He replied, "Yes." I said, "You are a very ungrateful man, after I had helped you, for taking the suit as you did." He replied. "I did so. It is the first timer. I will not do so again." I said, "If I had time I would give you into custody." I believe that is all the conversation that passed between us. I then moved away I afterwards learned that he had been taken into custody.
To prisoner. It was no doubt, my duty to give you in charge then, but, as I told the Lord Mayor at the Mansion House, there was no policeman in sight. There is a side passage, by which you could leave the cutting room without being seen by anyone in the shop, above which there are offices. We do not give a lot of our work out to the Jews. We do give some. This was not a suit of clothes made by the Jews that did not fit. You worked for me before for about two months. You did not say, "I am very sorry if that suit has gone missing, but if you think I stole it give me in charge."
To the Court. Information was given to the police at the time of the robbery, and later on one of the detectives arrested prisoner in the "Black Swan" public house, near my place of business, and came to me on January 5 last to inform me of the arrest. Prisoner had been already identified by one of my employees and taken to the station.
Prisoner. It is rather a funny thing for a guilty man to be hanging round the place where you say he stole the clothes.
Witness. The owner of the suit was a Mr. Brooks, employed by the Muntz Metal Company, of Mark Lane.
To a juror. I did not give fresh instructions to the police after I saw prisoner at Cannon Street Station.
MAURICE GREENLEAF , living at Walthamstow. On December 29, 1905, I was in Brocks' employ, and was in the workshop at the top of the building, when prisoner came up and asked if I could bring him a job. I referred him to my employer, and prisoner shortly afterwards brought a suit, which he said Mr. Taylor had given him to alter. He said he did not understand what the chalk marks on the clothes meant, and I explained them to him. He then said he would go down and get written instructions, and took the suit out of the workshop, and after that I did not see him or the suit again.
Constable FRED PIERCY, City Police. On the 5th of this month I was on duty with another officer in Carter Lane and saw prisoner go into the public bar of the "Black Swan." As he answered to the description I went to Brooks's shop, and returned in company with Albert Edward Sumpter. Sumpter went into the house and called French by his name. French came outside. We then told him we were police officers, and that Sumpter had given him into custody for stealing a suit of clothes on December 29, 1905. He said be knew nothing about it, and that his name was net French.
PRISONER (not on oath) contended that Taylor by not giving him into custody at the station had become accessory He did not deny
that he had the suit to alter, or that he took it up to titer, but said that on finding that the suit had been made by Jews in the East End of London, being an English tailor, he objected to doing alterations to foreign-made work, and took it out of the workshop with the intention of taking it back to Mr. Taylor, so he left the suit outside the cutting-room door and walked out. That he had not avoided the neighbourhood was shown by his being in a public-house near the shop, which he thought proved there was no guilt about the matter at all.
In answer to the Jury the witness TAYLOR said it was customary to work by chalk marks and by oral instructions as well. The suit was not a Jewish made suit, the coat having been made by an Irishman, the waistcoat by an English woman, and the trousers by a German. Prisoner had not been in the habit of taking things to his own house to alter.
Verdict, Guilty. The indictment respecting the overcoat of Morris. Bick was not proceeded with. Prisoner, about whom little is known beyond that he has been in the Fusiliers and has since been in America, was sentenced to six months' hard labour.
SHADBOLT, Edward (28, labourer), and GREEN, Harry (20, labourer) , breaking and entering a certain place of divine worship, to wit, the Wesleyan Church, Enfield, and stealing therein a Bible and other articles, the goods of James Henry Bailey, and felonicusly receiving same.
ARTHUR ALLEN , caretaker. My duties took me to the church on the evening of January 7 about 9. 15. When I opened the door with a latch key I heard a noise inside. I went outside to see if I could see anyone, and then went in again and stood upon the mat I heard another noise, a shuffling noise of some kind, and after waiting some seconds someone called out, "Give us a chance, governor." I said, "All right, come on out." I got on to the steps, and two men pawed me so close that I could touch them. I know Shadbolt well and recognise him. I was standing at the side entrance—the minister's door. There are two lamps, one in the front of the entrance and the other at the side. I had my back to the two lamps and they passed me quite close. I called out, and a young man came up and asked me if I wanted any assistance. A policeman afterwards came up, and in company with him I went into the church. I examined the drawers in the minister's vestry, and found they had been tampered with. The furniture was disarranged. A Bible had been put on the chair
and an inkstand on the mantelpiece. A table hid been placed on its side. In the schoolroom a cupboard bad been broken up, and there was a cardboard box missing which had contained about 1s. or 1s. 3d. A girl's workbox had been broken open, the padlock wrenched off, and the work placed upon a chair. I afterwards found that a window had been forced from the outside with a chisel, and an entrance effected in that way. Between ten and eleven the same evening I was summoned to the station by the police. I there picked out Shadbolt from a number of other men. I do not swear to Green.
Sub-Divisional Inspector THOMAS TRIGG, stationed at Enfield. On the evening of January 7 I saw the two prisoners in Church Street, Enfield, about half past eight, about 150 yards away from the church. I next saw them at about half past 10 at the station, having in the meantime received information that the Wesley an Church, Chase Side, had been broken into. Allen at once identified Shadbolt. As the result of what I heard, and also of what I knew, I also arrested Green. They were charged with committing sacrilege at the Wesleyan Church, and in reply Shadbolt said, "I have been home all day, and Harry Green has not left me the whole of the day. You saw us in Enfield Town about half past eight this evening, and we wished you good-night. We saw you go into the draper's shop in Church Street at nine, and we saw Sergeant Watts in Parsonage Lane at half past nine. What time had we to break into this place?"I said, "It is said to have been done about a quarter past nine." Green made no reply, but Shadbolt repeated his former statement. I afterwards went to Shadbolt's house, accompanied by Sergeant Watts. In front of a cupboard on the ground floor I found two screw-drivers and one drill. In the back room on the table I found a large file. Shadbolt was arrested at his house. He lives about seven minutes' walk from the police station. It is about five minutes' walk from the police station to his house. It is all in a circle. In a quarter of an hour you may go the whole distance round. On the next day I examined the church and found that entrance had been effected by forcing open the window of No. class-room with some instrument. I fitted that instrument into the marks found on the window. I then examined the drawer, on which I found marks of the file. On examining the library I found the door had been forced, and the instrument (produced) fitted exactly into marks on the door. In the infants' class-room I found a box with the lock forced off, which had contained sewing. The men, whoever they were, had done their best to ascertain what was there, and took what they could. I afterwards went to the ministers' vestry, where I found the table turned on its side, the Bible on a chair close by the door. I found on the drawer (produced) marks corresponding with a file. There was a poker lying in the room, the bead of which had also been used to force the drawer. The poker was the property of the chapel.
Sergeant WILLIAM WATTS. On the evening of January 7, in consequence of information received, I went to the Wesleyan Church, and
afterwards to Prince of Wales Cottage, Parsonage Lane, where I saw the prisoner Shadbolt about half past 10. I said to him, "I am going to arrest you as being concerned with another man in breaking and entering a Wesleyan Chapel, Chase Side, Enfield, this evening." He said. "What, me! I know nothing about it. I did not leave home until half past six this evening, when I went to look for my wife." I paid a second visit to the house, accompanied by Inspector Trigg, and saw the Inspector take possession of the tools (produced). We subsequently went into the kitchen, and found the tools (produced) on the kitchen table.
Constable JOHN ATFIELD, stationed at Enfield, spoke to seeing prisoners in Church Street on the evening in question, about 100 yards from the church, and going towards the town, and again at 8. 40, near the church.
Sergeant ALFRED WOODWARD, 599 Y, spoke to seeing prisoners in Parson's Lane about 20 past nine, running up the path from the direction of the chapel. Knowing prisoners personally, he had no doubt of their identity.
Prisoner SHADBOLT (not on oath) ranged the tools (produced) in front of the dock, and endeavoured to demonstrate their unsuitability for breaking and entering, and also endeavoured to account for his time.
Prisoner GREEN (not on oath) stated that he was at home at the time the entry was effected, and in support of that statement called his mother and brother as witnesses.
Verdict, Guilty; Green recommended to mercy. Both prisoners pleaded guilty to previous convictions.
Sentences, Shadbolt, 18 months' hard labour; Green, 12 months' hard labour.
OLD COURT; Thursday, January 31.
(Before Mr. Justice Kennedy.)
BYERS, Jessie (40) ; a number of offences detailed in the following counts: (1) That having committed an offence against Section 8 of the Infant Life Protection Act, 1897, in respect of failure to give notice of reception, etc., of Gladys Scythe, an infant four months old, and that the said infant died on August 27, 1906, at defendant's house, she on September 1, 1906, with intent to conceal that offence, procured the cremation of the body of the infant, contrary to Section 8 sub-section 3 of the Cremation Act, 1902; (2) having failed to give notice of death to the coroner for the district, she procured the cremation of the body; (3 and 4) corresponding counts in respect of Winnie Davis, an infant five months old; (5) obtaining by false pretences from Frederick William Davis the stun of 5s. with intent to defraud; (6 and 7) charged a public nuisance at common law arising from the non-interment of the bodies.
Mr. R. D. Muir, Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. Leycester prosecuted; Mr. Kershaw (at the request of the Court) defended.
Mr. Kershaw (before plea) submitted that counts 6 and 7 disclosed no indictable offence, as they applied to a public nuisance, and the offence charged was committed in a private dwelling. A civil action might lie for a private nuisance, but it was not indictable unless the count stated that it was a nuisance to the public. These counts only alleged that it was a nuisance to the inhabitants of the house in which the prisoner resided, which were private premises, and not a public place. Cites Russell on Crimes, sixth edition, p. 729-732; R. v. Lloyd (4 Espinosa, p. 200); Archbold, 23rd q. edition, p. 1180; R. v. Price (15 Cox, p. 390); R. v. Vann (2 Den., r. C. C. p. 631).
Mr. Bodkin pointed out certain particulars in which the present case differed from those cited, and referred to the observation of Lord Denman in R. v. Stewart (12 Adolphus and Ellis, p. 778), that the leaving unburied the corpse of a person for whom the defendant was bound to provide burial was indictable.
Mr. Justice Kennedy ruled that the counts were bad. The essence of the charge intended to be conveyed in each off the counts was that of a common nuisance, and he did not think that there could be any doubt that a common nuisance must be something which caused inconvenience or hurt to the public in the exercise of the rights common to all His Majesty's subjects. He quoted a passage on the subject from Stephens Criminal Digest, sixth edition, p. 40. These counts alleged that it was a nuisance only to certain persons dwelling in a private dwelling-house, and must be quashed.
MILDRED BYERS , 17, Home Villas, Edmonton. I am 14 years old and live with my parents. My mother, the prisoner, put an advertisement in the "Tottenham Herald" and "Islington Gazette" about May last for children. We had three or four already, and then Winnie Davis and Elsie Moore came. The ages of the children were from two to 12 months. We have had about ten children since we went to the house in April last. My mother and I looked after them. They were kept in the top front roam and we slept with them. Six children have died there—Masie White, Elsie Moore, Giadys Smythe, Winnie Davis, Miriam Balcombe, and Irene Thompson. Dr. Bebb attended Irene Thompson and Dr. Gordon saw Miriam Balcombe. I do not remember the dates. I have not seen an undertaker there There was a funeral for Irene Thompson only. There was an inquest upon her. I think Masie White died after Gladys Smythe. I do not know what she died of Prisoner was there at the time. She said she thought it was convulsions. She was six weeks or two months old. The body was taken down to the back room and remained there nine or ten days. Prisoner did not tell me what became of the body. I do not know what Gladys
Smythe died of. My mother was present. She was three or four months old. No doctor attended her. Prisoner did not tell me what became of the body. On a fete day at Pym's Park, in the spring, my brother Ernest wanted to go into the first floor front room to see from the balcony. My mother said, "That room is occupied," and he did not go in. I asked mother that afternoon if the undertaker had been for Gladys. She said, "He has." I should think mat was two or three weeks after the death. She said she hoped Miss Smythe would not make a fuse about it because she did not want an inquest. A few days after she said she had had a letter from Miss Smythe saying she would leave it all in her hands. I fetched Winnie Davis to the house some time in June. She was about a fortnight old. Miss Davis gave it to Mr. I attended to her. She died on November 6. I do not know what she died of. No doctor attended. My 7. mother attended her. The child was ill for two or three days. The 8. body was taken down to the ground floor back bedroom, which was 9. famished and unoccupied. I came down about 10 a.m. on Sunday, 10. November 25, and noticed the door of that room was open. I asked 11. mother if the undertaker had been. She said, "Yes. he has." I 12. laid, "There is no funeral service on Sunday morning, is there?" 13. one said, "Yet; there is one at 10 o'clock." No doctor attended 14. Winnie Davis. Miriam Balcombe was six weeks old when she came. 15. She died on November 26. I do not know what she died of Mother 16. said she thought that she was cutting her teeth and had something 17. on the brain. Dr. Gordon had attended her two or three months 18. before, but not later. Her body was in the house when the police 19. came on the 27th.
Cross-examined. Mother generally got 6s. a week for children, monthly—I never knew her have a lump sum for them. Irene died the day after she came. Dr. Bebb saw her once. Dr. Gordon attended Miriam three or four times; she died some time after. Some time after Masie White died I noticed a smell in the house. The fete in the park was about two weeks after Gladys Smythe died. I noticed a smell in the house then. I did not have any conversation with mother then about Gladys. I was busy looking after the children. The police came and asked about the children almost at the end of November. They asked me a lot of questions. Some two weeks after Winnie Davis died I noticed a smell in the house.
ARTHUR BYERS , prisoner's son, aged 10. I live at 17, Holme Villas. My father works in a piano factory. Children came to our house to be looked after because, I think, father was out of work. I remember Frankie, Irene Thompson, Elsie Moore, Miriam Balcombe, Winnie Davis, Masie White, and Gladys Smythe. They all died at our house except Frankie. He was able to run about. I saw the coffins brought for Irene and Miriam. Gladys Smythe's body was kept in the first floor front room from the time she died till the fete day Pym's Park; it was lying on the floor on two napkins with a shawl over. Mother gave me some paper, and told me to go
and fetch the body down. I brought it down to mother in the kitchen. She opened the top of the stove and put the body in on the fire. She then gave me a bowl of carbolic and water to sprinkle about the floor where it had been lying, which I did. She told me not to tell anybody. I saw Winnie's dead body in a room on the second floor. I saw my sister take it into the middle room on the ground floor. One morning mother told me to light the kitchen lire, which I did. Jenny Adkins, the servant, came, and mother told her to wash up the supper things in the scullery. She then bolted the door and told me to fetch Winnie's body, which I did, and gave it to mother. It was wrapped in a cloth. She opened the top of the stove and put the body in and shut it down. She gave me some carbolic and water to sprinkle the floor where it had been lying, which I did.
Cross-examined. The body was in an unoccupied room. I noticed a nasty smell in the house. The servant generally lit the fire. It was lighted nearly every day. The servant arrived before mother said anything to me about Winnie.
JENNY ADKINS , domestic servant. I entered prisoner's service early in October last (daily). Winnie Davis died there on November 5. I saw her body in the ground floor back room on the 6th, and on other occasions up to the 24th. On that day she told me not to come next morning (Sunday) till nine o'clock, instead of seven, and to have a rest while I could. I got there at nine. It was my duty to light the kitchen fire. It was lighted, and she told me to go into the scullery and do some mangling. I went in and prisoner bolted the door. I heard her say, "Come on, Arthur—look sharp!"I looked through the keyhole and saw Arthur coming from the back room into the kitchen with something on his arm. I heard the stove being dropped down to make the fire larger and drawn to from the top. It is a stove that has a movable bottom so as to make the fire deeper or shallower. When the door was unbolted I went out of the scullery and noticed an awful smell and a black mass burning. I touched it with the poker, which went in. I saw the little boy with some disinfectant and a flannel doing something in the back room. Prisoner was also there. Miss Slade, a lodger, came into the kitchen when prisoner was there. Miss Slade sand, "Won't the fire burn?"Prisoner said, "No; it has gone a bit down and I have poured paraffin oil on it." The fire burnt what there was right out.
The next day I informed the police.
Cross-examined. I got to the house about nine on Sunday, the time I was told. I did a little mangling, but not much. Prisoner told me to shut the door so that those upstairs should not hear the noise. Anyone could hear it in the kitchen, so prisoner would know I was not doing it. I heard her bolt the door. She did not keep me long.
Re-examined. I never saw the body of Winnie Davis again.
on my behalf. In July I was living in Albany Street when Mildred Byers took my child. It had no mark or bruise on its face then. Some weeks after I saw it with a bruise on its left cheek. Prisoner said it was a mark from birth caused by instruments or pressure of the nurse's hand. I told her I had no instruments. I saw the child a week or so later (when the bruise had disappeared), and from time to time till November 4. I was paying prisoner £1 4s. a month in advance for the child. On the 4th I paid her £1 6s. 8d.; 2s. 8d. being for some Scott's Emulsion. The child was looking much better. On the 6th I had a letter from prisoner, which I have destroyed, saying that the child was dead. I called on the 7th with my brother and saw prisoner and the body. She said the child died of convulsions, and that she called in a doctor at five a.m. She said she had made all arrangements for the funeral, but did not mention the undertaker's name. She said it would coat 15s. and she had paid 5s. deposit to the undertaker, and the funeral was to be at Edmonton Cemetery on Thursday, the 9th, at 10. 30 a.m. My brother paid her the 5s. I went again about the 19th and took tome flowers with me. Prisoner said she bad paid 5s. 6d. for a wreath end 2s. 6d. for memorial cards. She gave me one like this (produced). I told her to take the 5s. 6d. and 2s. 6d. out of the money I had paid her in advance. I did not ask for any money back.
Cross-examined. The monthly payments were to go on as long as the child was with her. The child went to her on June 23. If I said July it was a mistake. I had paid five monthly payments.
CATHERINE DAVIS , wife of Frederick William Davis, 10, Willoughby Road, Tottenham. I am sister-in-law to Clara. I saw an advertisement in the "Tottenham Herald" and went to see prisoner about it before Clara was confined. She asked £15 down or 6s. a week, payable monthly in advance. I said £15 was very little to take a child for until it could earn its own living. She said, "The little bit of food, with ours, does not count much." I went there on November 13—alter the child's death. She said she got very wet on going to the funeral on the Thursday previous. She wept and said she massed the child, and was quite lost without it.
Cross-examined. When I said £15 was very little prisoner agreed to accept 6s. a week while the child was with her.
FREDERICK WILLIAM DAVIS . I am Clara's brother. I went to prisoners house on November 7 on hearing of the death. She told me the child died of convulsions, and she had made arrangements for the funeral with Shepherd, the undertaker, and that it would cost 12s. 6d. Then she said she had seen the coffin for 12s. 6d., and did not like the look of it; that she had ordered a better one, that the child would be buried on the church aide of the cemetery, and it would be 15s.; that she had paid 5s. deposit to Shepherd, which I paid in the presence of my sister.
Cross-examined. I had no conversation about the matter with anybody till the police came. I am sure Shepherd's name was mentioned.
I paid the funeral expenses, and quite believed she had buried the child.
MELBOURNE SHEPHERD , undertaker, 14, Upper Fore Street, Edmonton. I have not carried out a funeral from 17, Holme Villas, and cannot remember supplying a coffin. I believe I fetched away a still-born from there once, but I do not know when. I have no reference in my books. I think I recollect prisoner coming to me once; but I do not recollect anything about it; I never buried a child for her. Lots of people send for you and say they will let you know, and you never hear any more of them.
Cross-examined. Prisoner never paid me any money to my knowledge. I may have given her a price, but I never did a funeral for her.
ADA SMYTHE , domestic servant I had a child (Gladys) on March 27 last. I am unmarried. In July, 1906, I saw an advertisement in the Tottenham paper, and saw prisoner, and arranged with her to take the child. She wanted me to pay £15 down. I was unable to do that, and said I would pay £1 a month, which she agreed to. I paid 10s. down, and took the child to her about the third week in July. I saw the child there about the beginning of August, when it was well. It had not been very well. It had a very bad attack of inward convulsions a fortnight before I took it there, and had a doctor. I did not see it again alive. About August 27 I had a letter from prisoner which I burnt, saying the child had died—"Come at once." I went two days after, about 7. 30. Prisoner said she was very sorry for me, that she had a doctor a few hours before its death, that the doctor afterwards gave her a certificate saying it had died of meningitis. She said she would see to the funeral, and the cost would be 10s. It was to be at Chingford Cemetery the following Monday. I paid her the 10s. I have seen her since.
Cross-examined. I have been to the house several times. I cannot say for certain when I received the letter. It may have been on August 16. The payments were to go on till £15 was paid.
ALLEN MAGAW FORBES , solicitor and coroner for the Liberty of the Duchy of Lancaster. Victoria Road, Edmonton, is within the Liberty. On December 1 last I held an inquest on Miriam Balcombe, and on two subsequent days. I think notice was given by Dr. Bebh, who was sent for when the child was dead. He was not able to certify, and he reported the case in the usual way. I saw the body. Prisoner was present at the hearings. In May last I got notice of the death of Irene Thompson from Dr. Bebb, I think. I was communicated with by the police as to Miriam, I think. I was mistaking the order of date I have never had notice of death from prisoner or her husband. I have never had notice of the death of Gladys Smythe, Winifred Davis, Masie White, or Elsie Moore.
in the Poor Law Union of Edmonton. I have never had any notice from prisoner under the statute in regard to 17, Holme Villas. I deal with these cases.
FREDERICK WILLIAM NOAKES , Deputy Superintendent Registrar of Births and Deaths for Edmonton. I have searched the register of deaths from January 1, 1904, to December 4, 1906, and find no death registered by anyone of the name of Byers. There is a death registered on the authority of the coroner—that of Irene Thompson.
WILLIAM LOUMAN , Inspector under the Infant Life Protection Act for Edmonton. I am appointed by the Deputy Board of Guardians. Prisoner has never been registered as a person taking in nurse children in my district. I called upon her July 6 last in reference to Elsie Moore. I informed her I was an inspector under the Act and that I had called about the child. She showed me the child which she said she had received for a friend far 5s. a week. I asked her if she had any more children. She said, "No." I warned her that under the act she must not take more than one without a license. I asked her if she intended to take any more, and she distinctly said, "No"; that her husband was a pianoforte maker and she took in boarders, and had no intention of taking any babies to mind.
Detective-sergeant ALBERT HAWKINS. On information received on November 26, I went on the 27th to 17, Holme Villas and saw prisoner. I told her who I was and read her my warrant for a summary offence under the Act. I asked for her husband. She said, "He is out and has nothing to do with it. I am entirely responsible for this business here. I have four nurse children and one dead in the back room." I saw the body of Miriam Balcombe. On the way to the station she said, "I sent for the mother two of three times. I burned it (referring to one of the bodies) because of the smell, and did it to make both ends meet."
Cross-examined. She was arrested for an offence under the Cremation Act. There are other summary offences still pending against her before the magistrate.
This concluding the case for the Crown.
Mr. Kershaw submitted that there was no evidence to go to the jury on those counts which charged offences under the Cremation Act. The Act contained no definition of the word "cremation"; he submitted that it did not mean burning in the ordinary sense of the word, bat a definite scientific disposition of the body in a crematorium.
Mr. Bodkin submitted that, in the absence of any definition, the ordinary meaning must be given to the word, and that would cover the offences charged. His Lordship held that there was no evidence to go to the Jury on these counts.
(Friday, February 1.)
Verdict, Guilty of concealing by fire the dead bodies of Gladys Smythe and Winnie Davis with intent to obstruct the coroner in the performance of his duty; Guilty of obtaining by false pretences from Frederick "William Davis the sum of 5s., with intent to defraud; Not guilty on the other counts.
Sentence, on each of the counts for burning the bodies,12 months' imprisonment; on the count of false pretences, six months imprisonment; the three sentences to run concurrently.
NEW COURT; Thursday, January 31.
(Before the Recorder.)
Mr. Harold Hardy prosecuted; Mr. George Elliott defended.
ALICE EDWARDS , 36. Manley Street, Regent's Park. On January 5, 1888, I was present at the marriage at the Vestry Office, St. Pancras, of my sister, Louisa Gibbons, to prisoner. My sister died on October 7. 1899.
Cross-examined. I know that my sister left her husband within two years of the marriage—somewhere towards the end of 1889; she went away from him; he did not go away from her, and that it was entirely her own fault. She was a great deal given to drink. As far as I know, from that time her husband never saw her at all. She remained in London, but was quite away from all her friends. She was, I am afraid, living a bad life. I do not know what means she had or where she was living. She would turn up just when she thought she would. She came and saw me just two years before she used, and I knew nothing at all about her after that until she was dead. I cannot tell whether she ever went to see her other relations or the prisoner.
Detective SUDBURY. I produce the marriage and death certificates, of Louisa Keen and the certificate of the marriage of prisoner with Clara. Coxon on February 13, 1899. I arrested prisoner on January 1 of this year without a warrant. I said he would be charged with bigamy.
Cross-examined. I know that the second "wife" went away with another man to Australia last June. She returned and endeavoured to get her children, who had been supported by prisoner all the while. it was out of her attempt to obtain the children that this prosecution arose. She tried to get an affiliation order from Mr. Hopkins, at Lambeth, but Mr. Hopkins declined to make it. I know that prisoner has supported the children all the time and cared for them. She lived with him before the supposed marriage.
CLARA COXON , Queen's Road, Walworth. On February 13, 1899, I was married to prisoner at the registry office, St. Pancras. I had lived with him previously for some two or three months. Prisoner said he had been a married man but was a widower. I was introduced to him by my aunt, a Mrs. Mayo.
The Recorder ruled that, as the prosecution had failed to show that during the seven years' absence of the wife the husband knew she was alive, the prosecution mast fail. Verdict, Not guilty.
Mr. Wing prosecuted; Mr. George Elliott defended.
EUGENE GEIGER . I deal in fancy goods and have a warehouse at 87, Finsbury Pavement, and I live at 5, Pitfield Street, Hoxton. The earrings produced are my property; I bought them of the manufacturer in Germany. The cost price would be about 30s. They are made of eight carat or nine carat gold. On October 31 they were on my premises in Finsbury Pavement. It is not a shop but an office. I am nearly always the last on the premises, and leave between half-past six and eight. Those goods were then at my place with other goods which are also missing. I lost altogether 80 or 100 articles of jewellery of different kinds, which were contained in trays. On November 1 I found the police at my office, and identified as my property some jewellery which they brought.
