Vol. CXLVII.] [Part 874.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
HELD JULY 22ND, 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.
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, July 22nd, 1907, and following days.
Before the Right Hon. Sir WILLIAM PURDIE TRELOAR , Bart., LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir CHARLES JOHN DARLING , Knight, one of the Justices of His Majesty's High Court; Sir J. WHITAKER ELLIS , Bart., Sir JOSEPH RENALS , Bart., Sir ALFRED J. NEWTON , Bart., Sir T. VEZEY STRONG , Sir JOHN C. BELL , and W. GUTHRIE, Esq., Aldermen of the said City; Sir FORREST FULTON , Knight, K.C., Recorder of the said City; Sir FREDERICK ALBERT BOSANQUET , K.C., Common Serjeant of the said City; His Honour Judge RENTOUL, K.C., Commissioner, His Majesty's Justices of Oyer aid Terminer and General Gaol Delivery holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
TRELOAR, MAYOR. TENTH SESSION.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Monday, July 22.)
LONDON AND MIDDLESEX CASES.
HORTON, Charles (24, servant) pleaded guilty , to forging and uttering a certain order for the payment of £7 10s., with intent to defraud; obtaining by false pretences from William Thomas Lewis the sum of £7 10s. with intent to defraud.
Mr. Roach prosecuted.
Prisoner was a driver in the 77th Battery of the Royal Field Artillery and was recently appointed mess butler to an officers' mess in Tipperary. He shortly afterwards absconded, taking with him a cheque-book. He came to London and used the smoking-room of the Grand Hotel, Strand, representing himself to be an officer in the regiment. He sent a messenger with a letter to the prosecutor, at Woolwich, requesting him to change a cheque for £7 10s., which was eclosed in the letter. The cheque purported to be signed by an officer. Prosecutor sent prisoner £7 10s., but the cheque was subsequently discovered to be a forgery. Prisoner was arrested upon the charge, and it was ascertained that he had similarly filled up several other cheques from the cheque-book and changed them in Ireland, where he obtained £33 in respect of them. Others were found at his lodgings in readiness to be cashed. The police stated that prisoner was an American citizen and a native of Chicago. He appeared to have We got tired of the Army, and he had purchased his discharge before he absconded with the cheque-book. He thought that by falling up and cashing the cheques he might be able to get money to enable him to return to Chicago.
Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.
HOLMS, George (59, labourer) pleaded guilty , to burglary in the dwelling-house of Alfred Ratcliff, and stealing therein two fans and other property. A heavy list of convictions was proved, dating from 1888, the last in 1900, with a sentence of five years' penal servitude and three years' police supervision. The Recorder said it was clear that prisoner was an habitual criminal, whom it was no use dealing with leniently, and sentenced him to five years' penal servitude.
Mr. Slade Butler prosecuted; Mr. L. G. Hardy defended.
JOSEPH HARTOPP , stickmaker, 17, Widegate Street, Bishopsgate. On October 13, 1900, I was present at the Registry Office, Vallance Road. E., and was witness to the marriage of prisoner, in the name of Fanny Brasewick , to a man who gave the name of Alec Cooper.
Cross-examined. A little before that I had been introduced to Cooper. A few days after this marriage I heard that he had been previously married and that his first wife was alive. In a very short time Cooper left the prisoner and went to America.
ISAAC SILVERSTEIN , upholsterer, Gray Street, E. In 1900 I was employed at Symons', Christian Street, E. Alec Cooper used to come there with his wife (prisoner) selling furniture. In 1902 I went to New York. I there saw the same man, Cooper; I kept a luncheon-room, and he came there daily up to the time I left in June, 1905.
Cross-examined. I pledge my oath that this is the woman who used to come to our shop with Cooper as his wife in 1900, and that the man I saw from 1902 to June, 1905, in America was the same Aleo Cooper.
PHILIP ANGEL , 66, Christian Street. On May 15, 1903, I went through a form of marriage with prisoner at the East London Synagogue. I produce the certificate. She described herself as, "Fanny Newman, 23, spinster." I lived with her for two years; then I discovered that she had been married before, and I left her.
Cross-examined. Three years ago I was convicted at this court of keeping a disorderly house, and sentenced to two months' imprisonment. It is not true that when I came out I wanted prisoner to assist me in keeping a disorderly house, and that because she refused I had her arrested on the present charge. She wanted me to live with her and I refused. It is two years since I found out that she had been previously married. As to why I did not then give her into custody, I did not know the English law. On June 7 last she wanted to assault me, and it was then that I told the police she had got a husband in America. I know a man named Retkinsky; he is no relation of mine. Q. Did Retkinsky come to vou three days before you married this woman and tell you that she was already married—The Recorder intimated that this was not a case in which the prisoner would be sent to prison, after the evidence of the man Angel. Mr. Hardy said the defence set up would be that prisoner's marriage with Cooper was illegal, because at the time Cooper was a married man. The Recorder pointed out that, if that defence succeeded,
prisoner would be tied to Angel. Prisoner was asked whether she desired to continue to live with Angel. She replied that, if he would promise not to keep a disorderly house again, she would live with him. Eventually prisoner withdrew her plea, and . She was sentenced to One day's imprisonment and was immediately discharged.
BICKNELL, Arthur Channing, pleaded not guilty to indictments charging him with unlawfully making a certain declaration, made under the authority of the Statutory Declarations Act, 1835, to wit, a declaration made before Arthur Morris, a Commissioner for Oaths, knowing the same to be untrue in certain material particulars; and with obtaining by false pretences from Harry Heron a banker's cheque for the payment of £190, with intent to defraud.
Counsel for the prosecution stated that since the proceeding before the magistrate certain circumstances had been investigated, which showed that the conduct of the defendant was open to a perfectly innocent interpretation; it was therefore proposed to offer no evidence. A verdict of Not guilty was accordingly returned.
Sergeant THOMAS KING. I received a complaint from Frank Bush, builder, of 8, Ridgmount Street, Bedford Square, that several letters had been taken from his letter-box, particularly one containing two cheques. I went to the L. and C. Bank in Covent Garden; while I was there prisoner was brought in. He knew me. Directly he saw me, he said, "I have been to Hunter Street Police Station to explain about the cheque that I tried to cash here" (the cheque for £34 17s.); "I had it given to me by Murray and his mob to have it changed; Murray has been living at 26, Argyle Street, but he has cleared out now, and I don't know where he is." The bank cashier said, "This is the man who came in with the cheque, and you ran away when you found that something was wrong"; prisoner at first denied this, but finally said, "Yes, I thought there was some-thing wrong with the cheque." I then arrested him. At the station, when charged, he said, "I went to Henrietta Street and presented the cheque, which I had given me by Murray; Murray and another man were waiting outside. When I got outside I told them to get their b——money themselves." On a later date he said to me, "There it something I think you ought to know. A gentleman said Just now in court that the endorsement on the cheque is a forgery. Of course it is. Murray did that. If you go to the first beerhouse in Stanhope Street, Euston Road, and see the lady behind the bar, the will perhaps remember Murray came in and asked her for a pen and ink and signed this cheque; I saw him do it." When this statement was read over to him he said, "I did not say I saw him do it; I left the beerhouse when they asked for the pen and ink."
To Prisoner. It is not true that you told me that you heard as Murray's place from one of the men that Frank had signed the cheque, that I asked you who Frank was, and that you said it was Murray. I am positive that you at first said that you saw Murray sign the cheque.
JESSE YOUNG , secretary to Hibbord Brothers, Limited, 146, Vanxhall Walk. The cheques of my company are first signed by myself and Mr. Hibberd then sent to Mr. Frank Bush for his signature. On June 11 I drow two cheques; they were signed by me and Mr. Hibberd, and posted to Mr. Frank Bush on that night. The cheque (produced) (£34 17s.) is one. It was originally crossed, "Not negotiable, and Co." That crossing has been obliterated.
To Prisoner. I leave the premises between eight and nine p.m. A letter arriving later I should have no opportunity of seeing till eight the following morning.
ARTHUR P. PARSONS , manager to Higgins and Griffiths, 4, Albion Street, Regent's Park. The cheque for £34 17s., payable to Higgine and Griffiths, is endorsed in that name; the writing is not that of any member of the firm.
WALTER THOMPSON , cashier, L. and C. Bank, Covent Garden branch. I was at the oank on June 13 when prisoner presented this cheque for payment Instead of three signatures there were only two. I was about to make inquiries, when prisoner moved towards the door. I called out "Hi!"; he took no notice, and I called out again, louder; with that he went out hurriedly, leaving the cheque with us. On June 15 I saw prisoner again at the bank, with the detectives. Prisoner said, "You are not the man I gave the cheque to"; I said, "No, I am the one who called out to you to stop"; he said he did not hear me; I said, "Oh yes, you did, because I called twice; you heard me both times." When he presented the cheque he was in the bank altogether about half a minute. He walked quite straight; I do not think he was at all drunk.
To Prisoner. It was the way you went out that made me shout to you; you must have heard me.
Prisoner's statement before the magistrate: "Will you give me counsel to defend me at the trial? I could bring witnesses to prove that I was in bed at the time the letter was lost."
THOMAS BOAL (prisoner, on oath) said he had known Murray for six months. On the day in question he met Murray in Shaftesbury Avenue with another man, who Murray said was a member of the firm of Higgins and Griffiths. Murray asked prisoner to oblige his
friend by going to the bank and cashing this cheque; that the bank closed at two, and that he wanted the money, but had to wait to see a friend. This was on a Thursday, which is an early closing day in other lines, and prisoner believed the statement that the bank closed at two. He went to the bank with the cheque and placed it on the counter; he had been drinking at the time, and apparently poihed against a customer standing there, and on turning round to apologise saw Murray and his friend standing outside the bank. It struck him that there was something wrong, and he walked out; he did not run; he stayed outside the bank four or five minutes quarrelling with them about the matter. He did not hear the cashier call out. On June 14 he again saw Murray, when he told him that the cheque was a wrong 'un, and he at once went to the police and told them all he knew. He had no guilty intent whatever.
Mrs. ELIZABETH BROAD, landlady at prisoner's lodgings, proved that on June 11 he was at home between five and six, and except for a few minutes did not go out again; he went to bed between 10 and 11, and went out about 10 the next morning.
Verdict, Guilty of receiving the cheque, well knowing it to have knowing it to have been stolen. Prisoner confessed to having been convicted of felony, at February 3, 1903, at North London Sessions.
Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT. (Monday, July 22.)
Mr. Sands prosecuted.
Prisoner went into the "Crown Hotel" at Charing Cross and tendered a bad florin. The coin was at once detected and prisoner then paid for his drink in good money, but the proprietor sent for the police. Three counterfeit florins were found in prisoner's possession. There is a long record of convictions against him going back to 1899.
Sentence, Four years' penal servitude.
ANDERSON, Charles (37, hawker), and WILSON, James (33, labourer) , both feloniously possessing, without lawful authority, one mould on which was made and impressed the figure of the sides of a florin; both possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter the same.
Sergeant SAMUEL LEE, H Division. On the night of June 12 I was with two other officers in Charles Street, Mile End Old Town, a
few minutes after 10, and saw both prisoners cross the Commercial Road towards us. I stopped them, and told Anderson we were detective officers and had reason to believe he had counterfeit coin upon him. Ho said, "All right." I then took Anderson to Arbour Square Police Station. Wilson was taken by another officer. In the charge-room Anderson put his hand into his jacket pocket and took out the mould produced, remarking, "This is what you want." Wilson was in another room. I searched Anderson and found on him two counterfeit florins dated 1901. He also had in his possession 2s. 6 1/2 d. in good money, four keys, one cake of blacking, and two pieces of camphor.
Detective WILLIAM BROGDEN, H Division. I was with the last witness at night on the 12th of this month and arrested Wilson. I told him I suspected him of having counterfeit coin in his possession. He said, "You have made a mistake, Mr. Brogden." Thereupon he put his hand into the right-hand pocket of his trousers, but I stopped him from taking anything out. At the police station I found in his right-hand trousers pocket a counterfeit florin dated 1901. I also found in his coat pockets a file, a coil of copper wire, a quantity of spelter, some emery paper, and a saucepan. Embedded in the spelter were some counterfeit coins which, having been spoiled, were being melted up again. A quantity of antimony was also found, and sixpence in bronze. He said that a man of the name of Worley had given the things to him. He was formally charged with possessing counterfeit coin and implements for making it, and made no reply.
To Wilson. There was no third person with prisoners when they were arrested.
To the Court. Prisoners were apparently about to jump on to a bus when they were stopped.
Detective HENRY DESSENT, H Division. I was present when the prisoners were arrested and afterwards at the police station when they were searched. The whole of the materials found on Wilson were placed on the table, and pointing to them he said, "I do not know what that stuff is. A man named Worley, living off the Commercial Road gave it to me. He asked us to go to his place and he would show us how to make money." Prisoners, when asked for their address, gave an address at a Rowton lodging house.
Prisoner. Wilson said he did not remember exactly the address of the man who gave him the things, but it was a turning off the Commercial Road, and the man in question asked him in and gave him some fish and some tea.
WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , Inspector of Counterfeit Coins, H.M. Mint. The mould produced is a single mould for making florins. The three florins produced are counterfeit and all come from that mould. The other articles besides the mould form part of the stock-in-trade of coiners, the file, copper wire, antimony, and spelter, which contains the remains of a florin. The antimony is used for hardening the alloy and the copper wire for eleotroplating. The file has metal in its teeth.