Cross-examined. I identify the earrings by the make and the quality, and I could discover them if they were mixed amongst thousands of others. There are thousands of similar earrings manufactured on the Continent, but not exactly the time. I am certain that the man who produces these earrings has no place in England. They are marked at the back with a 9, snowing them to be nine-carat gold. There is no private manufacturer's mark or other distinguishing mark, nor the initials of the manufacturer. The retail price is 4s. 6d. or 5s. a pair according to sample. I believe I am the sole agent in England for them, because I have never traced a single article of his make in the United Kingdom. I travel all over the United Kingdom—on the south coast, in Lancashire, and sometimes in Scotland—and I know nearly every shopkeeper, and when I go about doing business I look at the shop windows, and I can tell the make of every article. I have no agreement that these articles shall only be supplied to me in this country. The earrings produced correspond exactly with those found in my place. It is not likely, I think, that anyone of my nation would be trading in England with the same goods. If there were I should discover it, because I know almost every jeweller in England, and if I should happen to see something of the same kind in his shop I can tell whether it was I who sold it or somebody else.
ARTHUR JACKSON , jeweller, 36, Charlotte Street, Fitzroy Square. I have known prisoner about two years. He is a near neighbour of mine. On November 2 prisoner came into my shop and asked me whether I would like to buy tome jewellery. I told him I had plenty of my own and could not spare the money. Next day he came in with the earrings produced. He said he was abort of money, and would I try and sell them for him. I opened the parcel, but did
not have time to look at the jewellery, as there was a customer named Charlton waiting for his watch. The parcel contained a job lot of cheap jewellery; I could not exactly say what, but there were some brooches, earrings, plated chains, a little bundle of gold-plated hearts, some different charms, and that sort of thing. He said he wanted £4 10s. for the lot. I sold the things for five guineas to a Mr. Rogers. I paid prisoner £4 10s. and retained the balance, out of which, however, I had to pay 5s. to the man who recommended the customer. I told Rogers I had a few sample earrings, but people would not have them because they were not quite pairs. I kept them in the shop about two months, until the police officer came to make inquiries. On January 12 Detective Marriott came to me and said he had inquiries to make about some jewellery I had sold to Mr. Rogers for five guineas. He told me the things were stolen, and I said I was sorry to hear it. I gave the name of the man from whom I received the jewellery. I went with the detective to prisoner, and told him that the officer had been making inquiries about the jewellery he had given me some few months ago. Prisoner replied, "I know nothing about it." After more conversation Marriott told prisoner that he was in a very serious position, and recommended him to tell the truth. Prisoner said, "I know something about it. A man I know by sight came into my shop a few months ago and asked me if I would like to have some jewellery from him to put in my window for sale. I replied that I did not deal in jewellery, but if he would like to know, there were some watchmakers down the street who would buy oft him. He then went away, leading the jewellery, and I have not seen him since." Though I knew prisoner was a clothier I did not ask him where he got the jewellery from. There was nothing about it to lead me to believe it was stolen.
Cross-examined. I am a German and my real name is Jacobson, but I am Jackson in England. I am a Jew.
Mr. Elliott. I noticed you were sworn on the New Testament Is that binding on your conscience?
The Recorder. I think we had better reseat him.
(Witness was accordingly restore.)
Witness. I did not ask any questions as to where this jewellery came from. Prisoner had dealt in jewellery with me before he opened the clothes shop, end I knew him to be a respectable man. I did not see anything wrong or suspicious about the transaction. I have been in business 20 years. Having sold the bulk of the things for five guineas, I did not return the unsold things to prisoner. I offered them to him, but he told me to keep them till I sold them, as he had no use for them. There were nine pairs of earrings left, but there was no value in them. It is not true that the things were brought round to me not by prisoner, but by a fair man about 5 ft. 6 in. in height, with a fair moustache. As to these being articles that are only dealt in by Mr. Geiger, I can bring plenty of them. I believe they are common in the City at 1s. per pair. I can buy
them at 1s. per pair in Houndsditch. When prisoner came to me with the jewellery I had no idea where he got it from. No suspicion crossed my mind. I have done repairs for him for a long timer. I sold him some watches and clocks. I do all his jewellery jobs for him. I had no suspicion. I knew he used to buy job lots in the tale rooms. He came in as friend. He has been in the clothes line about 18 months. Before that he did not keep a shop but bought things to sell again to different jewellers.
WILLIAM ALGERNON CHARLTON , builder and decorator, Mill Hill. I know Arthur Jackson, and was in his shop waiting for my watch to be repaired on the morning of Saturday, November 3, about half-past 10. After I had 'been there some time a men came in with parcel and had a conversation with Jackson by the window in some language I did not understand. I cannot positively swear that prisoner was the man who came in. Jackson opened the parcel, which appeared to me to contain brooches and earrings.
Detective EDWARD MARRIOTT, City Police. On Saturday, January 12, I went to Charlotte Street, Fitzroy Square, and saw Jackson, whom I accompanied to prisoner's shop, 52, Charlotte Street. Mr. Geiger was also present. (Witness detailed the conversation narrated by Jackson.)
The Recorder observed that if the jury were not satisfied that these were the earrings stolen from the prosecutor's place the case need not go on any further. One witness had said that such earrings could be bought by the score in Houndsditch.
At the request of the jury, Mr. Kirkham was recalled, and stated that he had been connected with the auctioneering business for 35 years. Such earrings as were alleged to have been stolen could be purchased in 20 or 30 jewellers' warehouses in London without any difficulty. There was nothing about them to enable a person to swear that they were part of a particular consignment of jewellery. They were made either in Germany or Austria, and could probably be obtained in any jewellery warehouse in London.
Mr. WIXLEY gave similar evidence, pricing the articles at 1s. to 2s. per pair.
Verdict, Not guilty.
MARTIN, Charles S., or Charley (31, merchant), and OATLEY, Alfred Ernest (28, merchant) , the former American and the latter Australian; both conspiring and agreeing together to obtain by false pretences the sum of £23 11s. 10d. from the Carlton Hotel, limited, with intent to defraud; both forging and uttering a cheque for £30 with intent to defraud the Carlton Hotel Company; Oatley stealing six blank cheque forms, the goods of Clara Fuller, and feloniously receiving same; Oatley unlawfully stealing two dogs, the goods of Mary Rees; Oatley forging and uttering an order for the payment of £65, with intent to defraud.
Mr. Leycester prosecuted; Mr. George Elliott defended Oatley.
JOSEPH JAMES TREWEEK , second cashier at the Carlton Hotel. On Saturday afternoon, December 8, about 4. 30, I saw prisoner Martin at the hotel. I did not then know him as Martin, but as George Payne. He came into the office and asked if he could see the manager. I answered that the manager was not in, and asked if I could do anything for him. He then said, "Perhaps you will do just as well. I arrived from the Continent this morning early, and have been engaged in town all day, and have only just got back too late to go to the bank to get any money. I have a cheque for £50, but have been too late to go to the bank to cash it." I asked him if he was staying in the hotel. He said, "Yes; Room No. 361." I then asked him if he would show me the cheque, and he showed me a cheque on the National and Provincial Bank of England, Baker Street branch, payable to "George Payne." He said the drawer was the President or some official of the Canadian Pacific Railway; the word "President" I do not insist upon. I said I could give him £5, and he said, "Oh, make it £6." I gave him the money, obtaining the acknowledgment produced. There is no fixed rule as to the payment of the bills on Saturday. It is left, to the convenience of customers. I was not present when he paid his account the following Saturday, December 15, but I saw him on Sunday, the 16th, between three and four in the afternoon, when he came into the office, and said, "I am very sorry, but I shall nave to impose on your kindness again. I want some more money. I was playing poker last night and lost all I had." I replied, "I am very sorry I cannot let you have any more." I knew at the time that there was a cheque for £30 in the office with which he had raid his bill the previous day after banking hours. He seemed surprised and said, "Why, I paid my hill yesterday." He went out of the office, left the hotel, and never returned. He left behind him a bag which, on being opened, was found to contain some linen, both dirty and clean, a large number of cards—"Geo. Payne, Louisville and Nashville Railroad"—and some newspapers and magazines. When I next saw him he was in custody.
Cross-examined. I did not see prisoner Oatley until I saw him at Marlborough Street.
WILLIAM CHORLEY DUNN , principal cashier at the Carlton Hotel. On December 15 prisoner Martin was staving at the hotel in the name of George Payne. On that day he came into the office at a quarter to four in the afternoon. His weekly bill had been tendered to him the same morning, including the £6 cash advanced. He handed me a cheque on the National Provincial Bank payable to George Payne, drawn by W. B. West, and I gave him £17 10s.
Change. He receipted the bill, and I believe he made a note on the back of the cheque of the amount of the bill and change given. It was then too late to pay the cheque into the bank. It was paid in on Monday morning, and returned marked "No account," having, been specially cleared.
Cross-examined. I did not see Oatley at all. To Prisoner Martin, There is a notice in the hotel that cheques are not cashed. It is usual in all hotels. You did not say, "I see you do not cash cheques. I will wait until Monday."
To the Recorder. We cash cheques for people who are not leaving the hotel, though we are not bound to do it Prisoner was not leaving the hotel.
SEBASTIAN NEUMANN , staff manager, Carlton Hotel. On December went out and saw him and asked him into my office, and told him the name of the gentleman who had occupied that room was Payne. He said, "Oh, is it? Why, look here!" and handed me a card on which was the name of "Martin, Room 361, Carlton Hotel." I said, "Would You know the gentleman if you saw him?" He said, "Certainly," and described him to Mr. I said, "That is Mr. Payne according to the description," and, I said, "I wish to see you personally, as he has let us in for an amount." Oatley then said, "I want to see him, too. He has 1st me in for a fiver," and he explained to me in what way. He said, "I met Mr. Martin at the Queen's Hotel, Leicester Square, and we had several drinks together when all of a sudden Mr. Martin said, 'I must go down to the Carlton where I am staying. I have no more cash on Mr. I want to cash a cheque.' I said to him, 'Oh I do not go; I can let you have some money'" Thereupon I said, "Have you an I. O. U., because I can show you Mr. Payne's handwriting?" No," he replied, "I have nothing." Thereupon I opened my drawer and produced the arrival slip and the cheque. The arrival slip bore the name of George Payne of New York, and the cheque was endorsed as Geo. Payne. I also had the visiting card which I had taken from the luggage, and on the bag which was standing by my side were the initials "G. P." "Well," he said, "I should like to meet him. I do not want any money, but I would just like to give him a few punches and that would settle the matter; but what are you going to do?"I said, "I have sent up to Vine Street asking for Sergeant West to come to take the charge. We are going to prosecute him. "I also said that if he liked to leave me his name and address I would let him know if we heard anything. "Oh! I would rather not," he answered; "I would net care for my people to know where I met this man. I should not care for them to know that I frequent the Queen's Hotel, Leicester Square." I said, "You can give me your name and address privately, and nobody need know I am keeping you informed. "I produced a piece of paper and pencil, and he thereupon wrote his name, and I gave it to Sergeant West. The name was.
"Alfred Oatley, 40. Lisle Street." He thanked me and that was the last I saw of him. Afterwards Sergeant West and Sergeant Leach called upon me and I told them all that had occurred.
Cross-examined. Oatley seemed very much surprised when I told him that the name of the gentleman in 361 was not Martin but Payne. It was not until he saw the card, the cheque, and the luggage that he was convinced. I took him to be a gentleman.
EDWARD RICHARD CLARKE , clerk at the Baker Street branch of the National Provincial Bank, proved that on August 26, 1899, Mrs. from a book issued to Mrs. Fuller on January 18, 1897, and was presented on December 17 last through Messrs. Coutts, and returned marked "No account." There was no customer at the branch named "W. B. West." He did not know either of the prisoners.
MRS. CLARA FULLER , 330, Camden Road. A lady named Marion Thomas lodges at my house. I formerly had an account at the Baker Street branch of the National Provincial Bank. It was closed in 1899. but there remained in my possession a cheque book with some blank cheques. It was in a box with some photographs and different odd things, having been put away as of no use. On January 1 a police officer called upon me and made inquiries about it. I went to look for it and found it was gone. Up to that time I did not know it was gone. I had not authorised Miss Thomas to give it away to anybody, or prisoner Oatley to take it. I have seen the prisoner Oatley once. I think I opened the door for him when be came to call on Miss Thomas on her birthday.
Cross-examined. Miss Thomas goes about the house the same as I should myself and could open the box in which was the cheque book if she wished to. It was so many years ago I had forgotten about it. The photographs were those of professionals.
MARION THOMAS , music hall artiste. 330, Camden Road. I know prisoner Oatley. He called on me on November 5, which was my birthday. I showed him some photographs and things. He picked up the cheque book and asked what it was, and I told him it was an old cheque book of Mrs. Fuller's. He asked if he could have it, and I told him it was not mine. He said he wanted to "flash" it. He put it into his pocket and went away with it, and I heard nothing more about it until the police came.
Cross-examined. I had known Oatley since the preceding July or August He had an office. When he called on November 5 and look the cheque book I had been showing him some photographs and business letters. When he said he wanted the cheque book to "flash" I did not see any harm. I did not think anything at all about it. He did not take anything else as far as I know. There were no spoons lying about.
Sergeant FREDERICK WEST. On December 17 I was called to the Carlton Hotel, and received information about this case. On December 21 I went to 40. Lisle Street, and there saw prisoner Oatley.
At No. 40 there is a foreign club underneath, and apartments overhead. I told Oatley who I was. He was sharing a room with another man, and I said I had come to see him, about a man named Martin having defrauded him of £5. He said, "That was a bit of 'bluff' on my part. He could not defraud me of £5 or of fivepence." I said, "Did you ever lend Martin a cheque for £50 or £30, or give him one, because if you have it would be far better for you to tell me the truth." He said, "I have not. I have not handled a cheque since I have been in London." I said, "Can You tell me where Martin is now?" He said, "No; I do not know." That was all that occurred at that timer. On the same day an information was sworn against Martin for obtaining £6 and £17 11s. 10d. by false pretences. On December 29 I went with one of the waiters of the Carlton Hotel and Sergeant Leach to 129, St. George's Road. I spoke to the landlady, and afterwards went up to the first floor front The door was locked, I knocked and asked if Mr. Du Roy was within, the name having been given Mr. A voice through the door said, "Who are you?"I said, "I am the landlord." "What do you want?" was the answer. "I want to speak to you in respect of your rent." "You will have to wait till I dress," he answered. I waited about four or five minutes, and prisoner Martin then opened the door. I told him I was a police officer and bad a warrant for the arrest of a man named George Payne for obtaining money at the Carlton Hotel on a worthless cheque. He said, "You have made a mistake My name is not Payne; my name is Du Roy." I turned to the waiter and asked him if this was the man he knew as Payne, and he said, "I am not quite sure." Martin said, "No, my name is not Payne." Seeing some cards projecting from his waistcoat pocket, I reached forward and took one out. It had on it "Charles S. Marun." I showed him the card and said, "This is the name under which you were staying at 57A, Shaftesbury Avenue before you went to the Carlton Hotel." He said, "All right, boys; if you have got a warrant for me it is straight. I cashed the cheque at the Carlton Hotel and I will tell you all about it." I then cautioned him that what he chose to say would be taken down in writing and given in evidence against him before the magistrate. He then made a statement which Sergeant Leach took down in his pocket book. The statement was afterwards read over to prisoner, and he signed it. On January 2 an information was sworn against Oatley and a warrant granted for his arrest for conspiracy. On January 6 I went again to Oatley's lodging at 40, Lisle Street. I did not find him there, but I found some Carlton Hotel notepaper in his portmanteau. I ultimately found Oatley in Birmingham, where I arrested him on January 12 for conspiracy. He said, "I did not conspire with Martin; I deny the whole charge." I then said, "You will be further charged with stealing a cheque-book, the property of Mrs. Puller. "He replied, "I did not steal the cheque-book." I brought him to London, and on the 13th he sent for me and made a statement in his cell as to the cheque-book. As to the notepaper, he said that
when he went to see Martin at the Carlton he asked for a sheet of notepaper, and Martin gave him four or five.
Cross-examined. I did not know anything of Oatley and did not know his address until it was given me at the Carlton.
Sergeant ALLEN LEACH gave corroborative evidence.
CHARLEY S. MARTIN (prisoner on oath). I am a citizen of the United States, and my home is in Nashville, Tennessee. I have no lawyer because I have no money, and I have no friends in this country. I was living at Shaftesbury Avenue, and on December 1, or perhaps a few days before, I was introduced to Oatley. He told me he was living out in Lambeth somewhere, so I said to him, "You seem to be a nice fellow, you can stop here." So he stayed with me two or three weeks. I was then in want of money, and Oatley gave me a cheque for £40, which I gave to Reynolds, my landlord, asking him to cash it, but it was returned "Refer to drawer." A day or two afterwards Oatley showed me a letter from a man named Payne, stating that Oatley was to get £100 or so from a Mr. West. Oatley afterwards gave me a cheque for £50, and I went to the Carlton Hotel and registered in the name of George Payne. I showed the cashier the cheque and asked him to let me have some money until Monday are a cheque for £100 a couple of days later. On the following Friday Oatley said to me, "I cannot get that cheque for £100 that I talked of, but here is a cheque for £30. You just have that cheque cashed. What is your hotel bill?" I said I did not know, and he said if I would give him some of the proceeds of the cheque he would loan me some more money when he got the other money. Out of the cheque cashed at the Carlton I got £17 11s. 10d., and handed over £11 to Oatley. On the evening after I had left the hotel Oatley told me the cheque he had given me was no good. Then like a fool I lost my head and did not know what to do. Instead of going back to the hotel I took a room. I took it in the name of Du Roy because I knew that if there was going to be any blame it was going to be on Mr. I know that circumstances are against me, but I cannot help that I have told the truth. I was as innocent of knowing that the cheque was a forgery as anyone in this court.
Cross-examined by Mr. Leycester. I had no idea the cheque was worthless until the evening of the day I cashed it. I have been coming to London for the last ten years. This last time I may have been in London a month, but I went over to Paris for a few days. I had known Oatley about three weeks. I had seen letters from the Australian Government speaking very highly of him, and people I knew in London had spoken about him and said he was a pretty good fellow. I understood he had something to do with buying
horses. He had nothing to do with railways so far as I know. I knew him both as Oatley and O'Brien. He told me he adopted the later name because he had had trouble with his friends and had to go M a prize-fighter. I did not know him as either West or Payne. He never told me that the cheque came from Mrs. Fuller's house. I did not know the cheque, though signed "West," was in Oatley's writing. Reynolds, the landlord, turned me out because I could not pay. I left my papers there in the expectation of being able to pay. I went to the Carlton because I was expecting money, and, as I told Detective West, I always stay at the best hotels. I had been staying a the Cecil, but did not feel I was smart enough for the Cecil, where I was known. I went to the Carlton with the object of cashing the cheque there. I registered in the name of George Payne. I only knew George Payne through the letter of Oatley's. I first heard of him it may be, four or five days before I left the Shaftesbury Avenue flat. I had never before gone by the name of Payne. Oatley gave me the cards that were found in my bag, but honestly I could not say when. If you are asked for a card you have to give one, and I could not give my card with "Charley Martin" on it if I was staying as George Payne. I thought it was a perfectly honest transaction. I have stayed at the Cecil as Martin and Fuller, and as Fuller at the Russell, and as Du Roy at St. George's Road, but you cannot show that I have defrauded any of these people of a penny; that is what you have got to show. It was some days before I went to the Carlton that Oatley asked me to help him in cashing a cheque. I received the £50 cheque round about noon, on December 8. I did not go to the bank to change it because I was told the banks were closed. The previous cheque for £40 I gave to Mr. Reynolds, and it was returned "Refer to drawer." I have no idea what bank that cheque was on. It did not occur to me when Oatley gave me the cheque for £50 that that might be as good as the other one, because I had seen the letter from this Mr. Payne saying that Mr. West was going to pay him money. That is why I thought it was good. Having left Shaftesbury Avenue because I could not pay my bill, Oatley lent me money to go and stop at the Carlton. I cannot say why he should have done so; he did it. I could give tine names of people who have loaned me not £50 but £500. It never occurred to me there was anything wrong about the cheque because I did not think Oatley would do me a dirty trick. I gave Oatley the £11 on the same Saturday night that I got the money myself. He told me on the Sunday the cheque was a wrong one. I asked him for the money back, and we had an awful fuss. The portmanteau I took to the Carlton dad not belong to Mr. I will not say where I got it from, because I do not want to bring the parties' names into the case. I suppose Oatley put on the initials "G. P." I did not even know they were on until the fellow said it here. I did not go back to the hotel to fetch it.
Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. The bag does not belong to Oatley. I suggest that Oatley put "G. P." upon the bag because it was in his room. It was my linen in the bag. Oatley did not
supply me with the linen, but he supplied me with the cards. I do not know the number of cards the were, but I should say there were nearer 50 than live. I did not want the cards. Oatley gave them to Mr. I have been in the habit of coming from America to the Continent for the last ten years. I have been to the various capitals as representative of different American houses. I speak several languages. I represented the American Exploration Company for several months. I sold their shares or stocks and bonds all about the States, down in Spain and Portugal, in Turkey, and in Asia Minor. It may be that I collected 33,000 francs, but I deny that I went off with it. I do not know that there is a warrant out against me in respect of that at Bordeaux. I went from there to Madrid, but did not obtain money for which I did not account. I did not obtain £150 by false pretences at Lisbon from a Mr. Read. I deny that a warrant was there issued for my arrest. I engaged Mr. Read as agent for the American Exploration Company at a salary of about £20 a month to place shares, and went back to Paris. He wrote that he would not accept that, and another proposition was made. I did not enter into negotiations for the hire of a large office under the American Legation. I have sold lots of shares for the American gave me this cheque for £30 of his own accord without any suggestion from Mr. I never knew that he knew a man named West or Payne. I did not suggest that he should give me a cheque merely for the purpose of showing people, and in order to convince them that I had cash. What would I do with the cheque if I did not want to cash it? Oatley told me that West had asked him to hold the cheque for £50, and he would get a cheque for £100 later on. Oatley gave me the cheque for £30 on the Friday before I cashed it.
(Friday, February 1.)
ALFRED ERNEST OATLEY (prisoner, on oath). Up till 1903 I lived with my father, near Sydney, in Australia He is the owner of a racecourse and stud farm. In that year I was anxious to go to South Africa, and for that purpose I had testimonials given me by the late Sir John See, the Premier of New South Wales, and Mr. Slattery, the Minister for Lands. I proceeded to South Africa, and on reaching Durban found that I was no longer required for fighting purposes. I then started in a coffee business, which at the end of six monthly I sold, and came over to England. In 1904 I returned to Sydney, and stayed with my people for some little time. I then went to Perth, in Western Australia, where I obtained out of 189 candidates the position of secretary of the Helena Vale Racing Club. Having held that position for some time I went to India, and ultimately again reached this country about the end of May last. I then became associated with a paper called the "Theatrical and Sports Review, in connection with which I unfortunately lost a good deal of money.
As nearly as I can guess I was introduced to the prisoner Martin about the middle of November. I was then living in Brixton. I became on very friendly terms with him in a very short time, and he said to me, "You live a long way out. Why do not you come and live at my flat? I have got room if you would care to, and then you need not go out of town every night." I said, "Very well," and I went there. Prior to meeting Martin I had met a man named Plews who had an account at the National and Provincial Bank at Newcastle-on-Tyne, and he gave me a post-dated cheque for £45. He had a fixed deposit at the bank and had to give seven days' notice of withdrawal, and for that reason the post-dated it, and I had that cheque when I went to Martin's flat, signed by Plews and drawn by Plews. Plews told me I might have £20 out of the cheque as soon as it was cashed, and being friendly with Martin when I found he was in difficulties I said, "Pay this cheque in and pay your rent," and he gave it to Mr. Reynolds, who was, I think, the agent for the buildings. It was put through the account and returned "Refer to drawer." That cheque was out of the book I received from Miss Thomas. It was on the tame bank, though not the same branch, and that was the reason that cheque was used. The cheque was taken out of the book and written by Plews, who had a genuine account. He scratched out "Baker Street" and put "Newcastle-on-Tyne." Before that I had not used a single cheque out of Mrs. Fuller's cheque-book. Plews was at that time living in Guildford Street. I had previously met him in Newcastle. Up to that time I had no cheque transaction with Martin. Some time afterwards Martin saw me with the cheque book in my hand and said to me, "Al, give me ant at all." He then said, "If people see me with a cheque what do they naturally think? If people think I am broke I have no chance at all." I said, "Well, I will give you a cheque if you promise not to attempt to cash it or even let it out of your hands" I gave him a cheque. I could not say whether it was for £30 or £50. As it was not going to be used I did not notice what it was. I signed it "W. B. West" and made it payable to "George Payne," at prisoner's request. I asked for it back about three or four days after. He told me he was going to stay at the Carlton, as he was doing some business with electric people and must have a good address. I asked him how he was going to pay, and he said, "I expect to make £150, but I am sure to make £60 before the end of the week with which I can pay my bill" When I asked him for the cheque he told me it had been destroyed, I said, "You ought not to have destroyed the cheque until I had seen it." Plews gave me another cheque for £35, and those are the only cheques I used out of that book. Plews's second cheque was presented over the counter, and shared the same fate as the first, went with Martin to the Carlton Hotel and went up to his room on December 8—a Saturday—and I saw that trunk in his room. If saw it at the flat I never took any notice of it. It is not true that
I procured it for Martin. I never saw the trunk in my life until I went up to his room. I had nothing to do with putting the letters "G. P. upon it. On the following Monday I went to the hotel and had a chat with Martin in his room, and, noticing a stand with writing paper, I said, "Give me a sheet of notepaper, Charley". He said, "Take three or four," and those are the three or four sheets that were found in my trunk. He did not tell me at that time that he had already had £6 from the hotel. As to the cheque for £30 which Martin cashed I know absolutely nothing about that at all. I cannot account for his being in possession of the cheque. The cheque-book was lying in the back drawer of a wardrobe, where anybody could take it. I do not say he took the cheque. No part of the cheque for £30 is in my handwriting. Of the £17 said by Martin to have been given to him by the Carlton Hotel people, I did not receive a sixpence. He never told me that he had had £17 from the Carlton. The first time I saw that cheque was the Wednesday after Martin had left the hotel, when I went to the Carlton to make inquiries. It was from Mr. Neumann that I learned that Martin had been staying there in the name of Payne, and I was very much surprised. I gave my own name when asked and the address where I was actually staying with a member of the music-hall profession. I deny that I gave Martin cards with the name "Geo. Payne" on. I never saw them at all. All that Martin has said about that is false. The first time I saw Martin, after the interview with Neumann, was in Brixton Prison. I had a certain amount of money owing to me from different parts of the world. I had a few hundred pounds owing in India, and was expecting some of it when I came to England. I had £500 or £600 when I came, and I had lent a good deal of this to acquaintances and was gradually getting it back. I did not carry it in my pocket. I had an account at the Credit Lyonnais. I lost a good deal of money in the "Theatrical and Sports Review." As soon as I found that the Carlton Hotel cheque had come out of Mrs. Fuller's book I said to myself, "There will be no more cheques used anyhow," so I went up to my room and burned the book. I did not return it to the owner well. As soon as I found that Martin had cashed the cheque I went to look for him, but could not find him.