I attach no importance to the piece of glass. The sancepan has been used for melting metal.
WILSON, in his defence (not on oath), persisted in the statement that the coining paraphernalia had been given him by a man unknown.
A juror wished to ask if either of the prisoners had met this man before, but the learned Common Serjeant said they could not ask tit prisoners questions.
Verdict, both prisoners, Guilty. No police information was forthcoming about Anderson. Wilson, during a period of 14 years, has been many times convicted of various offences, including coining. Wilson appealed to the Court for leniency on the ground that he had an aged mother.
Sentence: Anderson, 18 calendar months' hard labour; Wilson, five years' penal servitude.
Mr. Sands prosecuted.
AMY HEAD , barmaid, employed at the "Carpenters' Arms," King's Cross Road. On June 29 prisoner came into the saloon bar at a quarter past eight in the evening, just before lighting up time, and asked for a "pony" of bitter, the price of which is 1 1/2 d. I served him and he placed a coin very gently down on the counter so that it did not ring. When I looked at it I had been idea that it was a bad one and I broke it in the tester. I recognise the fragments produced as the two halves of the shilling I broke. I then called Mr. Goodchild who placed tne broken coin in front of the prisoner, who then pulled cut a good sixpence with which he paid for the drink, and I gave him change. He stopped for a minute or two to drink his beer, and then went away.
JOSEPH GOODCHILD , licensee of the Carpenters' Arms, spoke to. handing the shilling to prisoner, with the remark "This is a bad one." Prisoner produced a good sixpence and subsequently remarked with, regard to the two pieces, "This is a bad one." Witness then went out of the house and communicated with Constable James Butt, and pointed out prisoner to him as he left the house.
Police-constable JAMES BUTT, G Division. Mr. Goodchild pointed prisoner out to me. I followed him up Frederick Street and he came bark ir the direction of King's Cross Road and went up Wharton Street. He turned again, but before he got to the top of the street a man signalled to him by holding his hand up. I had then been following him from eight to 10 minutes. I had him in sight the whole time. The two men spoke to each other. I went towards them, and the man who had signalled started to run away in the King's Cross Road, down a sort of terrace with some steps. Having hoded this second man (who was discharged by the magistrate) over to a constable, I gave chase to prisoner and caught him about half mile away in Wilson Street, Gray's Inn Road. He was never out of my sight. When I caught him he said, "What do you want with:
me if I am not drunk?" I told him I was a police officer and should arrest him for passing a counterfeit shilling at the "Carpenters' Arms." He said, "I have not been into the 'Carpenters' Arms' and have passed no shilling." I took him to the police station, where he was searched. I found in his left-hand ticket pocket a number of coppers, and amongst them the pieces of the broken counterfeit shilling. In his right inside jacket pocket I found a number of other coppers, the total copper money he had on him amounting to 2s. 7 1/2 d. In the left-hand breast pocket I found four good sixpences. In all he had on him 35 coins in bronze. In answer to the charge he said, "It is a lie. I have not passed any counterfeit shilling." He gave his address as at Rowton House, Newington Butts.
PRISONER (not on oath) said be received the counterfeit shilling in change for half a crown.
Detective-sergeant ROBERT ATKINSON, Hyde Borough Police, Cheshile, proved the conviction and stated that prisoner had also been convicted of coinage offences at Stafford, Liverpool, York, and Chester. There were also fourteen other convictions as a suspected person and for stealing purses.
Constable JAMES BUTT (recalled) stated that the address given by prisoner at Rowton Houses proved to be false. He has been "out" about three months.
Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.
QUINN, Harry (21, machinist) pleaded guilty , to stealing a bicycle the property of Charles Fisk, and confessed to a previous conviction for felony on April 30, 1906. Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.
Mr. G. A. Blackwell prosecuted.
Prisoner, it was stated, deserted from the Army in August of last year and went to live with his brother, the prosecutor in this case, until the time of his arrest, when he declined to keep him any longer. In the temporary absence of the brother prisoner on two occasions took his book to the National Penny Bank, forged his brother's signature, and obtained money. As the name of the depositor is not disclosed on the book, as is the case with the Post Office Savings Bank, in order to get the money he had to say that he was Thomas Dennis, and of course he must have known all about his brother's circumstances.
Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE DARLING.
(Tuesday, July 23.)
Mr. Pickersgill, M.P., prosecuted. Mr. Eustace Fulton (at the request of the Court) defended.
Mrs. Franks. On May 23, I was living at 1, Ellenborough Road, Holloway. I occupied the top floor. Prisoner, his wife, and three children occupied the first floor. In the early morning of the 23rd, I heard Mrs. Clarke calling me by name to come to her assistance, as to husband had cut his throat. I ran downstairs. I met Mrs. Clarke with the baby (Florence) in her arms. She also had a razor in her hands. On going into their bedroom, I saw prisoner lying face tarawards on the bed. I turned him over and saw a large wound in his throat. I bandaged it with a towel, and then fetched a doctor and the pilice. I had not noticed that the baby was wounded.
Cross-examined. Prisoner and his family have lived with me for two and a half years. He was always kind to his' wife and children. He was a teetotaler.
Police-Constable WILLIAM COOMBES 498 E, said he was called to the house, and had prisoner and the child Florence conveyed to the hospital.
F. C. DOBELL, House Surgeon at the Great Northern Central Hospital, described the condition of the prisoner and his daughter on their arrival at the hospital. Florence had only two superficial wounds, not at all serious, hardly requiring dressing. Prisoner had a very deep cut in the throat, the windpipe was partly severed. They were my dangerous wounds.
Cross-examined. I should say from the appearance of the wounds. or the child that there had not been any deliberate or prolonged it attempt to cut her throat. Very slight force could have been used.
JAMES BRISCOLL , another house surgeon at the same hospital. Prisoner was under my care from May 23 to June 19. He seemed quite sound in his mind. He did not seem, particulary, in a nervous condition. He was quiet, and well behaved.
Sergeant SYDNEY KENDALL. On June 19, I went to the hospital and saw prisoner. I said to him, "I am a police-officer. I am going to arrest you for attempting to murder your daughter Florence, aged three, and for attempting to commit suicide, on May 23, "He said, "Yes. I do not know what made me do it. My mind was upset. I ran over a little boy about nine weeks ago, and it has been playing on my mind ever since. The day before I did it, Mr. Watts spoke to me about my accounts. I do not remember much what I did. The razor it mine," On the charge being read over to him he made no reply.
Cross-examined. From inquiries I have made, prisoner is a respectable sober man. He was ten or twelve years in one employment. He has treated his wife and children in every way well. His statement about having run over a child is true, and there is no doubt it upset him very much. The parents of the child have been writing to his employers, and that preyed on his mind.