To Prisoner Martin. You gave me none of the money you got from the Carlton Hotel. I got the suit I am wearing the same day you cashed the cheque from Welby and Co., 19, Queen Victoria Street, and paid them with a cheque on King, Hamilton, and Co., my bankers of Calcutta for 185 rupees. That account is open at the preset time. My account with the Credit Lyonnais is also open. I never had a cheque of Coutts and Co. Witness was then asked to write his signature and the filling in of the cheque of December 15, 1906.
Cross-examined by Mr. Leycester. The story told by Martin is
a tissue of lies. I had had a quarrel with Martin about playing cards. I remember calling on Miss Thomas on November 5. Miss Thomas asked me if the cheque-book was of any use to Me Her account of what took place is partially true. I was lying on a sofa and reading some cuttings out of a newspaper, and she was turning the box over, and she said, "Is this any use to you?"I said, "What is it?"She said, "It is a cheque book." It was her idea that it might be of use to me. I was indifferent, but eventually I took it and put it in my pocket. I do not know how many cheques there were in it. I did not take much notice. I have never had an account at the National Provincial. She told me the book belonged to Mrs. Fuller. It was absolutely no use. I am nut in the habit of carrying cheque-books on banks where I have no account. I have enough to do to carry my own books. Only four of Mrs. Fuller's cheques were used to my knowledge. I said to Miss Thomas, "It use it to "flash" because I have plenty of books of my own to use if I required them. I had at that time an account with the Credit Lyonnais, Cockspur Street. The cheque for £45, signed by Plews, was the first cheque taken out of the book. I cannot give You the date of that nor the date when it was given to Reynolds. If Martin says it was December 1 it may have been about that date. The cheque for £35 was after I had had the cheque for £45 returned. The cheque for £50 is the one I acknowledge having written. I think that was in the first week that I was with Martin. I am not sure, but some time before he went to the Carlton. Both Plews's cheques were signed "A. E. Plewe" and made payable to "A. E. Oatley." Both were dishonoured. I do not know of any George Payne, and had never known Martin by that name, nor do I know any W. B. West. I never intended Martin to cash that cheque for £50, or to allow it to go out of his hands. He asked me to give him a cheque to "flash," as anyone seeing it in his possession would naturally think he had money, and the evidence is that the cashier at the hotel seeing it was induced to let him have £6. There is no fraud in showing a false cheque if it is not made use of, but, morally speaking, I should not call it honest. I had never done such a thing before. I entirely trusted to Martin not to put the cheque to an improper use. I called on Martin on the Monday after he went to the Carlton, but I was not there on the following Friday. I was not there again until I went to see Mr. Neumann, Monday was the day on which I got the notepaper. I took it to write a letter on. A person to whom I might write would not think I was staying at the Carlton if I struck out the heading. I did scratch the heading out from the letter I wrote, and intended to scratch out the heading of the other sheets if I used them. When I found that Martin had been staying at the hotel in the name of Payne I was not surprised to hear that he had let them in with a bad cheque. It did occur to me that that might be the cheque I had given him, but I did not say anything about it; if I had done
a silly thing I was not going to incriminate myself. My telling Neuman that Martin had done me for a "fiver" was absolutely a "fairy tale." There was no truth in the description I gave of the meeting at the Queen's Hotel. As a matter of fact, I had not £5 to lend him in the week from December 8 to 15. When I saw Neumann I did not realise that this was a different cheque from the one I had given Martin. I wanted to find out exactly what Martin had done without incriminating myself. I did not realise that it was not the cheque I had given him until I saw it at Marlborough Street Police Court. Then I saw it was not my writing. Neumann told me the hotel was going to prosecute. The next person I saw about the matter was Detective-sergeant West He asked me if I bad given or lent a cheque to Martin, and I said, "No." It was nothing to do with me. If I had caught Martin I would have thrashed him or he would have thrashed me, one of the two, but I was not an informer, so I did not tell West that I had given him a cheque. I did not tell West I had not handled one since I had been in London—absolutely never. If I had said so it would have been untrue. I left the lodgings a considerable time after I had seen West, some time after the New Year. I know that a warrant was issued for me, and that was why I left London and went to Birmingham. There I heard that Martin had made a false statement against me, but I had no funds and no friends to conduct my defence, and I did not want to be brought into a matter in which I was innocent. I still say that when I got the cheque-book I did not want it for any particular purpose. The cheque produced was drawn by me on Coutts' Bank, and was given to a Mrs. Read in payment for two Japanese spaniels. That is the subject of another charge. I had no account at Coutts. I signed that cheque in the name of A. J. Macbride. Mrs. Read is a lady living at Clapham. I understand it was dishonoured. The form was given to me to write out a cheque on. I had not known the person who gave it to me long. I knew it was a fake document It was given to me to use to get the dogs. I did not receive any change for it. I never heard where my friend got the cheque from, but I heard from the police that the cheque-book was taken from a bag that was stolen at Paddington. I had two accounts at the Credit Lyonnais. One was opened on May 4 last year with a credit of £270. I could not say whether I drew my last cheque on that on May 30, leaving a balance of 3s. 7d. I opened another account, but I could not say the exact date; I have not the dates in my head The two accounts were running together. It is probably correct that at the beginning of June there was a credit of only 1s. 9d. in the second account. I know a Mr. Wardlaw Read, tailor, of Tottenham Court Road. At the end of June I went to him and bought some clothes, for which I paid £15 or £16 by cheque on the Credit Lyonnais. That cheque was also dishonoured I believe, but I did not know it would be when I drew it. When I drew that cheque I had goods and furniture to the amount of over £120 at my office,
which I left to other people to realise, but they did not do it. I bought the furniture out of my own pocket, but there were two or three people in the newspaper with me, and they would not sell it. At any rate, Read never got the money. A few days afterwards I gave a cheque for £5 14s. 8d. to a Mrs. Werner, with whom I had been lodging, which was also dishonoured. I had always paid her by cheque. It was not till after I had drawn the cheques that I found I could not dispose of the furniture. I have no recollection of giving a cheque on July 6 to a person named Laudenberger or anything like that. If I had I suppose it would have been dishonoured. I have no recollection of having drawn a number of cheques in my time which I had not funds to meet. I seem to have a recollection of the name of Brenner. To the beat of my belief I have never drawn a cheque in his favour. I have no recollection of drawing a cheque to bearer for £2 10s. on July 20. I drew cheques for £3 3s. and £1 on the Credit Lyonnais, but there was no consideration given as they were gambling transactions. I had a reasonable expectation of meeting all these cheques when I drew them. I had a considerable amount of money owing to me, and thought I would get some in, but was disappointed.
Re-examined. The quarrel about cards was before I had the interview with Mr. Neumann at the Carlton. At the time I obtained the cheque-book from Miss Thomas I had three different banks. I never used the Carlton notepaper for any improper purpose.
Verdict, Both guilty of forging and uttering.
Mr. Leycester said he thought he ought also to proceed against Oatley in respect of the cheque for £65.
Prisoner Oatley withdrew his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty. A very bad character was given to both prisoners by the police.
Sentences, Oatley four years' penal servitude, Martin three years' penal servitude.
FOURTH COURT; Thursday, January 31.
(Before Judge Rentoul.)
GOODMAN, Mark (21, porter) ; procuring Polly Davis to become a common prostitute; taking Polly Davis, an unmarried girl under the age of 18 years, out of the possession of and against the will of her father, Hillavitch Davis, with intent that she should be carnally known by men.
Mr. Temple Martin prosecuted. Mr. Purcell defended.
Verdict, Guilty of procuring. The police gave prisoner a bad character. Sentence, two years' hard labour.
454 January, 1907 (2).
OLD COURT; Friday, February 1.
(Before Mr. Justice Kennedy.)
STEVENS, James (33, labourer) . (1) Attempting to carnally know Alice Stevens, a girl under the age of 13 years (his daughter); (2) indecently assaulting her. Verdict, Guilty of attempting to carnally know. of attempting to carnally know. Sentence, 13 months hard labour.
NEW COURT; Friday, February 1.
(Before the Recorder.)
PITTS. Ernest Addington (33, stationer) ; indicted for forging and uttering, and for obtaining money and credit by false pretences, pleaded not guilty to forgery, guilty on the other count. A number of witnesses were called to character. Sentence, 12 months' imprisonment in the second division.
FOURTH COURT; Friday, February I.
(Before Judge Rentoul.)
COHEN, Harry (24, merchant) ; obtaining by false pretences from Paul Ludwig Victor Rosentower 65 1/2 dyed sable squirrel linings, 2,410 marmot skins, and 80 ermine skins, with intent to defraud; in incurring a debt and liability to the amount of £639 2s. 1d. to the said P. L. V. Rosentower did unlawfully obtain credit by means of false pretences and by means of fraud other than false pretences; within four months next before the presentation of a bankruptcy petition against him by a certain false representation did obtain certain property on credit and has not paid for same, and being a trader, did obtain the said property on credit by false pretences and has not paid for same, with intent to defraud; within four months next before the presentation of a bankruptcy petition against him, then being a trader, unlawfully and with intent to defraud his creditors did dispose of otherwise than in the ordinary way of his trade certain property which he had obtained on credit and has not paid for; being a bankrupt did unlawfully quit England and take with him the sum of £100 with intent to defraud his creditors.
Mr. Forrest Fulton and Mr. Eustace Fulton prosecuted. Mr. H. G. Rooth defended.
Mr. Rooth stated that prisoner had been committed from the Cape under Sections 8 and 9 of the Fugitive Offenders Act, 1881, on a warrant charging the obtaining by false pretences furs from Rosen tower only; before the Alderman further charges under the Bankruptcy Act were added; and subsequently he had received
a copy of further evidence proposed to ho adduced in regard to other charges. He submitted that the Court had no jurisdiction to try prisoner for any offence except that upon which he was extradited or committed from the Cape.
Mr. Forrest Fulton: Sections 8 and 9 or the Fugitive Offenders Act reenacted the Colonial Arrest Act, 6 and 7 Vict. c. 34, s. 7. In R. v. Phillips (1 Foster and Finlason, p. 105) it was held that additional charges could be included. that case was decided in 1568, had never been overruled, and bad been since followed. Judge Rentoul: I think that case settles the matter, and rule that the counts are properly included.
Mr. Forrest Fulton, having opened the case, prisoner pleaded guilty to the two count—obtaining by false pretences from Rosentower 65 1/2 squirrel skins and 2,410 marmot skins, with intent to defraud; and also to having within four months before the presentation of a bankruptcy petition feloniously parted with property to the amount of £20 and upwards.
Sentence, Nine months' imprisonment in second division.
Mr. Rooth admitted that £553 found on the prisoner was obtained from the sale of goods belonging to Rosentower, less £90 which had been traced to notes received from the sale of goods obtained from Buselik.
Mr. Forrest Fulton asked for an order for payment to Rosentower of the amount received from his goods.
Mr. Leycester, on behalf of the Trustee in prisoner's bankruptcy, submitted that no order should be made; and that the Court had no power to make such order.
Judge Rentoul, having consulted the Recorder and the Common Serjeant, said be had power to make the order, and would make the order on the ground that he believed the statement of the prisoner, that the money was the proceeds of Rosertower's goods. If it had been unsold property, there would be no difficulty, and, believing the statement of the prisoner, he should make the order. There would be no order as to the £90, as there was no conviction in the case of Buselik.
Mr. Cornes prosecuted; Mr. Sydney Williams defended.
ALLEN BARTON . On December 21 I was with prisoner. We had had several friendly drinks together, and I was rather drank. Prisoner and I went into a coffee-house, were put out, and we had a bit of a jangle. We were both drunk. I cannot say what we were jangling about. We then went down the road, and I got a cut on the thigh. We were not jangling then. I was jangling with another man. There were a lot of us together, and I got jangling with some other man—not the prisoner. I do not know how I got it, but I know I got a cut on my thigh.
ROBERT SIMES . I know prisoner and prosecutor. On December 21 I had just come home from work when prisoner came up to me and struck me and I struck him back. I was not in the coffee-house and was quite sober. I went at the prisoner. Prosecutor rushed in behind me and pulled me away, and then he said, "I have got a cut in my lag. Will you take me to the hospital?"I said, "No." I would not take him to the hospital because I was excited.
Cross-examined. Prisoner struck me first. I was having an altercation with the prisoner. I did not see any knife and din not see prisoner strike prosecutor at all.
ROBERT SIMES . father of last witness. On December 21 when this fight took place I saw a crowd as I was going home. Prisoner was there; he was not much intoxicated. Someone in the crowd handed up a razor. I did net see it as I was standing near the constable at the time.
Cross-examined. I saw somebody bring a knife and hand it to the constable. I was not that person. I was coming from my work and saw a crowd outside Johnson's fish shop. I was not there when my son was struck. People said in prisoner's presence that he was the man who used the razor. He did not deny it.
VINCENT BOREHAM , 188, Garrett Lane, clothier. On December 21, at about six p.m., I heard a commotion outside my shop. I went out and saw the prosecutor outside Johnson's fish shop in a fainting condition. The prisoner was in a state of half-drunkenness. I did not see the cut given, or any knife or razor. I saw the razor case in prisoners hand afterwards. When the constable had the prisoner by the collar prisoner said, "I did it, didn't I?"and the prosecutor said, "Yes." Prisoner said, "I have got to suffer for it, have not I?"The wounded man said, "Yes," and then the doctor came up.
Cross-examined. When prisoner said, "I did it, didn't It" he did not say what he was referring to. Except that I saw the razorcase in his hand, I know nothing about it.
CADOGAN THOMAS , 315. Garrett Lane, Earlsfield, medical practitioner. On December 21, a little after six p.m., I was called by the police, and saw prosecutor, half fainting, held up by two men, suffering from a wound on the inside of the thigh. He was brought to my surgery, and I found he had a clean incised cut on the right thigh about an inch deep, 6 £in. to 7 in. long. I stitched it with 12 stitches and bandaged it.
Cross-examined. Prosecutor had been drinking; that is as far as I can go.
THOMAS WILLIAM EVANS , assistant medical officer, Wandsworth Infirmary. On December 21, at 8. 30 p.m., prosecutor was brought to the infirmary with his right thigh bandaged. The next morning I removed the bandage and found a wound about 6 1/2 in. long, with 12 stitches on it. He remained in the infirmary until January 17. He is now in no danger. The wound was dangerous from its position, as an artery might have been cut, when, if a doctor had not been present, he would have bled to death in half an hour. The wound was caused by some sharp instrument.
Cross-examined. Prosecutor was sober.
cook and they were turned out. They started fighting outside in the road—only prisoner and prosecutor. They were both drunk, I saw prisoner knock prosecutor in the road. Then Simes came up and went into the coffee-shop. Mr. Simes, sen., said in the presence of prisoner, "He has nearly cut my boy's hand off, and he is the one that cut Barton's leg." Prisoner said, "I know I done it—here 11 the case of the razor I done it with." He showed the case to me. Simes. (To the Jury.) The case was in his hand.
Cross-examined. One part of the case was in the prisoner's hand—not the razor.
Detective WILLIAM HIRD, V Division. On January 5 I saw prisoner at the back of the police court. He said, "About six o'clock on December 21 I was going up the lane (meaning Garrett Lane) with Allen Barton. Simes and Allen followed us up. They asked us for some money. Simes asked us. Simes struck out at ns and then we had a general fight I had a kick in the leg and I well to the ground. I do not know were I used the razor or not, but Barton gave it to me." Then he signed it. (To the Jury.) Prisoner said, "I do not know were I used it or not." He meant "whether."
Police-constable EDWIN SMITH, 215 V. On December 21 I saw the prosecutor in Garrett Lane, supported by two men. He had a large cut in his right thigh, which was bleeding. This razor (produced) was given me by Robert Simes, sen. Prisoner stood about 10 to 20 yards away. Prosecutor was drunk. Prosecutor said something in the hearing of prisoner. [Prisoner being stated to be deaf the statement was not given.] I took prisoner into custody. He said, "I broke the f—g razor on him, and I wish it had killed him." I am certain prisoner said that. I am quite certain prisoner heard what prosecutor said in the first instance. He did not answer it. Prisoner was drunk when taken into custody, and he was charged two hours afterwards.
Cross-examined. I say Simes, sen., handed me that razor. I heard him deny it at the police court, and I adhere to my statement. Simes was recalled and declared he did not give the razor to the witness Simes came up and said, "This man has cut off three of my son's fingers." I did not say this at the police court because I afterwards learnt that the son was not hurt at all. Prisoner did not try to get away in the least. He afterwards told me he had a kick on the leg. He could not run away.
JOSEPH TEHAN (prisoner, on oath). Me and Barton was going up Garrett Lane. We had a row. We went into Bridget' coffee shop. Bridges would not serve us because we were drunk. We came out and were going towards Earlsfield Station, when Allen and Simes followed us up and demanded money. We refused, and walked away. One of them came up and struck Mr. I told him I could not manage the two together. I pulled out the razor and just showed it to them. They struck me again, and Simes challenged me to fight. I told him I did not want to fight. I ran after them with the razor in
the case in my hand, and as I was running the razor dropped out of the case and the handle broke. I went to pick up the razor, and got a kick in the nose and got a kick in the leg. The bridge of my nose is smashed. I got up. On the ground there were myself, Barton, Allen, and Simes, all four of us struggling about on the ground. When I got up I got a kick. I never saw any more of that razor. [To the Judge.] I take my oath I never cut prosecutor. I was drunk, but I could remember what I was doing. I never said what the constable says. I should be very sorry to go and do that to my own chum, my best pal.
Cross-examined. I could not say whether I said to Barton, "I did it. Did not I?"I never said, "I will have to suffer for it, won't It" I should be very sorry to do it to my own chum. I showed them the razor to frighten them. I could not manage half a dozen. I never used it.
Verdict, Guilty. Prisoner confessed to being convicted of felony lit South-Western Police Court on February 24, 1904, receiving three months' hard labour for stealing cigars. Several other convictions were proved. Prisoner was stated to have deserted or been discharged from seven or eight regiments.
Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.
Mr. Sydney Williams prosecuted.
JAMES MOLES . On December 19, 1906, I was in the "North Pole" public-house, Stepney, drinking. Prisoner was in the bar when I went in. He asked me whether I could manage a drink. I said, "Yes," and paid for a pot of ale for him and then went on conversing with my friend. Prisoner said, "I am sorry, Jim, I could not help bunging you hard wood in." I said, "I am perfectly aware of that" I had had a few drinks. They called out "Time."' We went out, and as I was standing a few yards further up a man holla'ed out, "Look cut, Jim." I turned round and saw the prisoner running towards Mr. I jumped out of his way into the road, and he rushed past me as he could not stop himself and came back in a fighting attitude. I put ray hands up to defend myself. He made a feint to hit me with his hand, brought his foot round, and kicked me in the leg. I fell down and while I was lying on the ground he stood over me and brought his heel down on my left eye.
WILLIAM COLE , 76, Eastfield Street, E., fish porter. On the night of December 19 I was in the "North Pole" with prisoner and prosecutor. We all came out together. While the prosecutor was talking to the landlord at the door, I saw the prisoner coming up. I said, "Look out, Jim." Prosecutor jumped into the road. I said to prisoner, "Tom, you don't want to fight, do you?"He took no notice and I went off. Eight or 10 yards further from us prosecutor fell and
said, "Let me get up." Prisoner said, "I will let you get up," and he put his foot in prosecutor's left eye and caused a wound. [To the Jury.] They both shaped up to fight. I tried to stop the fight. Prosecutor fell down. The prisoner did not fail too.
EMMA TYLER , 51, Elsa Street, E. Very early in the morning of December 20 I heard screaming outside my door and went out. I saw the prosecutor lying on the ground, and I saw the other young man (the prisoner) kick him in his eye with his boot. His eye was bleeding, and I went in to get a basin of water to bathe it. Prisoner went sway. I know prisoner to be the man. It happened just outside my door. Prisoner never fell down.
Dr. TIDY, house surgeon, London Hospital. In the early morning of December 20 prosecutor was brought to Mr. He had a cut over the left eye, about 1 1/2 in. long, and there was a breakage of one of the bones in the leg, just above the ankle. The wound over the eye was a clean, incised cut—a straight cut about 1 1/2 in. long; it suggested being done with something with a straight edge. It was consistent with the heel of a boot. One could not decide at all, but it would be consistent with having been caused with the heel of a boot.
THOMAS VINCENT . I was in the "North Polo" on the night of the quarrel and saw prisoner and prosecutor there. Prosecutor challenged the prisoner to fight. Prisoner said, "I don't care." Then prosecutor turned round and called for a pot of beer. I heard no more till the barman called "Time" and we all went out. I heard prosecutor telling the prisoner to fight again. Prisoner lost his temper, struck at him, and missed him. Prosecutor sparred up, and they had a bit of a fight, got close together, and all at once prosecutor fell on the ground. I went to the prisoner and told him to run away out of it as there were a lot of chaps coming up the street.
Cross-examined. I told him to run away because I thought it would stop further bother if I got the men apart. I did not see any kicking. It may have taken place. I saw prosecutor fall. Prisoner did not fall at all.
THOMAS SHELDRAKE (prisoner, not on oath). I had had six weeks at Wandsworth and this man had had 21 days. We were in the beer shop. Prosecutor was half drunk, and he had a drop of rum in the beer shop. He and the other man had got it made up between their two selves, and he comes to me and said, "Here is that C. S. what used to fetch hard wood in to me at Wandsworth. "I said, I could not pick it out for you; I had the warder there." With that he started arguing, and ordered me to fight Vincent said, "It is a nice thing to fetch up in a public bar." We came out and prosecutor ordered me to fight again. I lost my temper. We clung together, and we both went down. I got up sharp. Then Vincent told ma to run away, and we both ran into Vincent's house, as he might have kicked me and I would not be able to stop him.
Sergeant GIRDLER. H Division, proved a number of convictions for drunkenness and assault, and stated that prisoner was a nuisance all round the district; he got work and then got drunk, and made a mark on the police. He was never sober.
Sentence, Twelve months' hard labour.
OLD COURT; Saturday, February 2.
(Before the Recorder.)
SYMONS. George (45, agent), and MARSHALL, John (39, clerk) ; both conspiring and agreeing together by false pretences to defraud divers liege subjects of His Majesty of their moneys and obtaining by false pretences the sum of 5s. from Louis B. de Fontaine; £1 from Francis C. Fry; 5s. from Alfred William Tidmarsh; 5s. from Ronald A. Ivens; 5s. and 2s. 6d. from Robert William Springham; 2s. 6d. from Charles Henry; 2s. 6d. from Frederick Mauvice; 5s. from Arthur Phillips; 5s. from Robert J. Roberts; 5s. from Francis A Dawe, and 5s. from William Clark, in each case with intent to defraud.
Mr. Charles Mathews, Mr. Arthur Gill, and Mr. R. F. Graham Campbell prosecuted.
FRANCIS CHARLTON FRY , 195, Fordwych Road. N. W., secretary. In April., 1906., I was looking out for a situation as secretary or accountant at a salary of £300 or £400 a year. I remember seeing in the "Daily Telegraph" on several occasions this advertisement of the National Employers' Association; as far as I know it appeared daily: "All requiring situations (male or female) city, town, country, or abroad, call or write. Manager, National Employers' Association. 4, Rupert Street, Piccadilly Circus, W. Thousands suited in commercial and business houses, offices, shops, warehouses, drapery establishments, manufactories, asylums, institutions, hotels, clubs, bars, mansions, flats, garages, theatres, etc. Many vacancies. Waiting. Caution. Only genuine address, Tel. 6641 Gerrard. Employers suited free. "I believed the statements contained in that advertisement for the reason that I saw it, or a similar advertisement, a number of times. I communicated with the agency and received in reply some printed documents which led me to believe that the association was a big concern. Among the statements were: "Established 20 years"; "Appointments and Situations of every description obtained for clients (both male and female) in the West-End, Suburbs, City, Town, Provinces, Seaside. Colonies, and Abroad, at Salaries from 10s. to 65s. Appointments up to £450 per annum"; "All Professions, Trades, or Callings should apply. Men, Army. Navy, or Merchant Service, call or write to the Manager. Thousands have been suited in genuine situations through this Association"; "Thousands of unsolicited
Testimonials and thanks from persons placed in situations are in our possession. We are in touch with over 3,500 firms and employers, so why advertise or waste time and money elsewhere?" Then there is warning against "bogus and unscrupulous agents and agencies, who endeavour to trade upon our 20 years' reputation," beaded, "important Notice," so that you should not miss it. Upon a list of "Subscribers and Supporters of the Association" there is the notice, "Cheques and Postal Orders should be crossed London and Joint Stock Bank, Limited, or London and South-Western Bank, Limited." I believed that this was a substantial firm with two banking accounts. On the same document was the following: "Please note that full Staff, both Male and Female, will be supplied for one guinea per annum, and that every order will receive immediate and personal attention. Characters strictly investigated if required." Following that is a further caution against bogus agencies. I believed that all the people set out in that list were subscribers to the association. On the third printed document were what purported to be "A few unsolicited Testimonials from some of our Supporters. The originals and thousands of others can be seen on application." After that certain testimonials are set out, followed by a list of firms selected from a large number, with the view of showing the variety of employers who have applied to us for Staff, both Male and Female." On the same document also appeared: "Correspondents in all Continental cities, India, America,' Australia, and South Africa." I filled in the application form and sent it with a cheque for a guinea to the Association. The cheque was endorsed "G. Symons," and paid through London and South-Western Bank, Barnes branch. I should certainly rot have sent that cheque if I had not believed the statements contained in those documents. The cheque has been paid by my bankers, I received the following receipt:—"Telephone: No. 6641 Gerrard. Telegrams: Scission, London. No. 803. Department: Commercial. April 23, 1906. National Employers' Association, 4, Rupert Street, Haymarket, W.—Received of Mr. F. Charlton Fry, the sum of one guinea. Available until suited. £1 1s.—G. Symons, representative, A. D." There was no note that a situation was not guaranteed. I received B. no further communication from them. I wrote several times, C. but got no answer. I did not call at any time. I believed they were D. in a position to obtain a situation as secretary for me at a salary of E. £300 a year, and that they bona-fide required the sum of a guinea as F. registration fee.
To prisoner Symons. At the time I received the application form I read it thoroughly and must have noticed that the Association did not tinder any circumstances guarantee a situation. I sent the money with the idea that you would do your best to suit me. I also read the following: "Persons registered at these offices are suited with a situation as promptly as possible, but, at the same time, it must be distinctly understood that in no case can employment be guaranteed, and the fee is only accepted subject to that condition, and is available for two months from date of registration." With regard to that, the
receipt distinctly stated "Until suited," according to the request of my first letter.