Verdict, guilty of unlawfully wounding. A further indictment for attempting to commit suicide was not proceeded with.
Dr. Scott, of Brizton Prison (called by the Judge). I have had prisoner under observation since June 19. He is in a nervous and depressed condition. He cannot he said to be insane. It would be better for his health to be out of prison rather than in it.
Prisoner, having assured Mr. Justice Darling that he would be well behaved in the future, and would not attempt to commit suicide, was released on his own recognisances in £10, to come up for judgment if called upon.
Mr. Lathom prosecuted. Mr. W. H. Thorne (at the request of the Court) defended.
A Jury was sworn to try whether or not prisoner was of unsound mind.
Dr. Scott, of Brixton Prison. I have had prisoner under observation since June 17. I consider him quite imbecile. I do not think he understands the charge brought against him, or that he can give instructions for his defence.
Verdict. Prisoner is not of sound mind and understanding, and is unfit to plead. Ordered to be detained during His Majesty's pleasure.
Mr. H. du Parcq prosecuted.
The Jury disagreed.
On Friday, July 26, the accused was again indicted, before the Common Serjeant. The prosecution offered no evidence, and a verdict of Not guilty was returned.
ARCHER, Arthur (29, labourer), was indicted for, and charged on Coroner's inquisition with the manslaughter of John Hoolan, otherwise John Grande, otherwise John Diver . Indicted also unlawfully assaulting John Hoolan and occasioning him actual bodily harm.
Mr. G. L. Hardy prosecuted. Mr. Merlin defended.
A fight took place between prisoner and Hoolan outside a public house, and Hoolan subsequently died. The post-mortem examination showed that he was suffering from a diseased spleen and liver, and the medical evidence on the depositions was to the effect that any over-exertion would have caused his death. The opinion of the doctors
was that death resulted, not from the blows given by prisoner, but from rupture due to over-exertion in the fight. In these circumstances the prosecution offered no evidence (a course approved by Mr. Justice Dirling) and a verdict was returned of Not guilty on each indictment.
Mr. Clarke Hall prosecuted.
Verdict, guilty. Sentence, ten years' penal servitude.
Mr. W. W. Grantham prosecuted.
JOHN JOHANDEL , waiter. On May 30, I was sharing with prisoner a bedroom at 43, Whitfield Street, Tottenham Court Road. At 5.30 in the morning I was wakened by the prisoner, who had hold of me by the throat. I tried to call for assistance, but could not. Presently My landlord came and pulled him off me. I was bleeding from a wound in the head. In the room there was some of my clothing packed in a bag ready to take away. I myself had not packed it. I had never seen prisoner before May 28. I had never spoken to him.
Police-constable EDWIN ARNOLD, 153 D. On the morning in question I went to 43, Whitfield Street, and saw prisoner being held by the landlord. The latter said, "This man has tried to kill Mr. Johandel by striking him on the head with' a iron bar, and also tried to strangle him by taking hold of his throat." Prisoner made no remark. Prosecutor had a large cut over the right temple, and was bleeding freely. I arrested prisoner.
THOMAS ROSE , Divisional Surgeon, deposed to examining prosecutor immediately after the occurrence. Prosecutor had a wound one and a half inches long above the right temple, extending down to the bone. The injuries may have been inflicted with the bar produced. There were marks and scratches on his throat consistent with prisoner having tried to strangle him.
Sergeant HAYNES. On the charge being read over to prisoner, he said, "How is the man I struck with the rod of iron? I should like to tell you how it occurred. I woke up at 5 a.m. I was hard up. I packed up his things and meant stealing them. He turned over in his bed, and I thought he would wake up and see me. I then struck him on the head with the iron bar. He made a noise with his throat, and I seized hold of him to keep him quiet. The landlord then came running into me room and pulled me away. He was a stranger, and I have never spoken to him." Prisoner was quite sober. I believe he is an abstainer.
Prisoner, called upon, said that he had no defence, and had nothing to say. He called no witnesses.
Verdict, guilty of wounding with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Prisoner confessed to having been convicted, at Marlborough Street Police Court, on February 28 last, of felony. There was also a conviction against him in 1906. He is a French subject, who has been in this country nearly four years. Though he gives his age as 19, the police think he is 22 or 23.
Mr. Justice Darling (to prisoner). Why are you over here. Why do not you live in France?—A. I cannot live there. Q. Why?—A. That in my business. Q. You had better tell me?—A. I have got nothing to say. Q. Have you done your military service?—A. No.
Mr. Justice Darling. Now I know why you are here.
Sentence, 18 months' hard labour. Certified for expulsion under the Aliens Act.
(Wednesday, July 24).
Mr. Justice Darling. I wish to put on record my reasons for an order I made yesterday, and because there is an official shorthand writer in this court I prefer to do it publicly, so that the record be preserved, rather than to write, as I might do, to the Home Office, stating what my reasons are. Yesterday, the prisoner Alphonse Belval was convicted before me of a very serious assault. He was indicted for wounding with intent to murder. He pleaded guilty to wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm, and he did do very grievous bodily harm to an absolutely inoffensive person, who was asleep at the time the assault was committed upon him. Alpbonse Belval was a French subject. He was put down in the Calendar as being 19 years of age, but from his appearance I am satisfied that he wan several years older, and a detective who came into the witness box to prove previous convictions against him said that he had known him for some years, and that when he was charged upon other occasions, he had always given his age as 19. He has been twice convicted, and each time sentenced to three years' imprisonment, for stealing, and on this occasion he was going to rob a man named John Johandal. He tied some of his clothes up in a bundle ready for removal in order that he might rob him, and it was only because the man, as he himself said, showed some signs of waking up, in consequence of prisoner's conduct, that he committed this grievous bodily harm. In this case I sentenced him to 18 months' hard labour, and I made a recommendation that he should, at the end of that time, be expelled from this country. It is the reason for this recommendation that I desire to state. I am told that in these matters the recommendation is considered at the Home Office, not immediately the prisoner is sentenced, but before the expiration of his sentence, and it may very well be that in about a year's time the courts of law may have to consider in revising sentences (which they will have to do in some cases if a Bill which is now before Parliament becomes an Act of Parliament*), the reasons of making orders of expulsion. It is partly
for that reason that I desire to state publicly what are my views. If this person had been an English subject, and really 19, or about 19 years of age, I should have sentenced him to a long term of imprisonment, or penal servitude, with an order that he should be treated according to the Borstal system, which is designed for the reformation of such people. But the people who have invented the Borstal system recommend that it be not applied to prisoners except those who are somewhat young—in the words that they have adopted I think they call them "juvenile adults," or some such term as that—and this particular person was, I think, too old for the application to him of the Borstal system, although, if it were true that he was only 19 he would have been a proper person for it. Seeing what his age was, and the time that he had been here, I knew very well that he could not have performed his military service in France to which he is liable as a French subject. If the recommendation that I made is acted upon he will not have received in this country what, to my mind, is a sufficient punishment for the offence he committed, by the punishment of 18 months' imprisonment, unless it be followed by some discipline such as the Borstal system would be, or such discipline as he would get if he returned to France. If, on the other hand, he it left in this country until the time when he is liable to serve has expired, it would never be safe for him to return to France, because he would be immediately punished, probably very severely, for not having undergone the military service. He is at present of an age when he could perform his military service, and to my mind that would be a discipline valuable for him, just as, if he were an English subject, I think the Borstal system would be serviceable. Those are my reasons for recommending that an order should be made for him to leave this country, so that he can then serve his own country. The alternative to this recommendation would have been that I could have sentenced him to a very long term of penal servitude, or imprisonment, or recommended that the Borstal system should be applied to him if he was of that age. I desire to place these reasons on record for the attention of the authorities.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Tuesday, July 23.)