Louis BERTRAND DE FONTAINE, Blomfield Road, Shepherd's Bush. In March, 1906, I was looking out for a situation as commercial traveller, confidential clerk, or assistant manager, and for several days noticed in the "Daily Telegraph" an advertisement relating to the National Employers' Bureau. On the afternoon of Tuesday, March 27, I called at the place, which struck me as being respectable. There was a waiting room and inner office on the first floor. On the outside door there was a sign calling it the "National Employers' Bureau." I entered and saw Marshall. I wanted to see the manager, as I did not want to tell my business to his clerk, and I waited until Symons came in. I asked him if he could obtain for me such a post as I desired at a salary of about £2 per week. He said he could easily find me a position, seeing, I suppose, that I was fairly well educated. I paid a fee of 5s. at his request, and he intimated that I might be able to take a higher appointment, but I said I would much sooner pay a small fee and get a small appointment at first and work my way up than wait about for a long time and waste time and after all not be successful. I filled in the form and put my name down. He gave me this receipt:—" Received of Mr. L. Bertrand de Fontaine the sum of 5s., being fee for registering particulars of situation. Traveller or similar post: sub-manager. Special and important notice. It must be distinctly understood that this fee does not in any case absolutely guarantee a situation, and is only accepted subject to that condition, and under no circumstances will any application for its return be entertained. The engagement fee of 7s. 6d. is payable upon being suited with a situation. Any change of address should be immediately notified, and all letters requiring a reply must contain stamped envelope. Available only for two months from this date. "I said I would pay whatever fee was required of me as soon as I had an appointment. I asked Symons what he could do for me, and he said he had an extensive connection in town and country. On the mantelpiece was a large number of photographs of what I understood to be various clients. I believed it was a genuine agency. A printed list of firms which had been supplied was given Mr. I asked how long it would be before he would be able to get me a situation, and he said "Shortly." That with his connection he could easily suit me, and I need not worry myself about it. He asked me to call in the morning between 10 and 11, but I was unable to, being in employment. I railed several times. The first week I called every other day. The last time I called was on Friday, April 20. I had previously asked that, in case of anything, he would send me a letter to Shepherd's Bush, but I never had a letter from him. When I used to go, to the office he would say. "There is not anything for you to-day. Look mo up again." I called the last time an October 25, and I saw Symons. I said to him, "It is sometime since I paid you your fee of 5s. I think it is about time I had some return for what I paid." He said, "Your registration fee is expired now. Would you like to
pay another 5s., and I will register you?"I did not agree to that I was not going to pay another 5s. until I had had acme value for the first. I never had a single application. When I said I would not pay him another 5s. he commenced to abuse me. He said, "I have come across fellows like you before, never satisfied with anything." I said, "No, I have not had anything to be satisfied with yet." I also said, "If I do not hear from you within about a fortnight (and I gave him my address) I should promptly place the matter in the hands of my solicitor." I did not ask for the money back. I subsequently went to the police and afterwards, whilst in hospital, I saw the case in the papers. When I paid my 5s. I believed that Symons and Marshall were in a position to promptly obtain a situation for me as manager and confidential clerk; otherwise I should not have paid the 5s., as I had been swindled twice before.
To Symons. I attended at the office on several occasions, but cannot say. I ever saw this notice, "Important Notice. It must be distinctly understood that we do not and cannot under any circumstances absolutely guarantee a situation." It is certainly large enough to see, but when I go into an office I am not in the habit of staring about to see what the office contains. I noticed afterwards that the receipt stated that no situation was guaranteed. I did not come back afterwards and say "I do not agree to these terms." Of course it is absolutely impossible for a man to say for certain "I can find you a situation," but my point is that you took a registration fee from me of 5s. and never even gave me a single place to apply for. You told me you would easily be able to suit me, or I should not have paid the 5s. registration fee.
Prisoner Symons. Be quite honest and fair in the matter. There has been a lot of prejudice brought into this case.
Witness. I do not wish to bring any prejudice against you whatever. I did not think at the time I paid the 5s. that you deliberately intended to rob one, or of course I should not have paid the money. My opinion now, as far as the case has gone, from the way you have swindled other people and myself is that you took the money practically without the intention of finding a situation for me.
ALFRED WLLIAM TIDMARSH , 92, Morley Road, Barking. I am a barman, and went on furlough from the Army en April 19, 1906, and passed into the Reserve on May 30. About that time I saw the following advertisement in the "Daily Chronicle": "Army and Navy moon, asylum attendants, collectors, messengers, caretakers (offices, flats), car-doormen, chauffeurs, gate-timekeepers, hotel staff, valets, barmen. All seeking situations, 10s. to £3 weekly—Apply National Employers' Association, 4, Rupert Street, Piccadilly Circus. Thousands suited. Caution. Only genuine address. Tel. 6641 Ger." I wrote to 4, Rupert Street and received printed forms in reply, the statements in which I believed. I filled up the form and returned it to the offices of the Association, with the sum of 5s. There was on the form: "Important notice," warning the public against "bogus and unscrupulous
agents and agencies who endeavour to trade upon our 20 years' reputation by copying our advertisements and printed matter. Please note that this is the only genuine, official, and original employers' association in London. "I believed that the Association had been in existence for 20 years. I never heard anything from the Association. I wrote, but got no answer.
By prisoner Symons. I read the form and paid the money in the expectation that you would find me a situation. I understood that under no circumstances could a situation be guaranteed. I only applied for a situation as barman.
RONALD ARCHIBALD IVENS , tram conductor, 1, Matthew Street, Battersea. About the end of August I was looking for a situation, and saw the advertisement of the National Employers' Association in the "Daily Telegraph." I called at the office, and saw prisoner Marshall and told him I had been used to clerking, but I was not particular, as I had been out some time and would take anything. I stated what wages I wanted, and was told the entrance fee would be 5s. I paid the money and received the receipt produced. I was told not to call as they would send me anything suitable. I have never heard from them. I called about six times, sometimes seeing Marshall and at other times Symons, and, from what I could see, they sort of buffeted mo from one to the other. They did not send me to one employer After two months had elapsed, Symons said he would make a special thing of it and keep me on the books for a week, but nothing more was done. On the last occasion I called I lost my temper and was ordered out. I then went to the police.
(Monday, February 4.)
RONALD ARCHIBALD IVENS , recalled (to prisoner Marshall). I did not lose my temper on a previous occasion, and you did not say, "If you lose your temper like this I do not see how I can place you before any employers."
ARTHUR FRANCIS THOMAS , clerk, living at Hammersmith, examined by me. Gill. In June last my attention was called to an advertisement in the "Daily Chronicle" for a partner with £100 with address to 4, Rupert Street. I wrote first, and called on the 16th, where I saw prisoner Symons, and told him I had called in answer to his advertisement, and had read his testimonials which had been sent in answer to my letter. Seeing that it was a registry office I said, "I suppose it is like an ordinary registry office; you charge when you get situations?" He said, "Yes, that is what we do; we send out postcards," and he showed me an ordinary postcard. He did not tell me how he got the addresses he sent them to; I found out when I afterwards entered the business that they were sent to people who advertised for caretakers and clerks and suchlike employees. The card was in these terms: "Telephone 6641, Gerrard. Please address the Secretary. Office hours: 10-6; Saturdays: 10-2. Established
20 years. National Employers' Association, Official Staff Offices, 4, Rupert Street, Piccadilly, W., London.——,190 Dear Sir,—Should you not secure a' suitable employee from your advertisement. we shall be pleased to send you applicants for interview of ascertained good character, or place these in communication with you, if you will kindly favour us with your instructions. No feet or charges of any kind are made by us.—Yours, faithfully, the Employers' National Association. P. S.—Every description of staff, both male and female, are supplied upon the shortest notice. Town or country. "I am not sure whether he mentioned the registration fee at that interview or not. I asked him what the profits would be and he said between £3 and £4 a week each. As the result of the interview I offered to go into partnership. Symons said he would think it over and asked me to call again. On Monday, the 18th, I went in the evening, and he told me that somebody else was after it, and that if I thought I should like this business I must pay a deposit of £10, which he said would be a suitable amount for the nature of the business. I paid £1, which was all I had with me, and promised to call again the following Thursday. When I went again I paid £9. On June 26 I paid a further £50. That was on the Tuesday when I commenced duties. I was given letters in the morning to answer. I tat in the back office, which was called the waiting-room, Symons and Marshall being in the front room. On the first day there were I should think about 15 letters from persons asking for information regarding the Employment Agency. Next day, June 27, I paid the balance of £40, and the partnership agreement produced was signed on that date. The agreement provided that Symons and myself should each have a half-share in the business and be entitled to draw £2 a week each, and that the partnership could be dissolved by one month's notice in writing, the £100 to be repayable to me if I withdrew at the end of three months by notice terminating the partnership. At the date when I parted with my money I was not aware that the profits of the business were derived almost entirely from the registration fees. I had no idea how much had been received in fees for obtaining situations. I did not look into the books before I paid the £100, but went by the business being worth £600 two or three years before. I ascertained that from Mr. Botherell, town surveyor of Fulham, to whom I was referred. I do not recollect interviewing any applicants on June 27, 28, 29, and 30. The interviewing was done by me. Symons and Mr. Marshall. On June 30 Symons went for a holiday. In the week from July 1 to July 7 I still occupied the back office and lit a few applicants. I did not examine the application forms. I may have taken one or two fees the second week I was there. In that second week I formed an opinion with regard to the way the business was being conducted from the number of applications hanging on the wall in respect of which no situations had been obtained. There was to register or book from which I could ascertain what situations had been obtained. I saw a register of persons seeking servants. In
some few cases I saw that they had been suited, but I did not compare those applications with the number of application forms hanging on the wall as they were not dated in the book. When Symons returned on the Monday I said I did not like the nature of the business and would like to leave at once. I said he did not get situations for people who applied and paid fees. I did not speak about that to Marshall in the absence of Symons. Marshall appeared to occupy a position of some importance and to be as much the principal as Symons. When Symons was away Marshall interviewed the first applicant, and if he was engaged I used to interview the others. There was a bundle of application forms marked "Suited," but they were very few in number. I told Symons it was not very nice for people to be coming up there grumbling because the Association had not got situations for them. I should think quite fifty persons came that week and saw Marshall, to register, and complaining as well. I should say the proportion of those who came to complain was about half. In the absence of Symons, Marshall was in charge of the place; he was the principal really. I called Symons attention especially to one person from the country who had paid a guinea registration fee, a Mr. Money, and he said he had a very poor chance of getting what he wanted, a situation as foreman of works at £25 per month. When I said I must leave at once Symons said hardly anything in answer. I told him I wanted the money at once to invest in another partnership. He said he could no doubt raise half of it very quickly or at once, and he would raise the other half as quickly as possible afterwards. He also said he would like to finish his holidays, and would I stop the following week, so I promised to do so, and, in fact, stayed until July 15 or 16. Altogether I was there one day under three weeks. In the first week there were 16 fees paid of different amounts by post and by personal application, but these represented only about half, as me. Symons entered the others himself; next week there were 44, and in the third week 41. Out of the 101 there was only one guinea fee. The total of the fees in the first week was £215s. 6d.; in the second week £8 17s. 6d.; and in the third week £7 5s. 6d. These were all registration fees with the exception of 2s. paid on account by a young man, who had got a situation through another agency. The place, however, was no good to him, and he left after three weeks and declined to pay any more. So far as I know no situation was obtained for any of the other 100 applicants. I saw an employer, who came and asked for a boy to act as billiard-marker. A few days afterwards a boy came in and said he wanted a situation as billiard-marker, and Marshall went round with him to the employer, and he obtained the situation. There may have been other situations obtained in the three weeks, but I do not know of any; the door between the inner and outer offices was shut several times, and I did not hear all that went on. I looked over the application forms for two months prior to July 11 and found there were about 400, all of whom, as far as I know, were still waiting for situations. Of those who had not obtained situations by the end of two months a further fee was demanded.
There are 15 entries of the names of employers wanting servants during the three weeks I was there. A barman was supplied to Hill and Courtney's agency in Oxford Street; they could not supply one, so sent, down to our place. The fee, I suppose, would be divided between the two agencies, that being the usual practice. One employer who wanted a carver afterwards wrote that he had suited himself. The only entry with the word "suited" against it is an entry with regard to another agency. I am almost sure that no banking account was kept. The first week Mr. Symons took the money, and gave me £2, and out of that I paid 10s. for stamping the agreement. The only employer I saw was the one who wanted a billiard-marker.
To a Juror. The agreement was not prepared by a solicitor. Symons bought a form and extracted a few paragraphs from the form. I have made a classified list of 364 of the applicants: Caretaker, 65 sporters, 49; doormen, 39; attendants, 29; timekeepers, 13; mot drivers, 19; clerks, 24; bookkeepers, 5; typists, 7; secretaries, 10; carmen 17; coachmen 12; waiters and valets, 12; night watchmen, 7; miscellaneous, 24; stewards, 6; waitresses, 7; barmaids, 11; and counter-hands, 8. When I left Symons did not refund any of my money. I had £2 the second week, and nothing the third. The second week I helped myself. As a reason for not paying me the third week Symons said he had had to pay £5 for the rent. He had some agreement with Marshall that I did not know of, but he told me he could dismiss him at a week's notice, I was told Marshall had been there twelve months, and had a full knowledge of the business. I do not know whether there was any cash book relating to the time before I came. I started one. I do not know of any other books of account. I applied to Symons for repayment of the £100 through a solicitor. I subsequently brought an action in the High Court, which was heard before Mr. Justice Kennedy, and got judgment signed against him. I understood from my solicitor that prisoner Symons offered to pay £50 down, but the matter did not go beyond the offer. I would have been glad to get £50.
To prisoner Symons. I, of course, made inquiries before entering into the partnership, and Mr. Bototerell's reference was very satisfactory. (Symons. He was surveyor to my borough, and got me £600 as compensation for the premises I then occupied in Jermyn Street, from the Brompton and Piccadilly tube.) I thought half the business was worth £100 if the business was worth £600 a year or two before. I came with the idea of working in the business. I was put in the back room at my own suggestion, so that I might have my typewriter there. There was no room for it in the front office. I did not say at the police court that I thought the business was a fraud; I said I did not think it was a genuine business. You told me your business had been through the courts, and that you had been awarded £100 damages. Leave was given you to defend the action I brought.
To prisoner Marshall I do not know at all how you were paid. When you asked for money I gave it to you. (At the request of
prisoner the cash book was produced showing that he was in receipt of half a crown a day.)
Re-examined. Symons never told me how many applicants had been suited. When I pointed out to him that he did not get situations for people he did not contradict it in any way. When I said that there had not been enough profits taken to pay me the £2 a week, Symons said I had not given the business a fair trial. Of the £18 taken in the three weeks £2 5s. per week was spent in advertisements; the rent was about 25s. a week. One of Symons's servants used to come and clean out the office once a week or once a fortnight.
ROBERT WILLIAM SPRINGHAM , Bridge Street, Greenwich. I was formerly in the Royal Marine Light Infantry, and in September, 1906, was on furlough pending discharge, after 12 years' service. I was desirous of obtaining a situation as porter, and in that month saw the advertisement to Army and Navy men. I communicated with the National Employers' Association and received in reply an application form, which I read. I believed the statements contained in the advertisement and in the printed documents and that the agency was a genuine one. I filled in the form and sent it with 5s. for registration to 4, Rupert Street. I received a receipt, but heard nothing further from the Agency. I called several times and saw Symons, who said that as soon as he found a suitable vacancy for me he would let me know. I offered to pay him another half-crown if he could find me employment before I left the service. He said he would put me on the special employment list. No name of any employer was ever sent to me. I subsequently wrote, but got no reply.
To Symons. The payment of the extra half-crown was quite volunary on my part. I quite understood that you did not in any circumstances guarantee a situation; I took note of that on the forms.
CHARLES HENRY , 8, Wyndham Street, Marylebone Road. I left the Army on October 12, 1906, after four years and 104 days' service, having been invalided out. I saw the advertisement relating to Army and Navy men in the "Daily Chronicle," and on October 13 called at 4, Rupert Street. I saw Symons and asked him if he could find me a situation as porter. He told me the registration fee would be 2s. 6d., and I paid the money, for which he gave me a receipt. He took my name and address, and told me to call every day at 10 o'clock. I did so, and saw either Marshall or Symons; sometimes both. In November I was sent after a situation as barman to a Mr. Warne, at the Ship Hotel, Tilbury Docks. I did not go, however, as. being out, of work, I had not the money to pay my expenses—1s. 6d. Prisoner did not tell me that me. Warne wanted a big, strong man. Weighing 14 st. or 15 st., from 40 in. to 46 in. round the chest, and nearly 6 ft. high, who could hold his own in a rough neighbourhood. My own weight is 9 st. 8 lb., I was invalided out of the Army because of diseased bone in the nose, which impaired my general health and made me unfit for active service. I never saw any employer to whom I was introduced by Mr. Symons. and have had no sort of return for
my money. I was asked for another half-crown at the end of two months, but did not pay it because I had not got it.
To Symons. I was sent after three situations. One was at Lady Owen's School, after you had sent 12 more after it, and it was no good going when They were suited.
Re-examined. Prisoner did not tell me that Mr. Warne would pay my fare if I went down.
FREDERICK MAUVICE , 2, Priory Road, Tottenham, bootmaker, also spoke to seeing the advertisement in the "Daily Chronicle,"' and, with inference to Mr. Warne's situation, stated that his weight was 8st 2 lb.
FREDERICK MATTHEWS , assistant manager, Criterion Restaurant. The Criterion Restaurant, Piccadilly, did not authorise the appearance of their name in the list of subscribers and supporters of the National Employers' Association. I have been assistant manager at the Criteion for the last six months, and before that was chief cashier. We are not subscribers.
GEORGE SHIELD , secretary to Harrods Stores. I have no knowledge of the National Employers' Association, and Harrods were not subscribers. The Association had no authority to put the name of Harrods Stores on their list of subscribers and supporters.
Prisoner SYMONS produced a letter dated October 16, 1901, from Harrods Stores with reference to waitresses, but witness said nothing was known of it by the management, and he could not identify the signature. The letter was as follows: "Dear Sir,—We thank you for your postcard, and beg to say we are still requiring a few good, smart waitresses, but they must have had good experience in West End Restaurants. Yours faithfully, R. Woodman Burbage" (signed by a clerk). Witness admitted that the letter was written on Harrods paper, and had the appearance of a genuine, honest order.
Re-examined. In the year 1906 Harrods Stores could not properly be described as subscribers and supporters of the National Employers' Association. I have no reason to believe, after seeing that letter, that they ever were subscribers to it. As far as I know the association have never supplied a single servant.
HENRY LLOYD , staff superintendent of Messrs. Debenham and Freebody. I have held my present position six years, and have been in the employ of the firm altogether for about 25 years. With regard to the following, which appears amongst "a few unsolicited testimonials": "From Debenham and Freebody, London, Paris, Brussels, New York, Melbourne, and Sydney. We shall not require any more men at present. Have engaged E. Winter, C. Miles, Jackson, and Davis through you." We have searched our books and cards back to 1889 and can find no trace whatever of our having ever given such a testimonial. We find the names of Miles and Jackson amongst our employees. Whilst I have been manager I have had no communication
whatever with the Association, of which I had never heard until the commencement of the police court proceedings.
To Prisoner Symons. I will not swear that Jackson and Davis were not engaged through you.
Prisoner produced a letter from the firm dated February 20, 1901, and witness said he could not speak to it, as it belonged to the City branch.
To the Recorder. Whatever may have been the case in 1901, I have never had any communication with the Association as staff manager, directly or indirectly.
FRANK SHIPWAY LAWRENCE , chief clerk to the London and Southestern Bank, Regent Street. I do not know the prisoner Symons. On July 7, 1903, an account was opened in the name of Symons and Field, and closed on January 10, 1905, because the head office objected to the Association advertising the bank as their bankers. We wire not aware of the fact that our name was still being used after that. When the account was closed the balance was £2 19s. 3d.
WILLIAM VAUGHAN , cashier at the Victoria branch of the London and Joint Stock Bank, Limited, Buckingham Palace Road. In 1900 Symons had an account at the bank. It was closed December 31, 1904. In 1906 he had no account at our bank. The balance when 1905. closed was very small, some £3 or £4. He closed it because he moved 1906. from Victoria Street to Jermyn Street.
Sergeant ARTHUR CLARKE, C Division. About five o'clock on the afternoon of December 9 I went with Sergeant Burton to 4, Rupert Street, where I saw the two prisoners. I told them we were police officers, and that I held a warrant for their arrest by obtaining money by fraud. Symons replied, "Yes, this is all right. The method of my business has been tried at the Old Bailey." He was subsequently charged and made no reply.
Sergeant HENRY JONES, B Division. I knew Symons in 1900. He was then carrying on business as the London Employers' Association. I saw him several times in Victoria Street between June, and the end of 1901, or the beginning of 1902. In February, I and another officer called by direction of the Commissioner of Police to strictly caution him as to the way in which he was carrying on his business. We had received numerous complaints, but none of the persons complaining would proceed.
Sergeant ALBERT BURTON, C Division. I accompanied Sergeant Clarke when Symons was arrested on December 19 and arrested defendant Marshall. On the way to the station Marshall said. "I am only employed by Symons as clerk and do as I am told. I do not know anything about the way the business is carried on. I am paid 2s. or 3s. a day for my services. I hand all the cash to Mr. Symons as it comes in. I have been in his employ on and off for 18 months." Symons's statement that the method of his business had been tried at the Old Bailey referred to the trial in 1897. before the caution spoken to by
the witness Jones. I afterwards returned to the two rooms at 4, Rupert Street. The name of the National Employers' Association was printed up, also the name of G. Symons. I took possession of a quantity of correspondence, documents, and books produced. There is a cash book commencing June 27, 1906, but none earlier, with the exception of an old cash book dated 1900, and one, I think, of 1902. which we did not take possession of. I found some books relating to a registry office business for females. I found two books described at "General Employers' Register." It purports to be a book showing the names of employers of both male and female servants. One appears to have been the current book in use. There was no register of male applicants for work. I found a number of application forms which had been filled in and fried, showing the amount paid, situation required, and description of individual. The number of male applications alone was 1,841. They were hanging round the walls of the inner office. The amount of registration fees paid in respect of these 1,841 applications was £370 4s. The forms were arranged in bundles according to the occupation required, but had been by no means carefully sorted. One bundle of application forma was marked "suited," purporting to show that those applicants had been suited with situations. They numbered 15. In the employers register certain employers' names are marked "suited," with the name of the servant opposite. There are six marked suited in respect of which no application forms have been found. The total number of employers appearing as having been suited is 38; 325 names are put down in the employers' register as subscribers, and 438 as employers seeking servants. The names of some employers are recorded again and again, and exclusive of repetitions there are 294 employers seeking male and female servants. The number of situations shown as vacant in the whole year is 325—that is, counting such entries as "Ten canvassers" as 10; and 38 was the total number actually obtained. With regard to the list of subscribers and supporters of the Association paying a guinea subscription, I have only been able to find the counterfoil entry in the receipt book of one payment, that of Mr. Fiddes, of the "Daisy" public-house, Brompton Road, who paid tone guinea on May 17, 1906. That appears to have been received by prisoner Marshall. There is nothing to show that the remaining 300 alleged subscribers have paid a 6d. With regard to Fry's application, the only situation corresponding to his requirements was No. 3,295, relating to the appointment of clerk and superintendent of Billingsgate Market Buildings, application to be made to the Town Clerk, Markets Department, Guildhall, salary £380, rising to £450. With regard to Springham, I do not find any special list of applicants in existence. With regard to the "unsolicited testimonials," I found two letters stating that situations had been obtained in the year 1906, and that the Applicants would call and pay the balance of the commission. I found 350 letters relating to 1906 complaining that the applicants had had nothing for their money. (Mr. Gill read 32 of the letters, which
witness stated were a fair sample of the others.) I also found the letters of Mr. Warne asking for "a big, strong man, weighing 14 st. to 15 st." as doorman. The cash book shows that the receipts from June 27 to the arrest were £242 4s. from application fees, and, exclusive of the £100 received from Thomas, the largest amount received was in October, £64 13s. 6d. In the first six months of the year the amount received was £128, making in all £370, The entries in the cash book only go down to December 8.
To Prisoner Symons. I do not take it for granted that, because 38 forms are marked "Suited" they were the only persons who were placed in situations by you. I am giving the facts as they appear on the papers, and, as regards those 38 situations, some of the employers I have seen say they have not employed those servants. A Mrs. Harris at 4, Sanctuary, Westminster, said she wrote to you for a servant, but had not seen nor engaged anybody from you. I am dealing only with the male register. The application was for a labour master. I have seen Mrs. Swayne, of 13, St. George's Square, who says she wrote to you, but never engaged anybody, although that is counted in this 38. The letters from employers who had advertised in the papers you received in answer to postcards you sent them was 157. I have read the majority of them.
Prisoner asked that the letters might be handed to him. They showed that he was doing a legitimate and genuine business. (The letters were handed to prisoner.)
Witness. I do not doubt that these are genuine letters from employers. The majority of them want barmen, messengers, clerks, and porters.
To the Recorder. Supposing, for example, a Tradesman wanted a shopman or messenger, and advertised, the practice of this agency was to send him a postcard saying that they were prepared to find him anything he required. Many of these letters were in reply to such postcards, and if prisoner Symons had anything suitable on his books he would send the applicant along. I should say that the proportion of the employers who wrote in answer to postcards to employers who wrote of their own accord was about half and half, but I have not gone through the letters for the purpose of ascertaining that fact.
Prisoner Symons. There are also orders I received by telephone.
The Recorder. As I understand, your case is that you were carrying on a genuine business agency for securing employment, and that although these particular people were unfortunate in not getting situations, yet, nevertheless, it was a genuine business.
Prisoner Symons. As far as I was concerned, I did my best to suit everybody.
Prisoner Marshall. My defence is that I was merely a servant.
(The Recorder thereupon directed that Sergeant Burton should go through the letters with prisoner for the purpose of ascertaining how many of the letters from employers were in answer to postcards sent out by the Association and how many were original applications.)
The Recorder observed that he had been looking rather carefully end anxiously through the different false pretences alleged in the indictment, and although they varied in kind they seemed to amount substantially to a representation that prisoners were in fact carrying on a bona fide business as an employment agency when in reality they were not.
Mr. Gill: We have abstained deliberately from alleging that.
The Recorder: I am quite aware of that, as I am aware alto why you abstained from doing it. It appears to me they amount only to that, except in the cast of Fry. As to the statement about Debenham and Freebody and Harrods Stores it would he very difficult to say that there was evidence to go to the jury that he relied upon those false representations as distinguished from the general belief in his mind that he was dealing with an honest agency. Of course there is authority for saying that although a man may be carrying on a business which may be fraudulent, it does not necessarily amount to a criminal fraud, and the authority it very clear on that point. I refer to the case of Regina v, Crabbe, which went to the Court of Crown Cases Reserved (11 Cox, p. 86), in which the jury found that there was no business at all carried on; none at all.
Mr. Gill: That is a false pretence; no one would dispute that; it is alleged that there it a business, and in fact there is none.
The Recorder: I quite agree, but the case against you it that of Regina v. Williamson (11 Cox, p. 328), before Mr. Justice Byles, who held that Cross exaggeration amounting to fraud was not necessarily indictable.
Mr. Gill: The false pretence there was that it was a good business. That was the only false pretence alleged.
The Recorder: The representation was that prisoner was really doing a good business. What I was going to add is that there are very many cases in which although a particular fraud may not form the subject of an indictment for obtaining money by false pretences, the conspiracy to commit that offence it a crime. Although one of these persons was a servant only, receiving a small remuneration, if he was cognizant of the fact that immense numbers of people were induced to go to the agency by advertisements, he knowing perfectly well that only a fraction of them could get employment, there would be conspiracy to defraud, although it might be an open question whether there was obtaining money by false pretences; and in face of the authorities it would be difficult to support that.
Mr. Gill: We do not dispute here that there was a small nucleus of genuine business. That because a man does 10 per cent genuine business he can do 90 per cent, fraudulent business is the position of the defence.
The Recorder: The only question that seems to me to arise noon that is a question of fact for the jury whether or not a real business is being carried on, or any genuine business, the very question which was reserved by Sir William Bodkin many years ago.
Mr. Gill: If that is so any intelligent man who engages in fraud nowadays will be careful to have a fraction, perhaps a substantial fraction of genuine business that he can turn to as a cloak, and that Is a serious difficulty which is of common occurrence in the present day and has been increasing for the last ten or fifteen years. I would submit that in the present day an exaggeration may be so Cross as to amount to false pretences, such false pretences as ere common to all these counts, and that is a proposition which I think will have to be considered sooner or later in criminal courts.
The Recorder: I should have to reserve that If this man was represented by counsel counsel probably would say, "You are trying to make new law and I say it is not law at all." In the face of the very dear expression of opinion of Mr. Justice Byles, unless the jury find there is no genuine business I shall have to reserve that I think the evidence that that notice was stuck up saying that they did not guarantee a situation is very strong.
Mr. Gill: Of course they did not guarantee a situation; nobody could. lf a man goes these who is a cripple they cannot guarantee him a situation, bat the question would be in my submission what ordinary men with ordinary capabilities, such men as have been called, would understand from the inflated language of the advertisements and of the circulars which were shown to them. Were they not
led to believe that in their case there was every reasonable certainty that a situation would be found and that prisoners wore in the position to find it? That, I submit, is the question of fact here. As regards the form of the false pretences they are in my submission on all fours with the cane of R. v. Cooper (2 Q. B. D., p. 510; 46 L. J., M. C., p. 219; 13 (ox, p. 617). Having regard to that authority it would by very hard to say hero, there being 1,841 applicants and only 38 situations found for them, 2 per cent, of the whole, that there was not a false pretence, it being in evidence that prisoners represented themselves as being in a position to find situations for ad these persons. I think the misrepresentation here is even more marked than in Regina v. Cooper.
The Recorder: As to the statement that the Association had in its possession thousands of unsolicited testimonials, and was in touch with over 3,500 firms and employers, my difficulty is this: While it was no doubt false as false could be, is it not rather difficult to say that these people acted on that false pretence as distinguishable from the general holding out that there was a business. It is not sufficient merely that the representation should be false; it is necessary also that the jury should be satisfied that people acted on the false pretence and that they would not have paid the 5s. if the false pretence had not been there. That is the difficulty you are in with regard to that. Each of these pretences must stand alone. Supposing you take away ail the other false pretences and leave only that one in; could the jury say upon the evidence or could the man himself say—which has not been asked—"I relied upon that If that had not been there I should not hart paid the 5s.?"I do not think so.
Mr. Gill: They said generally they believed the statements.
The Recorder: They said so generally, but that is a very different thing; that will not do. If you are going to rely on that as a substantive false pretence as distinguished from the general holding out that the business was a genuine business, you must ask the jury to say that if there had been no other false pretence the man would not have parted with his money and that he relied upon that. The same thing applies to Freebody's and Harrods Stores. Mr. Justice Byles said a thing might be more or less fraudulent and yet not necessarily indictable.
Mr. Gill: It would not be difficult to make false pretences if one studied the law.
The Recorder: I am quite clear that there is abundance of evidence to go to the jury upon the conspiracy charges, and that these two men acting together held out to these various persons that this was a genuine business, and that they could obtain employment for them, and that there is evidence that they intended to defraud thereby. There is evidence of that on which the jury can act, although it may well be that the substantive charge of obtaining by false pretences, though a Cross fraud, is not necessarily an indictable one.
Mr. Gill: I should be very 10th (o admit that this could be done by an individual acting alone, which would follow from your ordship's ruling.
The Recorder: I do not say that it could, but I would rather not reserve the point if I can help it until it actually arises, because I would rather not have a decision that one person can do it. I think in the public interest it would be very undesirable. I do not know what view the Court of Crown Cases Reserved might take. They might say that the reasoning of Mr. Justice Byles must be acted upon; it is only the decision of one judge; or they might take quite a different view. Personally, I should not court a decision on that point, in the public interest; but at the same time if I leave it to the jury I must reserve it I am bound to argue this for the prisoner, as he has no counsel.
Mr. Gill thought after what his lordship had said it would be better to deal with the case on the conspiracy count alone.
The Recorder: I think so. There is authority that many conspiracies art indictable, although the principal fraud is obtaining by false pretences.
Mr. Gill, urging that in a ease of conspiracy it was sufficient to prove an intention not to carrv out a promise on the expectation held out, cited the case of Regina v. Orman before Lord Justice Bramwell in 1880 (14 Cox, p. 381), where it was held that to get goods on credit without meaning to pay for them might not
be unlawful in the sense of being punishable, but was nevertheless not lawful and was fraudulent at common law.
The Recorder: I understand you do not press the count for false pretences.
Mr. Gill: No.
Witness. The letters from employers having been sorted, I find that 97 are direct from employers and 60 from employers after advering in reply to postcards from the Association.
Mr. Gill said that was the case, with the exception of some witnesses whose names were on the back of the bill, whom prisoners might call if they desired.
Prisoner Symons accordingly asked for the following witnesses.
HENRY WILES , assistant manager of the Coburg Hotel, Mayfair, stated that the hotel authorities applied to Symons for a stoker in 1901, when the Association was in Jermyn Street, and obtained one, but he could trace no dealings with them since. Vacancies were generally filled by advertising.
WALTER HENRY MOMBER , clerk and traveller, employed by Messrs. Cramer and Co., piano manufacturers, 126, Oxford Street, said it was just over four years since his firm had moved from Regent Street. The firm had no dealings with the Association in 1906, and he believed had not had since 1902, when two applications for porters and servants were made, and some names were submitted, but not engaged.
GEORGE SYMONS (prisoner, not on oath). I am charged with having obtained money by false pretences and by conspiracy with this man. I have never conspired with him, for the simple reason that he was limply a servant of mine, and did not know anything about the business. He was a daily servant employed by me. He had no control whatever of the business, and I do not see how I could possibly have conspired with him to defraud anyone under those circumstances. With reference to the business, I can only say I have endeavoured this last twenty years to carry on a genuine business. In businesses of this kind there is always a difficulty in suiting people. There it always a great difficulty in finding employment for men. As regards the ordinary registry offices, where servants apply and where ladies come for servants, well that is very easy, but when a man wants 25s. or 30s. or £300 a year, those positions are very difficult to obtain, and I, of course, have found them very difficult to obtain. I can only say I have always endeavoured to do my very utmost. I have spent during the last twenty years hundreds of pounds in circularising employers. I have received hundreds of letters from employers. I have suited during the last twenty years thousands of people, but unfortunately I cannot call 1,000 people and put them in the box. I should like, if I may be allowed to do so, to read some of the orders I have received from employers. The jury will then form an idea whether I had a genuine business or not. (Prisoner proceeded to read several letters.)
Verdict, Guilty of conspiracy against both prisoners. Prisoner Symons was tried at this Court on March 11, 1907, for carrying on bogus business and binning money by fraud and acquitted. The Recorder then gave him a serious warning with regard to the way his business was conducted, and he has since been cautioned by the Commissioner of Police. Details were given of similar businesses carried on by Symons at other addresses.
Sentences: Symons, 18 months' hard labour; Marshall, six months' hard labour.
NEW COURT; Saturday, February 2.
(Before Judge Rentoul.)
WILLIAMS, Edward (45, salesman), and GOLDRING, Charles (35, works manager) ; both stealing the sum of £1 2s. 6d., the moneys of the Civil Service Co-operative Society, Limited, the masters of the said E. Williams, and feloniously receiving same; both conspiraing and agreeing together to commit said felony.
Mr. George Elliott and me. Cecil Fitch prosecuted; Mr. Huntly Jenkins defended Williams; Mr. J. R. Randolph defended Goldring.
EDWIN BUTLER , corn merchant, Bournemouth. (Evidence of illness having been given, the police court deposition was read.) In August last I answered an advertisement in the "Exchange and Mart" offering to sell 400 cartridges for 22s. of 12 bore No. 5 shot Eley's Schultze powder, and offered a deposit of £1 with the newspaper. I received a reply from "A. Wilson" which I have lost or destroyed, I wrote two or three letters to A. Wilson at Clarence Gardens, Regent's Park. I received the cartridges at Basingstoke on September 11, and on September 14 I sent cheque produced for £1 in favour of A. Wilson, which has been paid at the bank. I had no idea I was transacting business with anyone but A. Wilson, and had no communication with the Civil Service Co-operative Society, Limited, and did not know the seller was employed there.
JOSEPH CARTWRIGHT , 84, Glanville Street. Woodville, Burton-on-Trent, builder. In reply to an advertisement in the "Exchange and Mart" of August 17, 1906, I purchased from A. Wilson, 41, Clarence Gardens, 400 cartridges 12 bore No. 5 shot Eley's Schultze powder for 22s., forwarding a P. O. O. for that amount to A. Wilson. I knew nothing of the Civil Service Society.
Cross-examined. I am not a member of the society, and have given no order for cartridges through them.
THOMAS LINEY , foreman at Schultze Gunpowder Factory at 1, York Place, Buckingham Gate. I was under Goldring, who was manager at the factory. On August 28, 1906, Goldring gave me instructions to forward 400 C. F. 12-5 E. B. N, cartridges to E. Butler, Basing-stoke. Order produced was given me by Goldring, and is the private order form of the Civil Service Society, and has written across it in Goldring's writing, "Invoice August 23, 1906." I produce railway delivery book, showing the goods were sent off on August 28. On August 31 I sent 400 cartridges, 12-5 C. F. EB. N, to J. Cartwright, Burton-on-Trent, for which order produced was handed me by Gold-ring, which has on it in his writing, "200—Invoice September 10, 1906, and 200—Invoice October 2, 1906" On September 26 I sent 400 C. F. 12-5 Sch. Nitro cartridges to Leicester, Southwell, Notts, for which the order produced was given me by Goldring. The words, "Sch. Nitro," and "Invoice September 26, 1906," are in Goldring's writing. "No. 4,827" is also in Goldring's writing. I produce town delivery book for April 9, 1904, showing a delivery to E. Harvey, 52, Methley Street, of 200 cartridges. Goldring instructed me to send them, and I handed them to Powell to deliver. The town delivery book also shows a delivery of 100 16-6 pin-fire cartridges delivered to Newton and Thompson, Shaftesbury Avenue, for Mr. Williams, and signed for by A. E. Engman; 100 to the same address on November 17, 1904; 100 on June 8, 1905. They were sent on Gold-ring's instructions. I have looked at the day book, and there is no entry of the delivery of the said orders to Harvey or Newton and Thompson Letter produced: "Sir,—Please send 400 12 fire tomorrow to R. Davies, Esq., Penrose Cottage, R. S. O., Merionethshire, and oblige A. W.," was given me by Goldring, and across it is written in Goldring's writing, "200 invoice, October 15, 1906." Town delivery book shows delivery to E. Harvey on November 6, 1906, of 500 12 Schultze Ejector cartridges, which were sent and signed for by "H. E. H."
ANNIE ELIZABETH ENGMAN . 8 and 9, Charles Street, Long Acre. My husband carried on business as Newton and Thompson at 35, Shaftesbury Avenue, as leather bag manufacturer. I have known Williams 12 or 13 years. Receipts produced for cartridges are in my writing Williams asked me to take the parcels in for him. 35. Shaftesbury Avenue is about four minutes' walk from the C. S. Stores.
ARTHUR REDDOCK BARRY , assistant-secretary to the Schultze Gunpowder Company, Limited, and superintendent of the factory at 1, York Place. Goldring was manager at the factory, and it was his duty to see that orders received were packed and sent off and to send notice to the head office, 28, Gresham Street, of such orders. Orders from the C. S. Stores are numbered with the society's number. Goldring had no authority to withhold from the head office the names
of persons to whom goods were sent or to keep back orders, or to invoice them on wrong dates, or to forward orders to the head office when the goods had not been sent. Our price to the Stores is 7s. per 100 net. We have no cartridges so low as 4s. In September, 1906, on information received, I saw Goldring at the factory, and asked him to let me know particulars of order (produced) for cartridges sent to E. Butler. He afterwards informed me it referred to 400 cartridges dispatched on account of the Civil Service Stores on or about August 23. He never told me he had received orders from Williams privately, or on Williams's account. We were not advised of the cartridges sent to Butler, Cartwright, Leicester, Newton and Thompson, or Dr. Spencer. They do not appear in our books.
Cross-examined by Mr. Randolph. Goldring has been with us eight years, and came to us from Messrs. Kynoch, where he had been a number of years. We have had orders from the Stores for all the cartridges sent, excepting 1,400, and have been paid for them. Goldring ring told me the 400 cartridges sent to Butler were ordered from the Stores. I cannot say whether they were paid for; the next witness, has looked into that.
JACK WILLIAM MURRAY HOOD , order clerk, Schultze Gunpowder Company, 28, Gresham Street. I received order produced from Goldring: "Messrs. Schultz. Gentlemen,—Please send from S. 0. (stock order) 4,793, 400 12-6 C. F. cartridges, Sch. Nitro, and oblige C. S. C. 8., Ltd., p. p., E. W." It had written on it "No. 1,812, despatched August 23, 1906."That was invoiced to the C. S. Stores at £1 8s. 6d. and has been paid for by the Society. We do not know anything about E. Butler in connection with that order. We invoiced it to the C. S. Stores under our No. 1,812 and No. 4,793, the number of the parent order. The order to send to Butler was not sent to the head office. Order of September 7, produced, purports to be an order to Schultze from the C. S. Stores: "Please forward 200 C. F. from stock order E. B. N.," and it is entered at factory No. 2,121, despatched September 10, 1906. We have not seen order from Cartwright (produced) at the head office, which has written across it in Goldring's writing: "To be invoiced September 10."We invoiced it to the C. S. Stores. There is no trace of it being sent to Cartwright in our books, and we do not know him. We have no second invoice for 200 cartridges on October 2, and have not received payment for them, the other 200 having been paid for by the Stores. Exhibit 22 is in the same form from the C. S. Stores: "Gentlemen,—Please forward from S. O. 4,827 400 C. F."—"Schulze Nitro" is added in Goldring's writing. It is entered at factory under date "September 26, 1906, No. 2,324, dispatched September 26, 1906." Order produced for 400 cartridges to be sent to Leicester not sent by Goldring to head office. It has written across it, "Invoiced September 26, No. 4,827."We did not know of Leicester in the matter. The same applies to the order for 200 from Harvey and the three orders of 100 sent to Newton and Thompson. Goldring
gave no particulars of them, and we have not been paid. Exhibit 24 is an order to send 400 C. F. 12-6 cartridges to Dr. Spencer, 56, St. George's Road, Southwark, and is not on the C. S. Stores form. Exhibit 25: "Please send to-morrow 400 C. F. 12-5 E. B. N, to S. Galvani, Esq., Gillingham Station, Norfolk, carriage forward.—A. W. is not on the C. S. form. Exhibit 26 is an order to send 400 cartridges to R. Davies, Esq., signed by "A. W.," not on the C. S. Stores form. It has written across it,"200 invoice, October 15,' in Goldring's handwriting. We have no particulars from Goldring as to how these goods were disposed of. In all 1,400 cartridges of ours have been sent out and not paid for. I saw Goldring on. October 24 at York Place. He said he had been to see Williams, and asked him if he had been selling cartridges on his own account, and if he had been making a tool of him to get the cartridges, and that Williams said, "You can take that as you like." He never reported that to the head office. Goldring told me he had never received any money from Williams.
The Court having adjourned for a short time.
Mr. Elliott stated that as the case had developed against Goldring, although, under the circumstances, the Civil Service Co-operative Society and Messrs. Schultze were undoubtedly justified in regarding him with grave suspicion, and in joining him with Williams, they thought they might be justified in taking a favourable view of his conduct, and had decided to offer no further evidence against him. He understood that Williams was now anxious to plead guilty, and, under the circumstances, his clients were prepared to recommend him very strongly to mercy.
Verdict, Goldring, Not guilty J. Williams, Guilty of feloniously receiving, not guilty on the other counts. He was released on his own recognisances in £50 to come up for judgment if called upon.
THIRD COURT; Monday, February 4.
(Before Judge Rentoul.)
Detective FREDERICK CHURCH, City Police. On January 7, about 11 am. I was in Fleet Street. I saw prisoner hanging about, and followed him to Ludgate Hill, where I lost sight of him. Just before noon I was with P. C. Upton, when we saw prisoner coming along Carter Lane carrying the box produced; he went into Ludgate Square, and in a doorway there he took out the contents of the box, and left the box on the stairs; he went to a coffee shop in Rose Street, and remained some time; in Newgate Street we stopped him. I asked him what he had in the parcel; he said, "Christmas cards; they were
given to mo by a man; I want to meet him between Snow Hill and the next turning." He said he did not know the man's name. We took him to the station; the goods were found to be the property of Messrs. Wymans, and he was then charged.
To Prisoner. You did not ask to be get out to see the man at three o'clock. I never saw you before this day.
JOHN SHAW , returns manager at Wymans. I identify the box produced as Wyman's property; we were advised that this box had bees sent on December 30 by train from Acton, and it had not reached us. Prisoner's statement before the magistrate: "I am net guilty of stealing them, but I was in possession of them."
PRISONER (on oath) gave an account of meeting a man, whose name he did not know, and being given by him this parcel; he was to meet the man at Snow Hill at three o'clock. When arrested he asked the officers to wait till three o'clock and see him meet the man, but they refused.
Verdict, Guilty of unlawful possession. Prisoner confessed to a conviction at this Court on February 5, 1906, of warehouse breaking in the name of Frederick Ernest Cooper. Police evidence proved that he belonged to a gang of burglars.
Prisoner said that since leaving prison last he had done his best to get an honest living; although he might have gone hack to his former associates, he went to strangers in hope of being able to turn over a new leaf. He produced a letter from his father, a decorator in Manchester, saying that he would find him employment there if he was now released. A gentleman in Court, a perfect stranger to prisoner, volunteered to help him to obtain employment. Judgment was respited to next Session to give opportunity to the gentleman to make proper arrangements.
P. C. HENRY THOMAS , 109 E. On January 23, about 12. 30 a.m., I was in Compton Street, W. C., in plain clothes. I saw prosecutor Deere walking up the street; prisoner and another man were following close behind him. As prosecutor got to the doorway of No. 35 I saw that he was attacked by the two men; the man not in custody was holding prosecutor down; prisoner had his hands in Deere's trousers pecked; Deere shouted and tried to get up; prisoner knocked him down, and the two men ran away in different directions. I followed prisoner, never losing sight of him, until I caught him up and, with assistance, arrested him. On returning to Compton Street I found Deere lying on the footway, bleeding from a cut in the hip; he was drunk.
WILLIAM DEERE , 35, Compton Street, electrical engineer. Just as I had reached my house on this night I was attacked from behind by two men and knocked down and kicked. I cannot swear that prisoner was one of the men. I lost half a crown in the struggle somehow. One man held me down while the other went through my pockets.
To Prisoner. At the station I did say that I had lost no money; I was dazed then.
Prisoners statement before magistrate: "I never saw this man till he came to Hunter Street Police Station."
PRISONER (on oath). I was walking towards home when a man came and asked me for a match; I stopped and gave him one. He had just left me when the officer came up and said. "I shall arrest you for robbery"; I said, "Oh, you don't want to fight me, do you?" and I ran across the road, being frightened; I ran about 20 yards and he caught Mr. I said, "Where is the man who is supposed to be robbed?" He said, "I'll show you," and took me to the station. never saw Deere at all. At the station he said he did not know me, and would not be wicked enough to charge an innocent man; he also said that he had lost no money; also that four men had set upon him.
Cross-examined. I was walking home by myself. When the constable came to me I was not running. It is false that he had to get assistance to take me to the station; he took me alone.
Ponce Constable THOMAS, recalled. I blew my whistle, and a cabman came up; the two of us took prisoner to the station; I held him on one side and the cabman held him on the other.
Sentence, Four years' penal servitude.
THIRD COURT; Tuesday, January 29.
(Before the Common Serjeant.)
MASSEY, Samuel Gurney ; being a director and manager of a public company called the Economic Bank, Limited, making, circulating, and publishing certain written statements, each of which he knew to be false in certain material particulars, with intent to deceive and defraud the shareholders of the said public company, and with intent to induce divers persons to become shareholders therein and to entrust property to the said company, and, being manager of the said company, making, and concurring in making, a certain false entry in a certain book of account of the said public company.
Mr. Horace Avory, K. C., Mr. Charles Mathews, Mr. Bodkin, and Mr. Symmons prosecuted.
Bank, Limited, registered as a company on October 30, 1893. with a capital of £1,000 in £1 shares nominal. In December, 1893, the capital was increased to £50,000 in £1 shares. Its original address was 57 1/2, Old Bread Street, registered as removed to 34, Old Broad Street, on May 21, 1896. In March, 1905. a branch was opened at Titchfield Street, W. I produce the memorandum and articles of association. The company was formed to carry on the business of banking. In Article 3 it is stated that the company will not engage in discount operations or make loans or permit overdrafts, and will invest only in readily realisable securities, and that it is authorised to invest under the Trust Investment Act in Government stocks and Colonial securities. The first return was signed by prisoner as general manager, made up to March 14, 1894, registered March 14, 1895. Returns were made up to January 29, 1901. A prospectus of April 17, 1901, is signed by prisoner as managing trustee. The return of October 7, 1902, is signed by Gullings as secretary. On January 27, 1904, I have a return stating that Samuel Gurney Massey, and John Henry Roscoe had been appointed trustees, and on February 5. 1904, Hildred and Lord Charles Robert Pratt were appointed, Roscoe having resigned, Howlett being returned as secretary. On June 21, 1905, winding-up order was made on a creditor's petition, dated May 30, 1905. I produce the file of the Financial and Commercial Bank, a limited company registered September 6, 1901. with a capital of £300,000 in 4,000 shares of £50 and 10,000 shares of £10 each. Loewy was a director from its formation up to the last return in 1905, Wicket being returned as secretary between 1901 and 1905. Winding up order was made on June 6, 1905, on a creditor's petition of May 19, 1905. Lord Charles Robert Pratt was the chairman of the company from 1901 to 1905. I produce the file of the East Rand Gold Mines, Limited, registered September 11, 1897, with a nominal capital of £250,000 in £1 shares. The last return is made up to December 31, 1905. In December, 1904, Massey and Lord Charles R. Pratt we're returned as directors. I also produce file of the General Forage and Grain Drying Company, Limited, registered March 25. 1902, with a nominal capital of £60,000 in £1 shares. Weikert was the secretary from the date of registration up to 1905. Massey and C. E. Howlett are returned as directors in March, 1905. A debenture of £10. 000 was issued in favour of Raphael, and was satisfied in March, 1904, when a debenture of similar amount was issued in favour of the Financial and Commercial Bank, which was satisfied on September 13, 1904, on which date another debenture of the same amount was issued to the Financial Bank. I produce file of the Coronation Extension Syndicate, Transvaal, Limited, registered November 5, 1902, with a capital of £20,000, afterwards increased to £50,000, in £1 shares—30,800 shares issued, of which 28,250 were issued for cash.
Cross-examined by Prisoner. The petition of the Economic Bank is dated May 30, 1905. The capital of the Financial, £300,000, is shown on December 31, 1903, as paid in cash.
ETHELBERT ARTHUR RAPKIN , traveller to C. Hooper end Co., Limited, printers. From May, 1904, to May, 1905, I received orders from prisoner for printing for the Economic Bank, advertisements, reports, and circulars (produced) to the amount of about £300 to £400, of which £158 is still owing.
FRANCIS WILLIAM PIXLEY , 58, Coleman Street, accountant. In 1900 I had an account at the Economic Bank, New Broad Street, using it for payment of small accounts up to the end of 1904, when I closed it. In May, 1905, I heard that the Economic were opening a branch in Margaret Street, and obtained printed forms (produced) for opening an account there, which was filled up by my daughter, and I gave her cheque produced for £15, which was paid to and cashed by the Economic. On May 27 she drew cheque produced for £7 7s., which came back marked, "Payment suspended" I read the statements printed on the form stating that the investments of the Bank are made under the Trustee Act, 1893 (except in houses or land), or in Colonial Government securities, and that "the Bank is free from the usual commercial banking risks, as no bills are discounted, no loans granted, and no overdrafts allowed," which had very great influence on my mind in inducing me to open the account.
(Wednesday, January 30.)
GEORGE COLEMAN HANDS , 8, Warrington Crescent, Maida Vale, sauce manufacturer. In May, 1905, I received from the Economic Bank, New Broad Street, form and card produced. Having read the statements as to the stability of the bank, I opened a drawing account with a payment of £11, which was afterwards transferred to the West End branch at Margaret Street, where I paid in a further £4. I drew a cheque for £1 on May 27, and on May 29 found the bank had stopped payment. I have lost £14.