Mr. Forster Boulton, M.P., prosecuted.
On the night of June 18, Lady Watts, living on the Chelsea Embankment, gave a letter with certain enclosure to a footman to post. The night porter at the Chelsea Court Flats took a number of letters, amongst them the letter written by another lady's cook, to the pillarbox on the Embankment, and as he approached prisoner walked
away. Being a little suspicious, he watched, and saw prisoner engaged in the occupation known as "fishing" for letters. A policeman was communicated with, and six letters were given up by prisoner. At the station seven more letters were found, including those posted by Lady Watts's footman and the night porter. None of the stamps had been obliterated. Stamps were also found on prisoner which had the appearance of having been taken off a postal packet, together with a stick with a piece of string attached, and a tin of some sticky material. Nothing was previously known against prisoner.
Sentence, Six months' hard labour.
NEVILLE, George (36, baker) pleaded guilty , to robbery from William Amor Orton and stealing a part of a watch chain and one pencil case from his person. Prisoner also confessed to a conviction for possessing housebreaking instruments. Three other previous convictions were proved; prisoner was only released in April of this year. He has still one year and 174 days to serve in respect of a sentence of four years' penal servitude.
Sentence 18 months' hard labour.
JACKSON, Herbert (34, hairdresser) ; stealing 855 postal orders for the payment of £433 0s. 5d., the property of the Postmaster-General; feloniously forging and uttering two postal orders for the payment of £1 and 17s. respectively, with intent to defraud. Prisoner pleaded guilty to the forging and uttering, but denied that he stole the postal orders.
Mr. Forster Boulton, M.P., prosecuted.
The orders were stolen from the Upper Baker Street Post Office on the evening of March 14 by a man not identified, who sprang upon the counter while the assistant's back was turned and made off with all Ihe postal orders then upon the counter. All the Post Offices in the London District were at once notified, and in the afternoon of June 22 prisoner entered the office in High Street, Peckham, and presented a postal order for 17s. While the lady in charge was examining the order prisoner ran out of the office, but was secured in the street. At the Peckham Police Station he threw into the grate a bundle containing 70 of the stolen orders. As to the orders, he said he did not steal them, but found them one night near a cab rank in Maida, Vale a day or two after he had read in the papers of their being lost. He stated also that he had cashed all that had been cashed, and that no one else had had anything to do with it. In a purse dropped by prisoner was found a cloak-room ticket for Leavesden Station, and there a parcel containing 521 of the stolen notes was discovered. The method of altering the numbers adopted by prisoner was to cut off the first two figures of the number of one of the notes of smaller denomination and paste them over the corresponding figures of a more valuable order, and unless the notes were held up to the light the alteration could hardly be detected. The
office stamp was forged by means of carbon paper, and 91 orders were cashed in respect of which prisoner obtained over £71. The date stamp in the first place excited the assistant's suspicions, and there being also a certain sequence in the numbers a moment's investigation would reveal that the numbers were not as they should be. 693 of the orders have been accounted for.
Detective TOMLINE said prisoner was a hair mixer, and had a very nice home at Willesden. He had been employed by a firm of hairdressers in Regent Street and afterwards at Harrod's Stores, and had a good character at both places. In 1906 he left to start in business for himself. He was a sergeant of the 5th Middlesex Volunteers, and had a very good character there until about nine months ago, when it was seen he got mixed up with disreputable people.
The Recorder described this as a highly developed crime, and expressed doubt whether prisoner actually committed the robbery.
Sentence. 12 months' hard labour.
HOLDEN. William (27, shoemaker) pleaded guilty , to stealing the sums of 5s. 6d., 4s. 4d. and 3s. 10d., the moneys of the Gas Light and Coke Company. Several previous convictions for similar offences were proved. Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.
BROWN, Henry (27, coster) , indicted for robbery with violence on Thomas Hudd, and stealing from him a gold watch, pleaded guilty to stealing only. Several previous convictions were proved. Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.
ALLEN, Claude (33, clerk) pleaded guilty , to obtaining by false pretences from George Evans 300 cigars, with intent to defraud; uttering a banker's cheque for the payment of £3 12s. 8 1/2 d., knowing the same to be forged, with intent to defraud; stealing a cheque book, containing 20 blank cheques, the property of Agnes McCarthy; obtaining by false pretences from Thomas Burleigh 2 photo frames, with intent to defraud; obtaining by false pretences from William Aldous Kerry, the sum of £5, with intent to defraud. He also confessed to a previous conviction.
Mr. C. W. Kent and Mr. James Todd prosecuted; Mr. C. W. P. Overend defended.
The method of prisoner, who is a brother-in-law of Sir George Farrar, was to obtain goods by means of worthless cheques. He obtained a cheque-Book of the London and South-Western Bank, from the drawing-room of a house in Holland Road, Kensington, at which he had called to inquire after apartments. He had also a cheque book on the York City and County Bank, which had been missed from an overcoat at the Holborn Restaurant, and he also passed a cheque on Coutts's, taken from a cheque-book stolen from a bag containing Jewellery, at Paddington Station some years ago. Detective-sergeants Bedford and West stated that since prisoner's conviction in 1899 he had been known as the associate of a gang of very clever West End
thieves. Numbers of tradesmen have been defrauded. According to the statement of Mr. Overend for the defence, prisoner, after his release, went out to his sister who is in South Africa with her husband, Sir George Farrar. There, owing to her influence, he obtained the position of assistant secretary to a gold mining company in Rhodesia, and afterwards an appointment as secretary of a cold storage company in Delagoa Bay. Contracting malaria, he was obliged to give up his appointment. When he was well enough, his sister paid his expenses home again, and until the latter part of last year had made him an allowance of £3 a week. It was said by counsel, when this allowance was discontinued, that prisoner launched upon this dishonest career. His mother, a widow lady of independent means living in Paris, is willing, on his release, to send him to another country, and provide him with a chance of beginning his life over again.
Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.
STEWART, Reginald Philip (19, clerk), SANDERSON, Arthur (18, clerk), and AGUTTER, William (14, labourer); Stewart, forging and altering certain authorities and securities for the payment of money, to wit, Post Office Savings Bank deposit books in the names of Arthur Robinson , William Canter , and William Dorman respectively, in each case with intent to defraud; Stewart and Sanderson, conspiring and agreeing together to obtain from His Majesty's Postmaster-General divers sums of money, by virtue of certain forged and altered instruments, with, intent to defraud; Stewart, forging and altering a certain authority for the payment of money, to wit, a Post Office Savings Bank deposit book, in the name of Frank Anderson , with intent to defraud; Sanderson, feloniously demanding and obtaining £1 by virtue of a certain forged and altered instrument, to wit, the said Post Office Savings Bank deposit book, knowing the same to be forged and altered, with intent to defraud; Agutter, demanding and obtaining £1 by virtue of a forged and altered Post Office Savings Bank deposit book in the name of Charles Smith , demanding and attempting to obtain £1 on another book in the name of Frank Lames , and another sum of £1 on a book in the name of Frank James . The three prisoners pleaded guilty.
Mr. Forster Boulton, M.P., prosecuted; Mr. E. W. S. Cox-Sinclair appeared for Stewart and Sanderson; Mr. H. Bickmore for Agutter.
Counsel for the prosecution explained that this case arose out of the regulation of the Post Office by which a sum of money not exceeding £1 may be withdrawn on demand, all that is necessary for withdrawal being that the depositor shall produce his pass book and fill up a withdrawal order, the book being then sent up to the Post Office Savings Bank to have the entry made. Stewart, a clerk in the office, had four confederates, two of whom have already been proceeded against, and the system was this: One of the confederates would make a deposit of 1s. in the name of an imaginary depositor and so obtain possession of a Savings Bank book. On the book
coming to Stewart be would make false entries of farther deposits. Then the book, on being returned, would be taken by the confederate to another Post Office, where he was not known, and an order signed for the withdrawal of £1. These frauds commenced on March 8 of this year and went on till June 10. At Stewart's rooms, when arrested, materials for forging the office stamp were found, the dates being filled in with carbon, paper. The total amount obtained is £94 and the number of books manipulated is 110, showing, the Recorder remarked, a widely-spread conspiracy. The money so obtained was said to have gone in betting.
Sentences: Stewart, 18 months' hard labour; Sanderson, nine Months' imprisonment; Agutter, six months in the second division. The Recorder expressed the opinion that if the regulation as to the withdrawal of £1 on demand led to this sort of fraud the Postmaster General would have to reconsider it.
The libels appeared on post cards, describing Sutters as the 'Prince of Welshes" and alleging that he owed prisoner money. Prisoner expressing contrition, he was released on his own recognisances in the sum of £10 to come up for judgment when called upon.
HEWETT, Percy (19, waiter) pleaded guilty ,to burglary in the dwelling-house of Walter Fisher, and stealing therein the sum. of 4d., the moneys of the Norfolk Hotel, Limited, and certain property, to wit, a bankers cheque for the payment of £50, the property of, the Shannon, Limited, and feloniously receiving same. He also confessed to a previous to a previous conviction.
Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.
Sentence, Three months' hard labour.
Mr. G. A. Hardy prosecuted.
DAXIL TOMPSON , the "George" public-house, East Harding Street. I remember a number of men coming into the house on June 5. I knew two of them, prisoner and Smith. They called for four glasses of ale, which I served, and for which prisoner paid. After that I went into the room behind the bar to lay the dinner-table. When I came back I saw some sawdust on the pewter run, and on the floor behind the bar. I thought something at once, and on looking round at my till found all my silver had gone. I went to the front door and saw Smith going up the road with a man named Daley (Smith
and Daley have been convicted for this offence). I went up to Smith, who handed me a handful of money amounting to £3 9s. 6d. I gave them into custody. Prisoner had gone when I returned. He has been in the habit of coming to my house since Christmas, but after June 5 he did not come in again.
To Prisoner. I only saw four men in the bar. My wife is very rarely in the bar, as she attends to the cooking, and does not come dow till the evening. It did not occur to me that Smith and Daley were dividing the money. The money was on the top of a Cox's till. I know it was £4 because that is the amount I regularly keep there for change in case of anyone coming in with a sovereign. In addition to the £3 9s. 6d. I had from Smith, the money found on Daley was impounded, and I received altogether 1s. 9d. less then the £4. I cannot say you have not been into the house when my wife was serving. I keep also a barmaid and a potman.
Detective WILLIAM CHARLES WOOD, City Police. At 12.35 on June 25 I was in Fleet Street I saw prisoner there and told him I was a police officer, and that he answered the description of a man wanted on a certain charge. I told him he would be arrested on suspicion. He said, "I was there." At the police station he was put up for identification, and identified by the last witness.
The Recorder said there was no case against the prisoner, and directed a verdict of Not guilty.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Tuesday, July 23.)
Prisoner was released on his own recognisances in £10 to come up far judgment when called upon.
McDONALD, Thomas (40, agent), pleaded guilty to obtaining on August 30, 1906, the sum of £26, and on September 29, 1906, the sum of £6, by false pretences from William John Griffiths, in each case with intent to defraud; obtaining by false pretences from Vernon Smith a bankers cheque for the payment and of the value of £15, with intent to defraud.
Several previous convictions were proved. Sentence, Three years' penal servitude.
PERKINS, Alexander John (42, clerk) pleaded guilty , to being a clerk to Short and Mason, Limited, embezzling the several sums of 7s., £3, £2, and 4s. 5d., received by him for and on account of his said employers; stealing the sum of £1 2s. 2d., the moneys of Short and Mason, Limited, his employers; being a clerk to Short and Mason, Limited, did omit and altar or concur in omitting and altering certain material particulars in several books belonging to his said employers, with intent to defraud.
Sentence, Three years penal servitude.
READING, Ernest James (27, labourer), HARRIS, Percy George (22, hawker), SMITH, John (18, hawker), JENKINS, John (18, hawker), NUTLEY, Robert (18, labourer), BLANCHARD, George (18, labourer), BARKER, Kate (35, charwoman), and BUTLER, Margaret Julia (19, servant). Reading, Harris, Jenkins, and Smith, burglary in dwelling-house of Margaret Hart, and stealing therein a silver watch, three thimbles, and other articles her property; Harris, Smith, Jenkins, Blanchard, and Barker, breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Frank Ellis, and stealing therein a watch, a bracelet, and other articles his property, and a watch and chain, the property of Samuel Harding ; Nutley , feloniously receiving a watch, the property of Margaret Hart, well knowing it to have been stolen; Harris, Blanchard, Smith, and Butler, burglary in the dwelling-house of George Farrer Thirtle, and stealing therein two hearthrugs and other articles, his property; Harris and Butler, breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Michael McCarthy and stealing therein four blankets and other articles, his property.