JOSHUA DUNN , 42, Albany Street, sign writer In April, 1905, I received an order from Tainter, of the Royal British Bank, in Margaret Street to do some decorative work there amounting to £10 16s. 4d. The premises were afterwards transferred to the Economic Bank. I saw prisoner. He said that, as I had dealt with the previous bank, and been a customer there for some length of time, he would be glad, as I was well known in the neighbourhood, if I would become a customer of the Economic and would recommend my friends to do so. He showed me the prospectus, said the security was very safe, and pointed to the statement on the prospectus that the bank is free from the usual commercial banking risks. "No bills discounted. No loans granted. No overdrafts." I opened an account with £10 16s. 11d. On May 20, 1905. I paid in a further sum of £5 8s. 6d. On May 29 I drew a Cheque for £13 10s. (produced), went to the bank, and found it closed. I have lost my money.
HENRY Goss WRIGHT, Merton, North Devon, clerk in Lord Taunton's estate office. I received circular (produced) in February, 1905,
and after reading it opened an account with £30 in the Economic Bank, and paid in a further cheque, £1 14s., which was cashed, endorsed "S. G. Massey, for the Economic Bank, manager." I have received nothing back.
FRANK LOUIS TAINTER , 11, Great Titchfield Street, jeweller. I was connected with the Royal British Bank, Margaret Street, and undertook the winding-up of the branch and the letting of the premises. I saw prisoner, and arranged to transfer the premises to the Economic Bank for £150. I wanted an assurance that the bank was solvent. He said they were quite solvent and showed me draft balance-sheet for the past year to March 31, 1905, which satisfied me they were progressing. I handed prisoner about £600 in gold and notes for the purpose of paying off the depositors of the Royal British Bank, who were properly settled with by prisoner. The Economic Bank entered upon and kept the premises open till May 27. Mr. Grosvenor first introduced the proposal to Mr. I believe it was through Grosvenor that prisoner came to me.
Cross-examined by Prisoner. I saw both Hildred and you. The balance-sheet shown me was a draft to satisfy-me as to the solvency and success of the Economic Bank. The £600 paid to you included the £150 for the transfer of the premises. It included also a cheque for £100 drawn by the Financial Bank on the Economic, which had been handed me by Grosvenor and was returned dishonoured. Grosvenor sent his clerk up and paid me the £100, which I handed in at the Economic.
ALFRED HILDRED , 23, Old Jewry, tailor. I have known F. S. Grosvenor and have made clothes for him for some years. He was engaged in financial matters, buying and selling shares. I believe he was an outside broker. Towards the end of 1903 Grosvenor introduced me to the Economic. I knew nothing about banking business. I was to join Mr. Massey and Mr. Roscoe as trustee, and was appointed at the end of 1903. I received £52 10s., which was voted at the last shareholders' meeting in 1905 before the bank went into liquidation. Before I was appointed trustee I had a conversation with Massey, and told him that it was me. Grosvenors wish that I should become trustee. Grosvenor said he wanted someone upon whom he could absolutely rely as a man whose time was more or less at his disposal, so that he could attend the meetings regularly. Field, Massey-Mainwaring, and Selby Lowndes were then trustees. On December 15 Field was appointed trustee, and on December 23 Massey-Mainwaring was elected chairman. On January 6, 1905, Massey-Mainwaring and Lowndes resigned their position as trustees, Lacy resigned his position as manager, and Sullings resigned his position as secretary; Roscoe and Massey were nominated by me as trustees and elected. I see by the minute of January 6 that the securities were handed to Mr. I went through them and checked them with the inventory. At the meeting on the next day, January 7, Massey was appointed managing trustee at a salary of £300 for the
first year, with interest on profits to be determined later, and Howlett was appointed secretary at a salary of £200. On January 13 it was resolved that an agreement with Massey be prepared, and then on January 20 those two minutes were rescinded, and it was resolved that Massey be allowed remuneration of one half the amount received from customers in the way of commission on their current accounts. On January 7 it was "Resolved that the arrangement made with Mr. Loewy, of the Financial and Commercial Bank, Limited, as per letter dated January 8, 1904, be and is hereby agreed to subject to securities to be approved," the words "Mr. Loewy of' are struck out and initialled by me as chairman. I do not know why that alteration was made. At that time I had never seen Loewy. I now know he was manager of the Financial Bank. My attention was not drawn to the difficulty about confirming on the 7th a letter of the 8th. I do not know that £4,800 worth of securities were delivered to the Financial Bank on January 8. The securities were supposed to be in my charge. They were handed to me, put in a box, and I was given the key of the box. I do not recollect how they were handed over. I do not think anyone had a key of the box except myself. I knew of the transaction. I understood from Mr. Massey that in consideration of the Financial Bank purchasing some thousands of our shares some security was handed to them as an equivalent for that purchase. I was satisfied with that explanation. I cannot remember the circumstances; it was treated as a mere passing affair, and even to-day I do not understand it. That is the best explanation I can give. I do not know what became of the key, and I do not know what became of the securities. I should have handed them over if Massey had requested me to. On February 3 Roscoe resigned, and was succeeded by Lord Charles Robert Pratt. When the latter joined I knew he was chairman of the Financial Bank. At that board meeting of February 3 prisoner, as managing trustee, read a letter from Williams Deacons and Co., asking that the account be closed, and reported that two cheques of the Financial Bank for £2,900 and £2,500 had been withheld from presentation at their request in respect of special deposits they were making at the bank. I do not recollect any cheques of the Financial Bank payable to the Economic remaining in the office. I did not know that cheques of the Financial to the amount of £70,000 had never been paid. Before the meeting of January 7 I had been with Grosvenor to see Loewy. That was the first time I knew him. I presume it was to make arrangements about business in the future. I do not remember the conversation. I do hot remember going with the prisoner to see I Loewy. I remember we were anxious to get security for their indebtedness to us—no doubt I went with prisoner who, as manager, initiated and suggested everything. I remember the securities were kept in the safe deposit at Bishopsgate Street. There is a resolution at the meeting of January 7 that two trustees jointly have access to the box in the safe deposit, I do not recollect if there were two locks. I think I went with one or two others to possess ourselves
of the box before the meeting of January 7. I remember in the first instance when I joined the bank going there and bringing the box to the premises of the Economic Bank.
Cross-examined by Prisoner. I think the minute of January 7 confirming the letter of the 8th refers to some transaction that took place on the 6th. Before you were elected trustee I checked the securities. I do not remember handing you bonds for £4,800 to take to the Financial. I cannot say whether you were trustee when the £4. 800 of securities were taken—I do not recollect the circumstances I went with you to see Tainter on April 6, 1904. In the spring of 1905 I went to Burton-on-Trent with you to see the works of the General Forage and Grains Drying Company, because we held a large number of shares in that company. I was very favourably impressed with what I saw. I never had a loan or overdraft from me Economic, nor did Lord Charles Pratt. I never had a penny except the sum that was voted me and Lord Charles Pratt at the general meeting in 1905.
Re-examined. I think "January 8" in the minute of January 7 is a clerical error. I see the letter of January 8 over prisoner's signature refers to a transaction in respect of the £4,800 which the minute refers to, and there is a letter of January 8 acknowledging receipt of the £4,800 securities. I know the Economic held shares of the General Forage and Grains Drying Company as security from Loewy for the money he owed the Economic. I cannot tell you what he owed at that time. I cannot tell you how many shares of the General Forage Company we had. I do not know what the security was for or how much. Looking at the letter (produced) I must have known that we were interested in it. During the year 1904 up to the spring of 1905 I think we were advancing further sums to the Financial, but I really cannot tell you. I know I was very anxious about it at the time of my visit to the Forage Company's works. I did not take any steps to ascertain the value of the 26,543 shares of the Forage Company that we held—I relied upon prisoner; I did not bother my head about it. He was managing the affair—I was not there to supersede him. I think we sought to sell our interest—I do not know. I only had 50 guineas from the Economic for my services during three years. We never got any dividends from the General Forage shares—I do not know, perhaps I never took the trouble to ask.
BION TOBIAS WYNKOOP , manager in London of Whitehead and Hoag, 92, Fleet Street, advertising novelty manufacturers. In May, 1904, I saw prisoner at the Economic Bank and obtained an order for printing a diary (as produced) for the year 1905, of which we supplied 5,000 for £45, and were paid. In May, 1905, I got a further order for advertising novelties amounting to £38 15s., which has not been paid. About March 13, 1905, I saw Massey and Howlett, who asked me to take some shares in the bank. I declined to subscribe for any shares, but said I would be pleased to open a deposit account, which I did with £50, by a cheque (produced) which
it endorsed S. G. Massey. The next I heard of the bank was that it had closed, and I lost my £50. I received no dividend from it. A afterwards met prisoner in Fleet Street and asked him why he did not give me a hint to defer my making a deposit under the circumstances. He said he did not regard the bank as in serious difficulty at the time, and he hoped that it would tide over the run that was being made on it. He mentioned that two large cheques had come in that they were not able to pay, and they were obliged to close. I lost the £38 15s.
MATTHEW FLETCHER OXENFORD , 85, Gresham Street, member of the Stock Exchange. On January 8, 1904, I sold for the Financial Bank, by order of Loewy, 1,000 Four per Cent. Victoria Treasury bonds for £968 2s. 2d. They were sold at 99, plus seven days' interest. On January 19, 1904, I sold £500 Queensland Four per Cent., £900 British Columbia Six per Cent., and remitted the proceeds—£1,896 7s.—to the Financial. On February 19 I sold £1,000 L. B. and S. C. Five per Cent. Preference, and remitted £1,379 5s. 3d.; and £1,000 London and South Western Four per Cent. Preference for £1,146 13s. 9d., and remitted the proceeds to the Financial Bank. The Coronation Extension Syndicate is a company with mining options or rights. I bought and sold those shares for the Financial in February, 1904. I have had no dealings in the shares since. About the same date I had dealings for the Financial in East Rand Proprietary at prices ranging from 3 3/4 to 4 1/4
Cross-examined by Prisoner. I did not know the Economic Bank, in January and February I sold the East Rand and the Coronation Extension shares, bought and sold them.
JOHN EDWARD CLAYTON , of Clayton and Rose, Bartholomew House, member of the Stock Exchange. On January 8 I sold £1,000 Four per Cent. Victoria, Four per Cent. Treasury Bonds, £100 Newfoundland Three and a Half per Cent. Debentures, and remitted the proceeds—£l,075 5s.—to the Financial Bank. On January 9 I sold £600 Canada Four per Cent., £800 Manitoba Four per Cent, and £1,300 Canadas Five per Cent, for the Financial Bank and remitted the proceeds—£2,794 15s.
JOHN HENRY WEBSTER , managing clerk to Mr. Clarke, of Turquand, Youngs, and Co., chartered accountants. My firm had been auditors for some years to the Economic up to 1904, which is the last year my firm is responsible for. In the spring of 1904 I paid several visits to the Economic Bank to review the figures and investigate the bank's investments. Certain securities were produced, and certificates for those which were given out on deposits were forwarded to me by the holders. I had the certificate produced, signed "Financial and Commercial Bank, Limited.—C. A. Wiekert, secretary," for £39,902 worth of securities: "April 28, 1904—This is to certify that on the 31st March, 1904, we held the following securities as collateral security against our deposit with the Economic Bank, as per our arrangement with them." Then there is a list amounting to £39,902. That certificate and list satisfied Mr. Prisoner gave me a form which he
told me was given with all the securities which were lodged with depositors. I do not think I asked any question with regard to the words, "as per our arrangement with them." In March, 1903, the capital of the bank was £11, 138 paid up. In March, 1904, the paid-up capital is put at £49,578 8s., the authorised capital being £49,500 ordinary shares and 500 management shares of £1. The balance-sheet show's various sums deposited with the Financial Bank.
(Thursday, January 31.)
The amount set out as deposited with the Financial Bank is £55, 459. £36. 859 was the money for the shares taken by the Financial, representing the price of the shares supposed to be taken up. £10. 800 is an amount deposited with the Financial Bank, and is an item in a verified account which we had showing a balance of £55,459. I found the figures in the books of the Economic, and they were verified by the account of the Financial. I saw the letter of January 8 setting out an arrangement with regard to a sum of £4,800, which prisoner told me had been made in error prior to his return to the bank, and that it had been superseded by one of the ordinary arrangements under the printed form of deposit. That letter came before me in reference to an explanation which I asked as to how the East Rand and General Forage Shares came to be in the possession of, the Economic Bank. Massey handed me this letter by Way of explanation. There were contra items for the same amount—£10,800. I accepted the certificate of the Financial that the amount of £10,800 was correct. I saw the receipt agreeing to pay interest at 11 per cent, per annum. I did not notice it was 11 per cent. I understand it was 8 per cent. Of course, I had produced to me by prisoner deposit receipts for all the amounts, making up the deposit account of £55,459. Cheque produced of March 31 of the Financial for £10,800 purporting to represent that department was not shown me. I saw Exhibit 27—"Received from the Economic Bank, Limited, the sum of £1,000 on deposit, repayable on 12th inst.," dated March 7, 1904. I made no inquiry as to whether that sum had been repaid. It would not be unusual not to withdraw a deposit at the date specified. Among the liabilities on the balance-sheet is a sum of £37,840, placed on de posit by the Financial. For that I depended on Exhibit 33, the certificate of the Financial, corroborating the books of the Economic. It is not usual as between banks in bank audits to get a corroboration of the balances shown. I did not know that the larger portion of these deposits were represented by cheques, which were not presented and were then held by the Economic Bank. If both parties had passed cheques one to the other they would have gone through the cash book, and even though the cheques had not been presented it would have made no difference to the balance-sheet. It swelled the items on each side. I saw no cheque marked "R. D." I asked for an explanation with regard to the East Rand and General Forage
shares, and was told they were lodged with the letter that was cancelled, and were then not taken away, but were left with the bank as security generally against the deposit. Mr. Massey added that he did not regard those as the security; he looked to the Financial Bank as being the security. It is not usual on the 'balance-sheet to show securities which are held against debts or to make a note calling attention to it. There is a note on the liability aide of certain bonds; if your assets are charged of course you must disclose that. I did not find any entry in the books of the Economic with regard to the East Rand or Forage Company's shares. They were not produced to me personally, and I did not look to see if they were entered on the books. I saw defendant's balance-sheet of March 31, 1904, of the Economic, and discussed it with prisoner. The first two items on the credit side: "By cash notes, cheques, and stamps in hand and current account balances at bankers, £4,252"; and "Deposit with Financial and Commercial Bank, Limited, £55,459," were originally lumped together in an aggregate of £59,711 without any reference to the Financial Bank, and the same thing was done with regard to the current and deposit accounts on the debit side now shown as "Sundries, £65,501 18s. 8d" and "Financial and Commercial Bank, Limited, £37,840 5s. 10d.," which were lumped together as £103,342 4s. 6d. without reference to the Financial. I discussed it with my principal, and told prisoner that Mr. Clarke would require that the name of the Financial Bank should be shown on both sides of the balance-sheet. A meeting was arranged between Clarke and prisoner. Mr. Clarke said that as the Financial Bank was not known to us, the name should be given. Prisoner assured us it was a sound concern, with a capital of £300,000, notwithstanding this share transaction, which; of course, forms part of the £55,459. Mr. Clarke was of opinion that we should show on both sides the extant of the transactions with the Financial Bank. It was a good deal discussed, and our solicitors were referred to. Prisoner raised no objection, and in the end the items were divided as they now appear. The £37,840 5s. 10d. has no reference to the £36,000 transaction in the Economic shares. That transaction was specially reported upon by Mr. Clarke to the shareholders. That report was not circulated, but was read at the annual meeting, which is the ordinary course. The item, £37,840 5s. 10d., was vouched by the certificate of the Financial Bank. I compared the balance in the books, and saw that it agreed. I made no examination for the purpose of seeing whether cash had passed from the one bank to the other. I handed the matter over to my principal, Mr. Clarke, when I had had produced to me the securities in verification of the assets, had checked the balances, obtained certificates in verification of the balance of the bank, and made general inquiries. The question with regard to the so-called purchase of shares by the Financial from the Economic was left to Mr. Clarke to decide; he was to take the responsibility of that.
Cross-examined by Prisoner. So far as I know, everything that I asked for was shown to me; nothing was concealed so far as I know.
An assistant took the balances and securities on March 31, and I took his report, which I verified from outside sources, and accounted for all the securities represented on the balance-sheet. The certificates for bonds held as security were sent direct to us, and they did not go from my possession. The system of bookkeeping was clear. You did not make any entries in the books as far as I am aware. I have audited for several banks. I know that bankers' payments are made without cash passing from bank to bank. You did not raise any objection to going with Mr. Clarke to see the solicitors, Messrs. Slaughter and May, about the balance-sheet, and you quite consented to the alteration they advised; I would rather leave my principal to deal with that question. In the balance-sheet of March 31, 1902, the assets exceeded the liabilities by £271, but there is a deficiency in the income and expenditure account for the 12 months of £1,434 4s. 11d.
JOHN FRANCIS CLARKE , member of the firm of Turquand. Youngs and Co. My firm have acted as auditors to the Economic Bank for some years prior to 1904. I was employed in the summer of that year to audit the accounts to March 31. Mr. Webster, the last witness, personally investigated the accounts, and reported to me on matters which required my decision, and I had before me the transactions between the Economic and the Financial. I saw prisoner, and told him that the name of the Financial and Commercial Bank ought to appear in the balance-sheet, because it was not a well-known bank and there were contra entries. It was determined that the name should appear en both sides of the balance-sheet and the amounts be shown. Webster investigated the amounts. The increase of capital was a matter on which I considered it necessary to see our solicitors, Messrs. Slaughter and May. The difficulty was that on the balancesheet it appeared that the capital had been increased, but on the other side it appeared that the Economic had placed the amount received from the shares on deposit for two years, so that really no cash had passed. The prisoner came with me to the solicitors; he was quite anxious to discuss the matter. Under the new Act auditors have to make a report to the shareholders, and a memorandum was therefore put on the balance-sheet referring to the report, which was read at the general meeting. The report was drawn up by Mr. Slaughter after he had referred the matter to counsel. Those two were the principal matters referred to Mr. Webster examined into the securities, and reported to me that he had got certificates with regard to them. Mr. Webster is one of our principal men and we trust a good deal to him, and are obliged to in these small matters particularly. The item of £55,459 was partly made up of the £36,000 for the shares and the £18,600 consisted partly of cash and partly of contras. I think that question was discussed at Mr. Slaughter's as to whether the Amount on one side could be deducted from the amount on the other side, the point being that the Economic was liable on the deposit notes they had given to be paid in seven days, and those of the Financial
Bank were for a longer period—one month and two years. Therefore it was thought necessary to show it on 'both sides, and I left it as it was. I heard of the East Rand and General Forage shares being given as security by the Financial. There was, first of all, an item of £4,800, for which some securities had been given, and prisoner said that transaction had been entered into in his absence and that it had been superseded and put in form with all the others, which were on their form of deposit receipt, under which the bank could not sell without seven days' notice. I believe there was a deposit receipt by the Economic of March 31 for £10,800. I did not know anything about the cheque of the same date. It would have been a very unusual thing for a bank balance-sheet to show securities held against any particular account. We had seen deposit contracts on both sides, and I did not raise any question of loan, neither did Mr. Slaughter; it never entered our minds at that time on the materials supplied us. I did not know anything of the sale of securities. As I understood, the Financial were putting the money on deposit and taking these securities in exchange, the Economic taking a deposit receipt. That is why I reported specially upon it, and I also said that the transaction was ultra virus. I relied upon the receipt of March 31 as being a receipt at the end of the financial year.
Cross-examined by Prisoner. I have known you 12 years and never known you to do anything wrong; everything has been in order. The Economic Bank was insolvent on January 1, 1904, and in March, 1903. I think for several years it was the arrangement for the secured depositors to send receipts for bonds held by them direct to Mr. I do not think big banks hold securities as collateral for deposits. My partner audits the London and Westminster Bank accounts. I know from seeing it on the balance-sheet that that bank deposits bonds as collateral with the London County Council. I do not in a balance-sheet disclose the securities held by bankers for loans to customers. You went willingly with me to my solicitors and we explained the cheque of £35,000 for taking up the capital and the manner in which that capital purported to be paid. The £48,000 was discussed, and it was after the interview that I signed the balancesheet subject to my report. (To the Judge.) The explanation came to this: that the snares were taken by nominees of the Financial and that the Economic had put the amount on deposit with the Financial for two years. Mr. Slaughter advised that that transaction and the whole of the deposits with the Financial were ultra vires, and I added that to my certificate. Prisoner was very strong that it was not ultra vires.
Re-examined. The £6,000, £8,000, and £10,800 were all said to be ultra vires. My certificate was intended to apply to the whole. Mr. Slaughter's opinion was that the bank had no power to deposit money in that way; if one was ultra vires the other was. The facts with regard to the Grosvenor transaction as to the £6,000 were not revealed. I knew absolutely nothing of that. (To the Judge.) I take the figures as they are on that date, without regard to the transactions
which led to the figures being in that shape; I do not deal with the previous or intermediate transactions.
RICHARD DICKSON PRESTON , 11, Cavendish Mansions, Langham Street, member of the Stock Exchange. In 1904 I sold on January 19, 5. 000 Four per Cent. South Australian Government bonds, 1,400 Natal Four and a Half per Cent., and paid the proceeds—£1. 975 3s—to the Financial Bank. On February 25 I sold 1,000 Three and a Half per Cent. Canadian bonds, 2. 500 Four per Cent. Canadas, 2,300 Canada Railway Four per Cent, bonds, 1. 000 Cape Four per Cent., 3,000 Natal Four and a Half per Cent., 700 Three and a Half per Cent. Newfoundland, 1,000 Four per Cent. Newfound, land, 2,500 South Australian Four per Cent.,. 2,700 Tasmanian Four per Cent., and remitted the proceeds—£20,049 4s. 6d.—to the Financial Bank. On the day they were sold, on the instructions of Mr. Weikert, I took my bank draft to the National Provincial Bank of England for £15. 000 and received the bends in exchange, and the bonds were delivered for cash on that day. I had no communication with the Economic with reference to the transaction. Cheque for the balance—£5,049 11s. 2d—was handed to the Financial Bank on the same day—February 25. Between January and March, 1904, I have bought for the Financial Bank shares in the East Rand Gold Mines and in the Coronation Extension Syndicate, on which there is a balance of £3,000 owing to me for shares delivered in return for bills drawn on a foreign house, which have been dishonoured.
Cross-examined by Prisoner. I believed the Financial Bank to be solvent. If I had seen a certificate at Somerset House showing a bank had £300,000 of capital paid in cash I should have believed it.
STANLEY' HOWARD BERSEY . member of Orton, At tree, and Co., chartered accountants. In March, 1905, I audited the accounts of the Economic Bank. My firm was introduced by Mr. Hildred. Howlett prepared the draft balance-sheet. The item, "Cash on deposit, £64. 689," was originally, "By fixed deposit and money at call against security," in Howlett's writing. That implied that the bank held security for money which they had at call. I discussed the item with the three directors, prisoner, Hildred, and Lord Charles Pratt, at a board meeting. I pointed out that the securities they held were not quoted on the Stock Exchange and I could form no idea as to their value, viz., the General Forage, East Rand Gold Mines. Coronation Syndicate, and a Coal Syndicate. These securities had been produced to me, and I was informed they had been received from the Financial Bank. I raised the objection that if those words, "Against security," remained it would be necessary for me to report to the shareholders, because I could not value the securities, and could not say whether that item was really secured. I suggested that they should put it as in the balance-sheet of 1904, "Cash on deposit with the Financial and Commercial Bank." They said they objected to the name of the people they did their business with being shown on the balance-sheet. This was said in a general discussion, in which all the directors took part. It was stated to me that the shares, particularly the General
Forage, were valuable, and that that company was in a very good position, earning £200 a week profit. Prisoner made that statement. The directors agreed to the words "against security" coming out and the item being put as "Cash on deposit" alone, and it was finally put in that form on the balance-sheet. On die other side is "To amount due by bank on current deposit and secured cheque account, £85,709 7s. 7d." That all came into the same discussion. I wanted on both sides to insert the name of the Financial, and to put it as a special item, as it had been in the previous year. I passed that item on a certificate from the Financial and Commercial Bank as to the correctness of the amount, and seeing the amount shown in the books. I saw no cheques of the Financial in the possession of the Economic for thousands of pounds supposed to have been paid by the Financial to the Economic. There were no vouchers that I am aware of supposed to represent these deposits.
Cross-examined by Prisoner. I followed Turquand, Youngs, and Co. 's methods, and I think I was perfectly justified in doing so. Everything I asked to see was shown to Mr. The certificate of the Financial was sent to me direct. I discussed the balance-sheet with the board and not with you personally. I attended the shareholders' meeting on April 26, and did not raise any question; that would not be the place to do so. I inspected the bonds which were at the National Provincial Bank at the time of the suspension, and which are included in the investments in the balance-sheet. If the bank had sold those bonds it might have prevented them shutting up on Saturday—I do not know shout Monday. I should, trust the certificate of a bank in the absence of any reason to doubt it. I drew up statement of the affairs of the bank on May 29. 1505, which I believe was sent out to the shareholders with the notice of June 3.
Re-examined. Before I commenced my audit I knew nothing of the Financial and Commercial Bank. I only knew that it was a bank by seeing their name on the hooks of the Economic. No questions were asked of me at the shareholders' meeting. The securities said to be held by the bank had appreciated since March. 1904. That is not shown on the balance-sheet because it is unusual to show it every year. In March, 1904, they were taken at the market price of the day. There was a special valuation made then, which I believe has not been made every year.
CHARLES EDMUND HOWLETT , 18, Wiggenhall Road, Watford, secretary to a public company. I have known Grosvenor, an outside stockbroker, for a considerable number of years, and, through his introduction, I became secretary to the Economic about January 6, 1904, when I met the prisoner for the first time, together with Hildred and Roscoe. We discussed terms, and I agreed to set as secretary at a salary of £200 a year. I believe Grosvenor was present during part of the time when the board were considering my engagement. He did not tell me what his interest was in the bank, or what his influence was in appointing officers. I commenced my duties on
January 9. Prisoner was managing trustee, and took a leading part in conducting the business of the bank. The other trustees attended every week, prisoner being there every day, and invariably attending board meetings. The minute of January 7, when the board purport to be considering a letter of the 8th, is in my writing, and was written some time between the 7th, and the 13th. I believe it was dictated to me by prisoner. I was present at the meeting of January 13, when the minutes of January 7 were read and confirmed. At that time I knew nothing of the £4,800, and had never heard of the Financial Bank. From the time I was appointed the Economic advertised largely in newspapers, theatrical programmes, etc., and the fact that it had restricted powers of investment was always mentioned. Its source of income was the charge on current accounts of 5s. a quarter when balances were below £10, and the difference between interest received on investments and that allowed to depositors. We paid 3 per cent, on deposits over £50. While I was there additional income was obtained from interest on advances made on brokers' contract notes, to brokers and customers. Practically, we discounted the brokers' contract note, paying the money before settlement day on the Stock Exchange, and we advanced money to persons selling stock. Then there were the transactions with the Financial and Commercial Bank. First of all, we were to receive 5 per cent, on their application for 35,000 shares in the bank, payment being deferred for two years. On money deposited with the Financial we received 8 per cent. They paid both those rates of interest to the end of 1904, making default in March, 1905, when they owed £950 for interest. Loewy came to see prisoner, or prisoner went to see him; the offices were near together I knew that Lord Charles Pratt was a director of the Financial and also trustee of the Economic.