Mr. J. K. Mackay prosecuted.
The six male prisoners pleaded guilty.
King's Road, Fulham. In June, 1907, I acted as caretaker of the house of Frank Ellis, 15, Woodthorpe Road, Putney. On June 20, at 11.15 a.m., I left the premises secure, and on returning at 7.45 p.m. I found the scullery window open, the inner doors forced, and the place ransacked. In the bedroom were a number of empty jewel cases. My silver watch, which I identify, had been stolen and a number of other articles of jewellery. I sent for the police. The gauze of the scullery window was broken.
Mrs. Ellis, wife of Frank Ellis, 15, Woodthorpe Road. My house was left in the care of the last witness, and in consequence of a communication I returned home on June 21 and found that two small upboards in my bedroom had been forced and a number of jewels stolen, five of which have not been recovered. I identify two brooches, gold chain and locket, necklet with pendant, bracelet and earrings produced, belonging to me; also a silver watch, the property of the last witness—value in all about £60. The children's money-box was broken open and tne pennies stolen.
CHRISTOPHER GEORGE LAWRENCE , 65, High Street, Wandsworth, pawnbroker. On June 21 a gold brooch and two earrings (produced) were pawned with me 'by a woman in the name of Ann Johnson, and gold pin (produced) was pawned in the name of John Stephens by the Harris. I do not recognise the woman.
ARTHUR NACKETT , assistant to J. Bosher, pawnbroker, 26, Sutton Road, Battersea. On June 21 gold chain and locket produced were pawned for 10s. by a woman (whom I do not recognise) in the name of Ann Barker.
EDMUND JAMES ELY , manager to Thompson, 131, Falcon Road, Battersea, pawnbroker. On June 21 gold bracelet produced was pawned to me for 25s. by the prisoner Barker, whom I identify, in the name of Mrs. Johnson.
WALTER LOVELACE , assistant to Frederick Read, pawnbroker, 117, High Street, Wandsworth. I produce brooch pawned for 3s. on June 21 in the name of "Kate Johnson" by the prisoner Barker, whom I identify. On the same day pin produced was pawned by a man I do not know.
Detective WILLIAM HIED, V Division. On June 24, at 10 a.m., in company with Sergeant Davis, I arrested Barker at 22, Carnworth Road, Fulham. I said, "We are police officers. You answer the description of a woman who has been pawning certain articles of jewellery in Wandsworth and Battersea, the proceeds of a case of house-breaking at Woodthorpe Road, Putney." She said, "I admit I pawned some articles for Percy Reading last Friday. I brought him, out the money and the tickets on each occasion and gave it to him, and he tore the tickets up. I do not know where the things came from." She was then charged, and made no reply to the charge.
Verdict: Barker, Guilty of feloniously receiving.
Mrs. McCARTHY, wife of Michael McCarthy, 12, Raymond Road, Wimbledon. From June 13 to 24 we were away from home, leaving the house unoccupied. I returned on June 24. I found the wire netting of the cellar window had been cut off and thrown into the cellar. Some suits of gentlemen's clothes, four blankets, several sheets, counterpanes, towels, and a quilt were stolen to the value of £25. I identify by the marks sheets, blankets, towels, and quilt produced as my property.
Detective THOMAS MULLER. V Division. On June 23 at 3.30 p.m. in a room indicated by the last witness as occupied by the prisoners Harris and Butler, I took one blanket, one sheet, one quilt, and one towel (produced). The articles were in use on the bed, the towel hanging over the bed foot.
Detective-sergeant JOHN DAVIS, V Division. On June 22 I arrested Butler on another charge. She was afterwards charged with
being concerned with George Butler in breaking and entering a house at Wimbledon and stealing therefrom property of Mrs. McCarthy. She made no reply.
The Common Serjeant suggested there was no case against Butler, and the Jury returned a verdict of Not guilty.
Mr. M. Mackay stated that the evidence being of a similar character on the other indictment, he did not propose to proceed with it. The Jury returned a verdict of Not guilty.
Smith declared he had not pleaded guilty in Hart's case. That was accepted.
It was stated that the prisoners had been connected with 29 cases in the V Division alone, and other cases in Ealing and Chiswick, all of a similar character: robberies in unattended houses, one of the prisoners going round hawking fruit, postcards, etc., ascertaining what homes were empty and giving information to Harris, who is a brother of Reading, and who acted as ringleader and arranged the robberies. Reading was stated to have been concerned in only one case, and he had previously borne a good character.
Harris confessed to having been convicted on February 5, 1907, of breaking into a school house, receiving one month's bard labour after a previous conviction when he was committed for a day. Blanchard had had one month's hard labour for larceny.
Sentence: Harris four years' penal servitude, Reading 18 months' hard labour, Smith and Jenkins 18 months, Blanchard 20 months, Nutley 12 months under the Borstal system, Barker six months' hard labour.
The police were commended.
Mr. Sherwood prosecuted. Mr. Knight defended Exposito.
TOM ROBERTS , 107, Wynford Road, Islington, hat maker. On July 2, it 12.30 p. m, I left the "Blue Coat Boy," City Road, and walked up White Lion Street Islington, with my wife. I had about 18s. 4d. in my right trousers pocket. I looked to see because my wife asked me for money and I did not want to give it her then. I was walking a bit in front as she was jawing me. Three men and two women were walking in front of me, one of whom was Bennett, whom I knew by night. I walked across the road. Bennett and another man came over to me, got hold of my shoulder, and said, "Daddy, how much money have you got?" The other man put his hand in my pocket. I tried to grip his hand, and he got off and the two men ran over to the women. My wife ran after them, and they all went off out of my sight. The police then brought the two prisoners back. I could not recognise Exposito's features, but he was of the same build as the man who had put his hand in my pocket. They were taken to the police station. I there examined my money and found I had lost from 12s. to 14s.
To Bennett. I never saw your face not to recognise vou when you robbed me. I saw you before I crossed the road so that they should not interfere with me. I could not run, as I have rheumatic gout. At about seven or eight p.m., before going into the "Blue Coat Boy," I had 21s., and I had 18s. 4d. when I left there. I never said I changed a sovereign. When I said at the police court, "I do not remember seeing Bennett there" I meant I could not recognise your face when you robbed me.