(Friday, February 1.)
Examination continued. I knew there was business going on between the Economic and the Financial. I wrote the minutes of January 7 recording an arrangement between the Economic and the Financial. This letter of January 8 is from the Financial Bank to the Economic, in which they acknowledge having received from the Economic Bank, Colonial Government securities to the amount of £4,800, and agreeing to pay 8 per cent, interest. They, at the same time, handed to the Economic transfers for 500 East Rand gold mining shares and 26,543 General Forage and Grain Drying Company shares. I knew that those securities, to the amount of £4,800, were handed over to the Financial Bank. I also knew of the letter from the Economic to the Financial. It is on their ordinary printed form. I do not know that the Financial at any time paid over to the Economic a cheque for £4,800, representing that amount of bonds. I believe the £4,800 was included in another amount, making up £10,800. I knew of two or three cheques of the Financial Bank being paid to the Economic which were never presented for payment,
out kept in the office of the Economic. I had no idea of cheques to anything like the amount of £70,000 of the Financial Bank being found in the office of the Economic when it was wound up. I learnt during the course of the inquiry that some cheques had been marked as though paid that had never been presented. When a larger amount was given in we ought to have returned the cheques for the smaller amounts. I suppose they were never asked for. So far as my memory serves me, the cheques for £10,800 would represent the total sum of unpresented cheques. This cheque for £507 drawn by the Financial on itself, payable to the Economic, is endorsed by Maasey and myself. The signature is scratched through as if it were paid. I should imagine it was presented (after inspection). No, it was not. I cannot explain its being endorsed and remaining in the office. It might have passed out of my hands. Speaking generally, I think either prisoner or I endorsed the cheques. This cheque, endorsed by me for £802 10s., March 30, 1904, has been presented, and returned marked "R. D."I do not remember this cheque of the Financial being dishonoured, but there were several. I did not see anything like a tenth of the cheques that came into the bank. My knowledge would be derived from the debit entries—not from the cheques, the fact of dishonour would come to my knowledge and the prisoner's in ordinary course. He would spend his time there daily as managing trustee. This cheque for £160, June 25, 1904, is endorsed by Mr. It has not been presented, apparently; also this one—£250. A further sum of £4,500 represents the balance of an uncompleted contract for £10,000. About February 24 the Financial took over a loan made by the National and, Provincial. We had a loan with that bank for £15,500, and had deposited £20,000 worth of securities. The Financial undertook to let us draw up to £20,000 on those securities, they taking over the loan from the National and Provincial Bank and paying off the loan, and they gave us a cheque on the day the transaction was completed for £15,500, and also a cheque dated the following day for £4,500 and that was never met. We had in cash £15,500, which we paid over to the National and Provincial Bank, and this cheque for £4,500—i. e., the Financial Bank took over the transaction, but gave us no money. We handed over the £20,000 worth of securities to the Financial and all we got was the cheque for £4,500, which was never presented. I think it was included in the other cheque for £10,800. There is an actual cheque for the amount, the balance due from the Financial Bank was £10,800, made up of £4,800, £1,500, and £4,500. On March 31, 1904, I went through the books for the purpose of preparing a balance-sheet, and my attention was called to the fact that we had not received this £10,800 from the Financial. I do not think I knew then that they had given a cheque for £10,800, the total balance. I sought instructions from Massey, and he told me that they had arranged for the £10,800 to go through our books as a deposit made by the Financial and we were to make a contra entry for a similar amount as a deposit with them, which I did so that
there was nothing to represent the £10,800. This ledger before me is the current account ledger, but this entry appears as "Deposit account" and represents moneys deposited by the Economic with the Financial—£10. 800, March 31, 1904. This is the deposit ledger (produced) and represents the amount of money that the Financial deposited with the Economic and customers' deposits generally. On March 31, 1904, 10,800 is shown as if deposited by the Financial with us. This letter of January 8 is a form of the Economic and was not received by the Financial till March 31—It is addressed to the secretary of the Financial. The last paragraph reads: "I have the pleasure, also, of enclosing you herewith contract for £4,800."That it dated March 31. 1904, and signed, "Samuel Gurney Massey, managing trustee." This is a receipt by the Financial and Commercial Bank: "Received from the Economic Bank the sum of £10,800 as deposit at one month's notice; we to pay you interest at the rate of 11 per cent, per annum, such interest to be payable quarterly on the usual quarter days," signed by the Financial and Commercial Bank and dated March 31. We got that receipt at the time. Some of the charges and receipts spoken of were found, I believe, by Mr. Fox in the prisoner's and my boxes when the things were taken over. The deposit receipts of the Financial would be in my box. Of course, I take Mr. Fox's word for that. Any found in my box must have passed through my hands. There was a sum of £6,000 due to us from Mr. Grosvenor taken over by the Financial—an outstanding balance on a stock and share transaction. Prisoner advised me that he had arranged that the stock and share account should be credited with £6,000 and debited to the Financial. I carried out his instructions, and should not think of dealing with £6,000 on my own responsibility. I entered it as a sum of money deposited by the Economic with the Financial, and in that way it got into the sum of £55,459 total in the balance-sheet. I became a director of the General Forage and Grain Drying Company early in 1905, I think, as nominee of the bank, with Massey, to protect its interests. At that time the Economic was holding shares of the company which had been handed over to it by the Financial as security. I had more than half the share capital. The share capital was £30,000 in ordinary shares, nominal. A debenture of the General Forage Company for £10,000 was to be surrendered to us by the Financial on our completing—the condition being that we deposited £2,000, and this £2,000 was split up into sufficient payments to retire certain bills of the Financial, and it was arranged that this debenture should be attached to the last bill that became due on presentation, so as to release the debenture. It was promised to us, but we never attached it. The Financial had already borrowed money of somebody else on the debenture, and our payments were to release it, and we were to have it, but never got it. That transaction was about August or September, 1904. We started taking up the bills about March or April, 1904. We made more than one attempt to get it; but the Financial paid the last bill themselves,
and got another loan upon it and collared the debenture again. That was brought to prisoner's notice. I suggested to him that a writ should be issued against the Financial, but he said he thought it was a matter for the board to decide. I do not know that it was formally brought before them, but the directors were cognisant of it. The matter was dropped. This letter of September 7, 1904, is from Loewy, the managing director of the Financial, to prisoner on the subject: "Please leave the matter concerning the debentures some days before taking them back. I have got to settle a further matter before taking back the debentures in question."(It is in the plural.) "You have done so many kindnesses to me that I feel sure you will give me the time for delivery. You did help me so, oftentimes in any such genuine matters, that I am convinced you—will do it in this case. I ask you, besides, as a special favour, not to talk about it to Howlett before all is put in order," etc. Prisoner showed me the letter directly it came. I know it refers to the debenture, as that is the only one we had any dealings with. We first knew of the Economic Bank difficulties in April, 1905. Before that date I protested against putting all our money in one basket, the Financial and Commercial; that was about October, 1904. I discussed it with prisoner, and we made applications for payment and we got further security—of a sort, viz., 35,000 further East Rand shares and 1,000 Amalgamated South Wales Colliery shares, or something of the sort (£1 shares). No steps were taken to get payment of any of the cheques we held, nor did we apply for the return of any of the securities we had deposited with them. Between the balance-sheet of 1904 and that of 1905 several thousand pounds worth of the securities of the bank had been sold to provide us with funds. I said that if we kept on selling our securities like that we should soon come down. Prisoner said there was no need for me to worry—that they had a Roumanian Oil Company scheme on, and also some negotiations with a Paris house for taking up a block of the shares of a gold-mining company, in which the Financial and Commercial Bank was interested. The securities were exhausted some four or five weeks before we closed. They had been sold to provide ready money, and we carried on business during the month with the amounts we received over the counter and through the post, trusting that the amounts we received from customers would be sufficient to meet the amounts withdrawn. The sale notes are with the office records. L. have a book here showing the sales (reading the items). This is a list of the shareholders present at the meeting of July 20, 1904. We did not send out a report with it. The auditors referred in their certificate to the fact that a special report had been given. The report was read at the meeting. There were 18 shareholders present, of whom about nine were independent of the two banks. Two or three of them were nominees of the Financial and Commercial Bank, into whose names those shares, when taken up, were put. The independent shareholders were represented by Mr. N. Hume, who had nothing to do with either of the companies. The rest were persons like Grosvenor and the directors.
Cross-examined by Prisoner. I had banking experience besides that of the Economic. The books were, in my opinion, correctly kept. I made the entries relating to the £10,800 by your direction. I should not have made them had I believed they were false. You were only on business terms with Mr. Loewv, I believe. I did not know of cheques to the amount of £70,000 being in a box or boxes at the bank. The box was kept by me and I had the key. There was also a box at Winchester House. When you debited the £6,000 to the Financial and Commercial Bank we did not have any security. We got security from Grosvenor for the £6,000 he owed. The securities were then passed on to the Financial and Commercial Bank. Grosvenor's £6. 000 was on the security of gold mining shares. I was present at the meeting of January 7 when you were elected. I wrote up the minutes. There was an agenda at the board meeting. I think you dictated the minutes to me from the agenda. You have at various times stated to Mr. Webster, the clerk to Turquand, Young, and Co., the auditors, and to me that you handed over the bonds for the £4,800 to the Financial before you were elected trustee. (A list of cheques drawn by the Financial in favour of the Economic and found in the possession of the Economic was handed in.) I think there was a cheque for £35,000 drawn on the Financial in payment of our shares and in the possession of the Economic Bank at the time of the suspension. It should have been in the possession of the Financial. A cheque should have been drawn in exchange, I believe. I was not present when they were exchanged. The £4,500 cheque is included in the £10,800 cheque. The entries made during my absence on holiday were correct, I believe. The East Rand and other shares which we held as collateral security were entered in a special book, which was in existence when the bank closed. I think anybody could have understood the books. I do not consider the bank was solvent when you joined. I should not consider it was right to continue using the customers' money for nine months to pay expenses. When I joined I found the monthly balances were behind. In June, 1904. I took various accounts out of the ledger and put them into the private ledger, as I did not consider they were in their right place. There was no necessity for the whole staff to know the inner working of the bank's private affairs. It was done on the suggestion of the auditors. I think you had a good deal of work to do in looking after 3,500 customers, and I did not think your remuneration excessive. You told me in January, 1904, that if further capital were not taken up you would close the bank. You altered the advertisements when you joined from "All the funds of the bank are invested in trustees', Colonial, and Government securities" to "Funds of the bank," because cash in the till was "funds of the bank," but could not, of course, be invested in trustees' securities. I went to the bank by the introduction of Mr. Grosvenor. I did not know the Financial and Commercial Bank before January 7, 1904. I do not know that the £35,000 worth of shares ever got into the hands of the Financial. They were allotted, but I do not think they ever touched the certificates. There
was a margin on the securities. The £4,800 securities were handed over en bloc. For instance, when they owed £5,000 deposit, say, perhaps £5,500 worth of securities would be handed over to the Financial. The £500 would be cover as against depreciation. Part of it was cover and part through their not having fulfilled contracts they had entered into. In many instances we got cash from them, which can be traced in the books. Grosvenor, at the time of your joining the bank, had control by reason of his shareholding. The nominees of the Financial, after those shares had been allotted to them had control of the bank. We consulted together as to the best means of preventing the Financial having the control of the Economic. It was arranged with the Financial. We had stamped agreements when they gave us money, and we handed them securities, which remained in existence until the bank closed. They had no power to sell the securities unless we were in default. We explained the various transactions to Messrs. Turquand, Young, and Co. 's clerk and to Messrs. Slaughter and May, and they accepted the explanation and treated the transactions as deposits and not a loan, and they are so entered in the balance-sheet. February 29, 1904, is the last date of deposit of bonds. They formed part and parcel of the securities taken in from the National and Provincial Bank on the £20,000 deal. We deposited £2,550 with the Financial after June 30, 1904—that included taking up our bills, the last date of which was September 15. We wanted to get hold of the £10,000 debenture. I thought the "General Forage and Grain Drying Company a good thing if properly managed. I joined the board with you to look after the interests of the bank. They did not pay any dividend. The debentures of the company were valued at £10,000 or more. There was great difficulty in completing the contracts for delivery of grain required by the Brighton brewers. I saw a valuation of the machinery and plant, including the buildings, I believe. I cannot give You the figure. I remember you receiving a letter from Loewy concerning this that you were not to show me. We went to see him, and you reported the letter to the trustees, and also the non-delivery of the debenture. I have a contract note for the deposit of the debenture. Loewy under-took to deliver either the debenture or £2. 000 in each. The debenture was the property of the Economic; I consider the Financial has no title to it I' refused to take any other counsel's opinion than that of Mr. Rufus Isaacs. The stock and share transactions were then stopped. The Financial then took Grosvenor's balance of £6,000 off our hands on February 23. We were trying to get brokers to sell the Economic shares just prior to suspension. The Financial brought out the Dominion Oil Company. Some portion of the capital was underwritten. The company was registered, and they attempted to float it I should say 80 per cent, of the cheques drawn on our bank were under £5, and I should think quite 1,000 of our customers kept a balance below £50. We attributed the reason for so many of our customers closing their accounts to adverse statements being, made by one of the large banks.
Re-examined. I understood the Financial was bringing out some large company, and that the shares were being underwritten, but I do not know by whom. Grosvenor's current account at the Economic was still open when the bank closed, and he was a large shareholder. He had a deposit account part of the time. It was in his capacity as a shareholder that he requested prisoner to go away. I think it was because prisoner expressed his fears as to the result that was coming, and Grosvenor thought, "If you are frightened you had better go away, and we will get somebody to take your place." That was about a month or six weeks before the bank closed. I do not think it was before the balance-sheet for 1905 was issued. I do not know the date the report was issued. Of course, it was very close to the end. The meeting of shareholders at which the report was presented was April 26. when prisoner made a speech, in which he said the bank had taken a turn and was now making a profit. A conversation took place between Grosvenor and the prisoner in the manager's room, somewhere about that time. I anticipated what the result would be if they kept selling their securities. About three weeks or a month before we closed we went to our solicitor and asked him if we should close then, or whether we were justified in going on. I cannot give you the date of the first revelations. I had been apprehensive before that conversation as to what would happen unless the Financial pulled themselves round and were able to pay our deposits. Prisoner and I had talked about it the preceding November. The Financial tried to float the Oil Company at the end of December or beginning of January, 1905. I heard prisoner say at the meeting of April 26: "Since March 31 the bank is going on very satisfactorily, and I hope at the next meeting we shall be able to show still better figures than now." We had no customer with whom we had what I call a deposit account except the Financial, and that we treated in the same way, merely handing over bonds and securities to them. I thought at the time the arrangement was entered into it was for the benefit of the bank, on the assumption that the Financial was going to pay for the shares, and that the Economic should retain their own shares and security for the advances made to the Financial. The shares were transferred into the joint names of myself and prisoner. That was December 19, 1904, 32,500 shares—3,007 were in the name of the Financial. The accounts I transferred from the general ledger to the private included our deposit account with the Financial. I could not think of entering our deposit account as a loan. I was given to understand that the £4,800 was going to be paid the same as the other balances, making up a total of £10. 800. I think that was a correct entry seeing that it was passed by the auditors. It was done as a contra.
(Monday, February 4.)
the Economic Bank was placed in my hands, and the statement of affairs of the directors was submitted to me in pursuance of the winding-up order of June 17, 1905, the statement being signed by prisoner and Hildred, and showing the total deficiency to contribu-tor's and creditors at £82,178 10s. 5d., made up of deficiency to shareholders or contributories £49,973; creditors, £32,205. There were 1,912 depositors; certain fully-secured creditors, the surplus and value of whose securities, £1,122, accrued to the bank; cash in hand, furniture, etc., £814 15s. 5d.; good book debts, £225; doubtful and bad book debts, £75,019 19s. 3d., which are estimated at £12,714, nearly the whole of the £75,019 being due from the Financial Bank. On the estimate of the directors, the assets amount to £14,884, distributable among the creditors, leaving a deficiency of £32,205 to creditors, besides £49,972 supposed to represent shareholders' capital. The guarantors have also lost £2,400, which was repayable if the bank made profits. Up to the end of 1903 I have found no irregularity, the investments being all on the trustee security basis. As far as my investigation went there had been no overdrafts allowed, bills discounted, or the ordinary commercial risks. At the winding-up prisoner held 320 ordinary shares and 45 managers' shares; and in conjunction with Howlett 32,500 ordinary shares. The Financial Bank held 3,007 shares; Grosvenor and Co. and F. G. Grosvenor held together 1,105 shares. In the year to March 31, 1904, the bank spent £426 in advertisements, and in the year to March 31, 1905, £1,265. On December 31, 1903, the trustee securities of the bank amounted to £79,152; amount received from shares issued £11,950, plus £662 calls paid in advance; the liabilities being £83,723. The business was increasing, but no profits had been made; there were accumulated losses up to March 31, 1903, of £9,774. In the statement of affairs of the Financial Bank the Economic is returned as a creditor for £76,816. In the depositors' security book of the Economic the first entry of the Financial is January 19, 1904, £3,500 in cash, in respect of which £3,800 of bonds are handed over. On January 25 £1,000 is deposited and £1,200 bonds handed; January 27 £3,500 paid by and £4,000 securities handed to the Financial. On January 29 the Economic received back £2,500 from the Financial, and at the same time gave the Financial further bonds for £2,000. After that the transactions are not properly shown by the book. On February 3 there is a minute that two cheques for £2,500 and £2,900 have been withheld from presentation at the request of the Financial. The cheques were honoured on February 7. On February 19 the Financial gave to the Economic two cheques of £1,000 and £1,500, which I find endorsed by prisoner; that for £1,000 was paid and that for £1,500 remained in the possession of the Economic and has not been paid. Prisoner gave a memorandum of deposit of £2,500 and handed out bonds £2,500. On February 25 the National Provincial Bank held. £20,000 bonds from the Economic to secure a debt of £15,500. On February 24, by a minute, prisoner was authorised to deposit £20,000 lodged at the National Provincial as security for a
loan of £15,500 with the Financial against their deposit of a like amount. The Financial then received the £20 000 bonds, paid £15,500 to the National Provincial, and handed a cheque, dated March 10., which has never been even endorsed, to the Economic for £4,500. A letter of May 14 from Weikert certifies that the Economic are entitled to interest at 8 per cent, on £1,500 from February 19. and £4,500 from February 25, and £4,800 (date not given), making a sum of £10,800, which appears in the balance-sheet of March 31, 1905, and for which a cheque drawn by the Financial on itself in favour of the Economic, endorsed by prisoner, and with the signature scored through, was found among the papers of the Economic. In this cheque for £10,800 the Economic are, apparently, on paper getting the £4,500 over again. With regard to the £4. 800 on January 7 or 8, the Economic handed to the Financial £4. 800 of bonds, for which the Financial sent transfers for 500 East Rand and 2,600 General Forage shares as security there for, interest to be paid at 8 per cent. This is referred to in the minute of January 7 confirming the letter of January 8. There is no entry in the books about it until March 31, 1904, nor is the £4,800 bonds in the depositors' security book. The actual securities are entered on February 11. The £4,800 transaction was simply a loan of bonds by the Economic, which they did not get back, and the letter contemplates, not the return of the bonds, but the repayment in cash or similar bonds. What the Economic got was the East Rand and General Forage shares and 8 per cent, interest. Then, on January 19, the Financial repaid that loan to the extent of £3,500 and got a further amount of bonds as a fresh loan, all the transactions being governed by the letter from the Financial of January 8 and a series of deposit receipts being given, which are mere bogey and do not represent the transaction at all. Whenever the Financial repaid any money it was treated as if they were making a fresh deposit, in respect of which they had fresh securities handed over with a consider, able margin over. The net result is that the Economic had parted with bonds of £10,400 more than the Financial had given them money. In the balance-sheet of March 31. 1904, the item, "By deposit with Financial and Commercial Bank, Limited, £55. 459." is made up of four amounts: The £10,800 explained above; £36,859, price of shares the Financial are supposed to have taken up; £6,000, a debt due from Grosvenor to the Economic, which was taken over by the Financial; and two sums of £1,000 and £800, advanced by the Economic to the Financial in cash. With regard to the shares, on February 3, 1904, a cheque for £35,000 is drawn by the Economic in favour of the Financial, and handed to them but not paid. On February 10 a further 507 shires were allotted to the Financial and a cheque drawn by them, handed to the Economic, but not paid. It is endorsed by prisoner and Howlett and the signature scored through. At a later date 1,352 shares are allotted to Lord Charles Pratt on the application of the Financial. Entries show that that matter is treated in the same way, but no cheques have been found. These three items make up the amount of the £36,859 which is included in the amount of capital
issued on the debit side of the balance-sheet. The £6,000 is represented by a cheque of the Financial, endorsed, the signature scored over, and stamped "Paid," but the money never was received by the Economic. Coming to the balance-sheet of March 31, 1905, "Deposit with the Financial Bank" is altered to "Cash on deposit," and the amount is increased by £9,230 to £64,669. The £9,230 consists of four items—£4,520, £2,950, £760, and £1,000, which are represented by a number of cheques of the Financial, dishonoured or not presented, found among the papers of the Economic. The investments which are set out include the very bonds which have been deposited with the Financial and which have never been returned, excepting £2,000 Five per Cent. Great Western Stock, which was sold for £2,910 on June 30, 1904, and the money handed to the Financial, as appears by the books. On the liability side, the shares are put as being fully paid, including those allotted to the Financial. "Amount due by current deposit and secured cheque account, £85,709 7s. 7d.," is all lumped into one instead of, as in the previous yean appearing in two amounts, and the name of the Financial Bank has disappeared.
Cross-examined by Prisoner. I found the cheques by the Financial Bank on themselves in one of the boxes. The Official Receiver was put in as Provisional Liquidator and I went through these boxes with a view of finding the securities. Q. Did you find in examining the affairs of the bank sufficient reason to draw an information against any other person? A. I can scarcely answer that. (The Common Serjeant: It is nothing to do with this case what this gentleman thought of other people's conduct.) I have not said I have found any irregularities with regard to Grosvenor. The balance-sheet shows whether the bank was solvent in 1902. The question of solvency depends on what the investments realise. On March 31, 1904, the balance-sheet shows they are £3,870 to the bad. I know from the books that Field sold his shares to Grosvenor. I have stated that I had nothing to complain of prior to January, 1904. I do not remember any shares standing in the name of the bank except the investments appearing in the balance-sheet. The investment record book is registered in the Official Receiver's office as having been received, and it is now missing. I should not think it is the most important book. I think it has been lost in our office since August, 1905. According to the minutes on December 15, 1903, field was present as chairman, and proposed the election of Hildred. I do not know whether Massey-Mainwaring sold his shares to Grosvenor. He transferred them, but this book does not state to whom. I cannot say whether Grosvenor held the majority of the shares.
(Tuesday, February 5.)
Cross-examination continued. On January 7, 1904, the Economic owed to the National Provincial Bank and Williams Deacon's Bank £20,000. On March 23, 1904, the Economic board, acting on the
advice of Mr. Rufus Isaacs, resolved to discontinue the stock and share business. The Financial Bank was a properly constituted and registered company. It issued cheques to its customers. On January 7, 1904, you were appointed managing trustee of the Economic at a salary of £200 for the first year, with interest on profits; on January 20 that was altered, and you were to get half of the amounts received from customers by way of commission on current accounts. Between January 19 and February 25, 1904, the Economic received in cash from the Financial considerable sums, perhaps £28,000. On March 2, 1904, the board resolved, on your advice, as there was a larger balance than you thought necessary, to purchase £2,000 of Consoles; these were bought at 85 15-32, and were sold on March 23 at 86 518 ex-div. In the balance-sheet for 1904 the cash balance is correctly stated, also the depreciation. A number of bonds had been lodged with other banks besides the Financial. Turquand Youngs and Co., the auditors, stated that nothing had been concoaled from them. I have found in the books no evidence that you personally received a penny you were not entitled to. I do not think that any of the deposits by the Financial with the Economic were real, in the sense of cash passing; they were payments off previous loans.
GEORGE PEARSON , of Messrs. Schultz, Comins, and Co., accountants. Mr. Comins is liquidator of the Economic. I produce a list of the shares deposited with the Economic as securities by the Financial; none of them have been realised or are realisable. The whole assets of the Economic have realised, to date, £1,055 17s. 8d., apart from £500 worth of good Colonial securities. The claims of unsecured creditors amount to £46,874.
GEORGE WALTER HUTCHESON , Examiner in the Companies Winding up Department, said he had had charge of the liquidation of the Financial; the winding-up order was made on June 6, 1905. A statement was issued by the department showing the condition of the company. (His lordship excluded evidence of general facts.)
ALBERT ROTHERY , accountant, examined by Prisoner. I was a perfect stranger to you until I saw you in connection with the liquidation of this bank; I was in the office of Mr. Comins, the special manager and liquidator. When I took charge of the bank as his representative everything appeared to be in its proper place; there was no concealment. I have here a list of the boobs handed to the liquidator by the Official Receiver. One book is called "Investment Record Book, No. 2"; that was an oblong book, about an inch thick; it contained entries of purchases and sales of all securities held by the bank; I consider that would be an important book to keep. I was also handed a great mass of correspondence, extending over some years; also inward and outward letter-books. There were three deed
boxes at the bank, and one at the Winchester House Safe Deposit. The latter contained only the securities and documents that had been deposited by customers with the bank for safe custody. Two of the boxes at the bank contained nothing; the box in your room contained a number of papers, and cheques drawn by the Financial Bank; there was no cheque for £35,000.
ARTHUR H. J. WALKER . I was cashier at the Economic from the beginning of 1904 to the failure, and had the keys of the safes. I never saw a cheque for £35,000 or knew of its existence. In the A. cashbook, under date February 4, there is an entry, "Capital account, Financial, £55,000," and on the other side the cross entry, "Deposit account, £35,000."In the waste book for that date there is a credit entry of £35,000; it appears to have gone through Williams Deacon's, but it might have been presented specially. Mr. Grosvenor came to the bank in 1905 about three times.
WILLIAM HENRY FOX , of Fox, Sessions and Co., chartered accountants, Austin Friars, gave similar evidence. He had himself lost £1,100 in the Economic, but he absolutely believed in prisoner's integrity.
SAMUEL GURNEY MASSEY (prisoner, on oath) repeated tine statement he had made (also on oath) before the magistrate. The fallowing are the material portions of the statement: I have been, connected with banking in the City of London since 1868. I was the first manager of the Economic Bank when it was formed in 1893, and continued managing trustee to the end, subject to a break of about two years, in 1902 and 1903, owing to illness. In the autumn of 1903 I received a communication from Mr. Groevenor, a stockbroker, of Walbrook, and called and saw him with reference to the same. He wished to know if I were prepared to sell my Economic shares at a discount, as he was willing to purchase any shares of the company. He subsequently told me that he bad by purchase of shares acquired the control of the Economic Bank. He asked me if I would consent to be manager. I told him I must decline unless further capital was taken" up, and this he thought could be arranged. I saw Mr. Roscoe, a customer of the Economic Bank, who was a holder of over 1,100 shares, and introduced him to Grosvenor. Roscoe mentioned the name of the Financial a«d Commercial Bank, Limited, and told me that it was a strong institution and had £300,000 paid-up cash capital. Roscoe's firm were good customers of ours, and frequently had £3,000 or £6,000 on deposit with the Economic Bank. I made inquiries as to the position of the Financial and Commercial Bank. The directors were Lord Charles Pratt, who I was informed was a per fectly respectable man, and Count von Moltzen, a well-to-do man residing
in England, and Mr. Scholefield, the other director, had been a customer of the Economic for some years, and was a thoroughly respectable man. The file at Somerset House of the Financial and Commercial Dank confirmed Roscoe's statement that the cash capital was £300,000 paid-up. The Clerk in the Official Receivers Department stated that £285,000 was paid away as purchase price. I have not particulars of what was included in this purchase, but there was no reason in my mind to doubt the return at Somerset House, by which it appeared that the whole £300,000 was cash capital, and, from my own personal observation, they were doing a very large business with the Continent. Grosvenor was in constant communication with the trustees of the bank in 1903. Messrs. Massey-Mainwaring and Lowndes, two of the then trustees of the Economic Bank, sold their £1 shares to Grosvenor for 10s. a piece. Mr. Field, another trustee, I believe, sold his shares for 7s. 6d. each. These trustees had carried in the business of the bank for nine months, during which time it was insolvent, and the financial position was not set right until I rejoined the bank in January, 1904, shortly after which date the further £35,000 capital was taken up. On January 6, 1904, just before I rejoined the bank, I went at Grosvenor's request to the Economic Bank in the afternoon. I saw Mr. Hildred, one of the trustees, and Mr. Grosvenor there. Hildred was checking all the securities belonging to the bank and to the customers with the secretary. He handed me £4,800 Colonial bonds and asked me to take them to the Financial and Commercial Bank. I requested one of the clerks to make out one of the lithographed deposit forms and took this over with the bonds to the Financial and Commercial, expecting to receive a cheque. When I got there I was informed that these bonds were to be lodged with them according to some prior arrangement. The next day Roscoe and myself were elected trustees of the bank, and I immediately reported the matter about taking the bonds over to the Financial, and Roscoe and myself then went and saw Mr. Loewy, which was the first time I ever saw him, and he told us that the bonds had been handed to him under an arrangement made previously. "We insisted upon having security for these bonds, and received 500 East Rand Gold Mine shares and 26,000 Grain Drying shares. Grosvenor at this time had control of the Economic by reason of his large shareholding, and, under one of the clauses in the memorandum of association, he suggested to the 'Board that we could undertake stock and share business. This went on for a short time, but I was not at all satisfied that we were acting in accordance with our constitution, so I insisted upon the opinion of Mr. Rufus Isaacs, K. C being taken, as I believed him to be the leading legal authority on financial matters. On receipt of Mr. Rufus Isaacs's opinion, the board immediately declined to continue these transactions, and applied to Grosvenor to settle up outstanding transactions. Grosvenor made some arrangement with the Financial and Commercial Bank by which they were to take the shares and accept the liability, giving security. Grosvenor then threatened to have me removed from my position, and
drew out a paper for the trustees to sign to the effect that I should take all my instructions for the management of the Economic Bank from him, but Lord Charles Pratt refused to sign this, and the proposal of course fell through. With reference to the arrangement made with the Financial and Commercial Bank that they should apply for 35,000 of our shares and place the money with us for two years at 5 per cent., this was entered into in perfect good faith by the board. Cheques were exchanged and were dealt with in the ordinary way in the bank's cash book. It is absurd to suggest that this was not a cash transaction, because a very small proportion of the transactions of a bank are for actual cash, and in fact over £200,000 is dealt with every week through the Bankers' Clearing House without any actual cash passing. With reference to the various, bonds we deposited with the Financial, each was a separate transaction, and the bonds were banded to them with a stamped lithographed form of agreement in the same manner as with regard to the other secured depositors. All the shares we held as security for the Financial were in the names off Mr. Hewlett and myself; neither of us were nominees of the Financial. With reference to the values of the securities we took from the Financial, two of the witnesses have proved that the East Rand Gold Mine shares and the Coronation Extension Syndicate were saleable at the quoted prices in March, 1904, by which our deposit account was fully protected. The properties over which the East Rand held options were selected by Mr. Blocloch, a leading expert in these matters, and I was informed by some of our customers that the properties were some of the best in South Africa. With reference to the Grain Drying Company, Hildred and myself went to Burton and found that a net profit of £150 per week would be made if it was properly worked; this would work out at over 10 per cent, interest on the £60,000 capital. With reference to the £10,000 debentures of this company which we did not obtain, I believed and believe that they are the property of the Economic, as we were entitled to them, having deposited the money, and the Financial could not give a better title to others than they themselves possessed. I wrote to the Official Receiver after the suspension of the Economic, in the interest of the creditors, and refused to sign the transfer of the Grain Drying shares until ordered by him, as I considered these assets were being sacrificed. To prevent the Financial having control of the Economic, owing to their nominees being registered in our books as holders of our shares, I had all the shares transferred into the names of Howlett and myself in trust. With reference to the witnesses, Mr. Tainter suggested that Hildred and myself showed him a draft balance-sheet in 1905 on purpose to induce him to accept £150 in cash for his furniture and fittings at the Margaret Street branch. As a matter of fact, no such balance-sheet had been then made out, and it could not have been shown to him. He was not a creditor of the bank. Mr. Tainter's furniture, for which he received £100, was realised for less than £30, so that he was no loser. Mr. Wynkoop stated that he never noticed the particulars on
our form for opening accounts, or in the diary. Mr. Wright, in his evidence, stated first that he had written for the withdrawal of his money previous to seeing the notice of the suspension, but in Cross-examination stated that he sent the letter afterwards. Mr. Pixley, who opened an account for his daughter, had been a, customer of our bank for some years, and I believe was certainly more influenced by his previous connection than by any statement he saw in the form. He is a member of one of the largest firms of chartered accountants, is a past-president of the Institute, and a creditor for £14. Not one person has come forward to say that he was induced to open an account owing to having seen our balance-sheet, neither were my shares sold to any person under them. With reference to the auditors evidence, both Messrs. Webster and Clarke, of Turquand, Young, and Co., admitted that I had never seen the altered certificates sent by the Financial Bank, and they both stated that they had never before known of an untrue certificate being sent by an official bank. They also stated that they would have trusted a certified return at Somerset House, and did not know that a deposit was a loan. The balance-sheet for 1904 was signed by the trustees after the auditors had returned it duly certified. Mr. Clarke went with Mr. Howlett and myself to see Mr. Slaughter, their solicitor, and the whole of the transaction, including the £10,600, was explained, and they signed the balance sheet after our interview with him. In their special report they do not in any way raise the question of loans, but describe it as a deposit. Mr. Bersey, the auditor, in 1905, signed the balance-sheet after an interview with the board, not with me personally, and he has stated in his evidence that he was satisfied with the explanation he had received. He attended shareholders' meeting, at which the balance-sheet was passed, and did not raise any question to the shareholders. With reference to the entry of £10,800 on March 31, 1904, it was made up in this manner: Bonds amounting to £4,800, for which we had never received cash, as before explained, were delivered to the Financial on January 6, 1904, under arrangements made prior to my joining the board, to which I was not a party, and for which I cannot take responsibility, the further sum of £4,500 making up the balance of £20,000 At this time there was a loan owing to the National Provincial Bank for £15,500, against £20,000 of bonds, on which we were paying 4 per cent. The Financial undertook to pay off this National Provincial loan and accept bonds as a secured deposit at 3 per cent. They gave us a cheque for the balance—£4,500—which they requested us to hold over. There were also some cheques amounting to £1,500, which were held over, under the authority of the board, shown by minute. The entry of the £4,800 should have been made on January 6, 1904, before I rejoined the bank, but this was not done. So. on March 31. I instructed Howlett to make the entries as deposit, with a contract note made out, and received a cheque from the Financial for £10. 500, which I was informed would be met in a few days. I had not the slightest intention or desire to lend the Financial £4. 500 bends, neither did I know at the time that this was
a loan. I should be glad to know why the prosecution was so much delayed, as the Economic suspended payment on May 27, 1905, and I was not arrested until August 9, 1906. This delay has very much prejudiced me, as it has made it very difficult for me and other people to remember transactions which took place over two years ago. In the order for the public examination, it was stated that I parted with, valuable securities and took in exchange securities which I well knew to be worthless. As the witnesses from the Stock Exchange proved that they were of saleable value, a mistake must have been made in drawing the information. As a fact, there was no exchange, as we received the East Rand and Drying shares after the bonds had been parted with on January 6, 1904. I know I was not popular with many of the banks, as I was responsible for a great reform in banking by opening accounts for small amounts and by making a speciality for small cheques. Prior to 1893 it was a very rare thing, to see cheques drawn under a sovereign; in fact, if a customer was in the habit of drawing small cheques he usually received a notice from his bank asking him to pay small amounts in cash; but other banks have been obliged to follow our practice, and I believe 40 per cent, of drawn cheques are now under £2, which necessitates a great deal more work for the banks, but no more profits. With reference to our system of secured cheques, we carried this out faithfully, and at the time of suspension left bonds with the National Provincial Bank to meet all secured cheques of a few hundred pounds and it was not our fault they were not paid; but this is a matter for the Bankers' Association, as, if the contention is good, every bank is now acting illegally by marking cheques. There is no doubt this system was and would have been found very convenient, as any person travelling in either England or the Continent or in America had only to take his cheque and he then could obtain money at any place where he was stopping. In the evidence of Mr. Fox, he read minute of February 11, 1902, with reference to my being removed from my position as managing trustee. This very much reflects on me, as it refers to "the present condition of the management of the bank." The (bank at that time was absolutely solvent, but in March, 1903, it was insolvent to the extent of £2,764, and on January 1, 1904, to the extent of £5,041, as shown by the books and returns. The bank became again solvent in January, 1904, when I rejoined it, and the fresh capital was obtained. In a letter I received from Mr. Field, the chairman of the Economic Bank, on February 20, 1902, he states: "While circumstances have caused a change in your title from managing trustee to trustee, we shall be glad to have your name and interest associated with the bank and to see it-made-a permanent and useful institution." I was connected with the bank from 1893 to 1902; during my absence through illness another man was appointed in my place in 1902, and I brought an action against the bank, which I won and recovered a sum of £200, which the trustees previously had refused to pay. In 1896 I had the honour of being asked by the Minister of Finance of one of the great European Powers to go to
his country and reorganise their system of banking. I only wish I had accepted the offer. I also had the thanks of the authorities voted to me for the assistance I gave to the police in securing the conviction of the members of the Jubilee Seats Syndicate in connection with the case at the Mansion House. I mention these matters in order to show what was my position, in the City at the time. In answer to the charge brought against me (1) in issuing false balancesheets, as I stated before, they were only issued after they had been certified by one of the leading firms of accountants and after legal opinion had been taken on the matter. Everything was clearly explained to the auditors, and there was no concealment whatever. With reference to the other part of the charge, that I circulated advertisements and notices containing particulars, well knowing them to be false, I did not know that they were false in any particular. When I rejoined the bank in 1904 all the advertisements were carefully considered and in some respects altered. We would not open current accounts with people unless they could give a satisfactory reference, and I have frequently closed accounts where a considerable balance was kept if I believed the people were not thoroughly respectable. Our transactions with the Financial are described as loans, as according to decisions of Lord Chancellor Cottenham, Lord Brougham, Vice-Chancellor Wood, and Lindley L. J., as given on several occasions, both current and deposit accounts are legally loans. In banking custom they are not treated as such. If they were, a person depositing money with various banks continuously for the purpose of receiving interest might have to be registered as a money-lender. As I did not know that these transactions were loans, I cannot admit that the advertisements, in which we stated that no loans were made, were, to my knowledge, untrue. It was proved that no bills were discounted or overdrafts allowed. Over 80 per cent, of our moneys were invested in Trustee and Colonial Government securities. There has been no assertion that I, in any way, personally benefited by these transactions. I admit that I made a very great mistake in trusting to a certified return at Somerset House, if, as the Official Receiver's clerk contends, £285,000 of the £300. 000 cash capital was paid away without proper consideration. I was, however, not the only person deceived, as the witness Preston, a stockbroker also believed the Financial to be a sound institution and actually took bills to the amount of £3,000 As to the real cause of our suspension. In January, 1904, we had securities at a cost price of £79,152; we lodged with the Financial and Commercial Bank £40,401, leaving £38, 751 in our possession. Most of these securities were lodged with other secured depositors or subsequently realised to meet withdrawals. We lodged no security after February, 1904, with the Financial, and our transactions with them virtuallv ceased by October 1, 1904. and we did not suspend payment until May 27, 1905. We had 2,769 accounts on October 1. 1904, and when the bank closed only 1,912—that was a loss in eight months of 857 accounts, or very nearly one-third. Several of our customers had informed us
that the London Joint Stock Bank were advising their customers not to accept cheques drawn on our bank, and Howlett, in February, 1905, received a letter from an official of an important company in the City to go and see him. Howlett went, and when he returned to the office he informed me that the bankers of this company, who were the London Joint Stock Bank, had advised this official not to accept cheques drawn on the Economic, and that in their building six or eight people had accounts with us and that in consequence he would have to advise them to close their accounts. We went and taw Mr. Nairne, of Baker and Nairne, our solicitors, on February 16, 1905 (three months before the bank's suspension), and a record of this interview I saw in Mr. Nairne's books on November 28, 1906. Mr. Bodkin cast doubt as to whether this interview had ever taken place. I fail to see the reason of the animosity of the London Joint Stock Bank against us, as we were so small a bank we could hardly be a rival, unless it was that we were moving into an office opposite their Broad Street branch, or that the Economic Bank was interfering with their business locality. The London Joint Stock Bank is, as is well known, a very large institution; they have current and deposit accounts amounting to 18 millions and their paid-up capital is £1,800,000. Their directors are most eminent men. I know one of them personally, and I do no; believe for one moment they knew of this action en the part of their manager. As moat of our customers were people of small means, our suspension caused a great deal of misery, and the managers of the Landon Joint Stock Bank have placed their directors in this position, that they must either endorse the action of their managers or, as men of honour, pay our creditors in full. If they ware to open accounts for our 1,900 customers and credit them with their balances it would be a very small thing for such a large bank, as the total amount of our net indebtedness was only £47,000. I will leave this matter in the hands of the directors, the Earl of Denbigh, Lord Milner, Mr. Goschen, and Mr. Rodocanachi. On Thursday, May 23, 1905, two days before the suspension, I refused to entertain the Guiness Mahon proposition, although it might have temporarily saved the position, as I considered it would have involved the bank in a big liability without proper consideration. When the liquidators took possessor after the suspension every paper and document was in its proper place, nothing was concealed or removed. No. books were missing. One has since been mislaid—the investment record books, but that was in the office at the time of the suspension and has been in the hands of the Official Receiver. The first question I asked Mr. Fox in the Official Receiver's Department was why I was the only one charged. When I joined the bank the arrangements with reference to the Financial and Commercial Bank and Mr. Grosvenor had already been made, and I did my utmost in every way to get the bank out of the control of these people. I would call special attention to the fact that
out of 1,900 creditors, only four, and these for quite unimportant amounts, have been produced for the prosecution, notwithstanding that some hundreds of letters were sent out from the Official Receiver's Department to assist them. I have personally lost £3,500 by the failure of the Economic, which was practically all I possessed, and I have recently lost an important appointment entirely owing to this prosecution, which I contend should never have been instituted.
(Wednesday, February 6.)
Cross-examined. I left the position of managing trustee in March, 1902; in August of that year I became connected with the London and Suburban Bank; that was a real bank; not like the Economic or the Financial, but a bank receiving small accounts. That bank advertised that investments were made in Trustee and Colonial Government securities; it was closed in November, 1902. After its liquidation I was prosecuted, with a Mr. Harding, for issuing false statements in the circulars or advertisements of the bank; the charge was dismissed, but the jury said, "That they thought the defendants merited the strongest censure for issuing the circular," and the Recorder endorsed that statement. That was in July, 1903. Between August, 1902, and January, 1903, I was issuing circulars to shareholders in the Economic, with a view to buying up shares and getting control into the hands of certain, people, on the understanding that I was to be put back into the position of manager. That scheme failed. At the end of 1903 I got into communication with Grosvenor; I knew he was an outside stockbroker, and that he wished to get control of the bank for some purposes of his own. The idea was that if he obtained control I should go back to the bank, but I refused to go unless further capital was obtained. I knew that the trustees had refused to register shares in the names of Grosvenor's nominees. I did for a short time agree to assist Grosvenor in using the funds of the bank for Stock Exchange speculations; I believed that under one of the clauses of the memorandum that could be done; later I took the opinion of counsel, and that dealing with Grosvenor was stopped; that was in March, 1904; Grosvenor had then become indebted for about £6. 000. I first attended a trustee meeting on January 6; the securities were then handed over to Hildred. Grosvenor, although only a shareholder,. was present when they were handed over; I suppose he was there at Hildred's invitation. The £4,800 worth of securities were handed to me by Hildred; he told me to take them over to the Financial; I do not recollect what he said exactly, but I understood they were to be a secured deposit with the Financial. I took my instructions from him as trustee and chairman of the bank. I may have said in my public examination, "These bonds were handed over to me, so far as my recollection serves me, the day I joined the bank in the morning by somebody, I cannot swear who, to take them to
the Financial Bank." I took them with a deposit form, which, I believe, one of the clerks handed me. I saw Silk at the Financial, and he declined to sign it, telling me that the bonds were not being deposited on a deposit account, but in accordance with some previous arrangement. I brought the deposit form back, and believe it is destroyed. I thought it a most irregular transaction. I did not ask Silk what the arrangement was. I had heard of the Financial before, I think it is probable I had a receipt for the bonds, and if I did I gave it to Hildred, and it would be in the office now. I told Hildred what Silk had said, and, as far as I recollect, he said, "All right." I did not ask Hildred or Grosvenor what the previous arrangement was. I did inquire about it on January 7. There was a great deal of business to be done on the taking over of the bank, and I did not ask about it on the 6th—I believe it was some bona-fide arrangement. I mentioned it to Roscoe the following day. It was my absolute view that the Financial had advanced, Or were going to advance, £4,800 to the Economic against the £4,800 bonds, and I expected to receive a cheque and I asked for it I knew I had handed over £4,800 of bonds without any return, but I thought the Financial was a sound, strong bank, and I did not expect fraud. I can only explain this not being mentioned in the minute of January 6 because the minutes would be written up from the agenda. In taking over a concern, after being absent two years, there was an immense amount of business to be done. The matter was not mentioned at the meeting of January 6, although it had taken place just before. It was a very long meeting on January 6 and there were a great many other matters to be done, and I wished to discuss it with Roscoe privately, became I did not like the transaction. Looking at the minute book, I was absolutely incorrect when I said I was not elected trustee till the 7th—it was on the 6th. The minute on January 7 is: "It was resolved that the arrangement made with the Financial and Commercial Bank, Limited, as per letter, dated January 8, 1904, be and is hereby agreed to, subject to the security being approved." Originally it was written, "With Mr. Loewy, of the Financial" and the words "Mr. Loewy of" are struck out and initialled by Hildred. I think that was done at Hildred's suggestion—it certainly was not mine—I do not know whether it was Roscoe's or Hildred's—I do not recollect either way. To the best of my recollection, Grosvenor was not present at that, meeting. I think the letter is wrongly dated—it should have been the 7th. I absolutely say the letter was before us on the 7th. The minute was dictated by me to Howlett from the agenda. I do not suggest the agenda paper had the "7th" on it when drawn up, but certain places are left blank and filled in by the chairman. I knew I had handed over the £4,800 bonds and had received nothing for them, neither cash nor receipt. I say the letter was before the meeting on the 7th. I have given toe best explanation I can from my recollection. On the morning of the 7th I saw Loewy about it, and got that letter dated January 8. He handed it to me and I read it not noticing the date. It was a loan of bonds to the value of
£4,800, with the right to sell those bonds and replace them by similar bonds, on the security of East Rand and Forage shares. The East Rands were then saleable at £4. Nothing happened to alter the transaction up to March 31, when I sent a deposit receipt dated January 8. Nothing had occurred in writing between January 8 and March 31 to alter the nature of the arrangement, but I had seen Loewy about it. It was a thing arranged before I joined the bank, and I did my best to make it absolutely regular, and I did this, receiving a cheque in exchange, thinking it made it right. In writing, "I have pleasure in enclosing you herewith our contract for the £4. 800 deposit made with us on January 8 last," I knew there was no deposit made on January 8—it was a deposit of securities, not cash. The cheque for £10,800 was in fact the balance due to the Economic Bank by the Financial on March 31, including this £4,800. I had no reason to doubt it would be paid. I believe it was presented and returned to us—we did not get the £10,800. The cancellation of the cheque was not done in the office of the Economic to my knowledge—not by me. I know cheques of the Financial for £4,500 and £1,500 were found in the office—I do not know of my own knowledge any other. I did not know that cheques of the Financial for £67,089 were in the office. I did not know the cheque for £35,000 was there, neither did I know of the one for £6,000. I was not under the impression that all those cheques had been paid—I did not know they were there prior to the suspension. We exchanged a cheque for the £35000. I think probably I demanded the £10,800—it would be done personally. I thought the Financial had their money locked up in various securities which were valuable, but some of which were not negotiable. We knew the East Rands were saleable. I be lieved the Financial to be absolutely solvent. I had the receipt of March 31, "Received from the Economic Bank £10,800 as deposit at one month's notice, we to pay you interest at the rate of 11 per cent, per annum." I do not know of any entry in the books of £4,800 having gone out from the Economic on January 6, 7, or 8. When Bersey suggested that the name of the Financial Bank should remain in the balance-sheet all the trustees were present, including myself, and I concurred in the instructions given to Bersey and to the alteration of the second item into "Cash on deposit," knowing it included this sum of £10,800. I know the receipt for the £10,800 was shown to the auditor.
Prisoner added. To the best of my experience and to the best of my knowledge I acted in perfectly good faith. I did not make a farthing out of these transactions—not one.
Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, 12 months' imprisonment in second division.
OLD COURT; Monday, January 28.
(Before the Recorder.)
KENTISH, Walter (28, bricklayer), pleaded guilty to stealing a suit of clothes and other articles, the goods of Peter Black, and feloniously receiving same. He pleaded not guilty to a second charge of stealing a jacket and other articles, the goods of Charles Bishop, and feloniously receiving same; the prosecution accepted the first plea. Prisoner confessed to a conviction of felony at Northampton Quarter Sessions on October 19, 1905, and a long list of. previous convictions was proved. Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.
NEW COURT; Monday, January 28.
(Before the Common Serjeant)
MATTHEWS, Ellen (36, cook), convicted at December Session of larceny (see page 235), was brought up for judgment. Mr. Franz Smith, the Court missionary, having reported that she had been placed in a situation and was conducting herself properly, she was discharged.
NEW COURT; Tuesday, January 29.
(Before the Recorder.)
SIME, William (38, labourer), and MCCARTHY, William (34, labourer) ; both stealing a quantity of lead, the goods of James Nichols, then being fixed to a certain building of the said James Nichols, and feloniously receiving same.
Mr. Condy prosecuted.
WILLIE CAPON , 105, Church Hill Road, Croydon. I am in the employ of prosecutor and remember being at work in the afternoon of Wednesday, January 9, and seeing prisoners on the roof of an old building close to where I was working. McCarthy was stripping lead
off the roof. They had both been working on the job. I said, "Do not be such silly men. Put the lead down," but they took no notice. I lost sight of them when they went off the roof. They had no business at all there that day, as they had a day off.
To Prisoner McCarthy. I was about 30 ft. away from the building.
JAMES NOBLE , 33, Midmore Road, Balham, carpenter, employed by prosecutor. I know prisoners from having seen them at work on the premises. They are general labourers. In the afternoon of Wednesday, January 9, I saw prisoners on the roof of an old building. McCarthy was stripping lead off the roof and handing it to Same.
JAMES HARVEY , 70, Charnwood Road, bricklayer, employed by prosecutor. I know prisoners, with whom I have worked. On January 9 prisoners came in the morning about 10 o'clock and wanted a "sub." I gave them a shilling for beer, and they went away. They were not working that day, as they preferred to have a day off. I saw them again at three o'clock in the afternoon. One had a parcel under his arm, the other a coat.
WILLIAM FOLKES , 102. White Horse Road, Croydon. I was working on Mr. Nichols's premises on the afternoon in question. I saw prisoners on the roof of the old building. McCarthy took the lead off and give it to Same.
JOHN RICHARD NICHOLS , prosecutor's son and manager. In the afternoon of January 9, in consequence of what I heard, I went to look for prisoners, but could not find them. They had not been at work that day. I saw them again on the following morning at the "Sun" public-house, and gave them into custody on the charge of stealing lead. I had examined the roof, and found that lead was missing from a space about 6 ft. by 1 ft. 3 in. I had directed lead to be stripped off an adjoining building, but had given no directions for this roof to be stripped. Sold to marine store dealers, the lead would be worth about 5s. 6d., and the damage to the roof by its removal would be about 25s. The weight would be about 35 lb., but it would roll up into a small space, and a man could easily carry it away.
Detective EDWARD HUNT, V Division. On the morning of January 10, in consequence of a message received, I went to the "Sun" public-house. Mr. Nichols said he wished to give the two prisoners into custody for stealing lead from his father's building on the previous day. McCarthy said, "This comes of having a day off." Same said, "Never mind; they will have to prove it." They were taken to the station, and charged.
SIME said this was his first offence, and hoped the Court would be lenient with him, as he had a wife and six children.
MCCARTHY also asked to be leniently dealt with on the same grounds.
Nothing was known against prisoners.
Sentence, each, One month's hard labour.