Cross-examined by Mr. Knight. I was not drunk when I left the public-house; I had had enough. I had been in there from nine till 12.30. My wife had a drink; she was not drunk. I did not give her the money because she might have lost it—it was no use to her at quarter to one. I said at the police court that she was not in a state to receive the money. She was a bit "balmy"—that is, she is not quite right in her mind. She does not drink very much. I reckoned up my money at the police station. I had paid 1s. for a cab as I could not walk there. I had had as much drink as was good for me, but I knew what I wag about; so did my wife. I looked at my money in the public-house and counted it—it was all silver. Under cover of Bennett, Exposito put bis hand in my pocket I thought I caught his wrist, but he was gone—he was too tricky. I had never seen Exposito before I saw him in front of us in the street. After he ran away the policeman brought him back, and I said he was the man. I caught a glimpse of his features as he ran away. My wife did not say "That is the man." I said so.
Re-examined. I reckoned my money when I left the public-house—it was 18s. 5d. When I got to the station it was 4s. or 5s. I left the public-house at 12.30, was attacked about quarter of an hour after; the police brought one of the men back in about five minutes and the other in about eight or ten minutes. I did not recognize Bennett at the time, but I have recognised him since as a mail I had seen before.
ALICE ROBERTS , wife of prosecutor. We left the "Blue Coat Boy" at 12.30. As we got up White Lion Street we saw three men and two women in front of us; my husband crossed the street. The two prisoners crossed over, put their arms round my husband, and he called out, "They have robbed me." The two men then returned to the women and they all ran away. I ran too and called "Police!" The men got out of my sight. A few seconds afterwards the police brought the two prisoners back. I saw their faces when they went up to my husband. I knew Bennett before by sight as a man I had seen a few times in the neighbourhood. Exposito was a stranger to me. My husband suffers from paralysis and cannot walk fast I did not see any money at the station or at all. I had not had too much to drink. I had been at home all the evening, and went to the public-house at 12.15 for my husband. He was not the worse for drink and could walk as well as he ever can.
To Bennett. I said at the police court I did not recognise you the first time because I did not see you full face; afterwards I had
a better view of you, and I say you are the man. I saw Exposito put his hand in my husband's pocket. Both put their hands round him.
Cross-examined by Mr. Knight. I do not know what money my husband had when he went into the public-house—he never told me what he had got. I did not know about his money or see it. He gives me money when he takes his orders home, not every Saturday. I had only had a small stout in the pubic-house. My husband was perfectly sober—he cannot take drink—he could not walk at all if he did. He looked all right—the same as usual. Neither of us was balmy. I saw the faces of both the men, and I say that the prisoners were the men who robbed my husband They both pat their arms round his waist—not his neck. I saw my husband get hold of Exposito's hand. The prisoners came over to the women, and I ran and called for the police and then they all ran. I had a good view of Exposito's face, and recognised him when he was brought back.
Police-constable FREDERICK HUNTLY, 103 G. On the early morning of July 3 I was at the corner of Suffolk Street, about 200 yards from the end of White Lion Street. The last witness came to me and said that the prisoners had taken some money from her husband's pocket. The prisoners and another man were then two or three yards in front of me. I walked towards them, and the three ran away in different directions. I followed Exposito down White Lion Street into Penton Street and caught him in Chapel Street without losing sight of him. Bennett ran down Penton Street in the opposite direction. I did not see what became of the third man. I took Exposito to prosecutor, who was then in White Lion Street, and he said, "This man put his hand in my pocket and took my money out." Exposito said nothing. I took him to the station; Bennett was brought in about 10 minutes after, and they were charged together. Exposito said, "I am innocent." I searched him, and found upon him 2s. 6d. in silver and 1 1/4 d. in bronze.
To Bennett. I saw your face as you came towards me with exposito and another man. The two women were in the vicinity. I am positive I saw our face—I have seen you in the vicinity at night time and knew you by sight.
Cross-examined by Mr. Knight. When I brought back Exposito to the prisoner I saw no money in the road. (To Bennett.) When, prisoners were at the station prosecutor said he changed a sovereign at the public-house. He said he had lost about 12s. or 14s.
Re-examined. Prosecutor counted his money at the station—he had about 4s. When Alice Roberts came to me it was 12.35 a.m.
Police-constable ALBERT PAGE, 95 G. On July 3, at about 12.45 a.m., I was in Barron Street, about 250 or 300 yards from where the robbery is said to have occurred, when Alice Roberts came towards me shouting "Police." There were three men and two women about 10 yards past me. I shouted to them to stop, and they all ran off in different directions. I hailed the man who is
not in custody, and he came over to me with the two women, and he went back with me to the prosecutor, and I asked him to explain what had happened. I blew my whistle.
To Bennett. The third man accompanied me willingly; the other two ran away. The prosecutor could not identify the third man, and he worked his way into the crowd and disappeared when the arrest was made. He was an Italian half-catte, like Exposito. I accompanied prosecutor to the station to take the charge. I was standing outside the "Johns" public house when I saw the two prisoners and the third man.
Police-constable ERNEST DAY, 132 G. I was on duty just after midnight on July 2 in Pentonville Road, near Penton Street and White Lion Street, when I heard a police whistle. I saw Bennett running from White Lion Street, chased him, caught him, and took him to the station. He struggled to get away. I did not lose sight of him.
(Wednesday, July 24.)
ALBERT BENNETT (prisoner, on oath). When I heard the police whistle blow I ran up to see what was the matter, and the constable got hold of me by the neck and arm and switched my arm round, and he said, "I think you are one of them." I said, "You need not break my arm." Both constables twisted my arm round my neck and put their knees up. They said, "If you want to have a fight, have one"; and one said, "I think that is one of them, as I have known him in the neighbourhood." I did not run away. I ran to see what was the matter. I was not concerned in the robbery. Prosecutor said I was not there, and only knew me by living in the neighbourhood. Prosecutor's wife said the same. I was at the end of the turning selling song books, and when I heard the police whistle I went to see what was ihe matter. The police urged prosecutor to press the charge.
Cross-examined. I did not know prosecutor and his wife by sight. They live in the neighbourhood. I was working with my song-books right round the public-houses. I was coming from the "Blue Coat Boy" when the officer caught me. I was not in Exposito's company that night. I did not tell the police officer I was there to see what was the matter because he tried to break my arm. I said, "You needn't do that," and another officer came up and started doing the same. Another officer came and started putting his knees against my back and insisted on taking me to the station. He took me round the square and said, "Why don't you have a fight for your liberty?" The police did not give me a chance of saying anything. I had sold twelve of my thirteen song-books at 1d. each and had a shilling in coppers on me when taken.
Street instead. I meant to go to the Holborn Music Hall, but did not go, and railed at a public-house in White Lion Street and saw an acquaintance who asked me to have a drink. Bennett came in and started talking to my other friend. I did not know him or wish him to join in the conversation. My friend started rowing him. It was closing time, and we went out towards White Lion Street. Bennett used a foul expression. I told him to stop it. He said, "I don't care; both of you can do it on me if you like." I walked away with my friend. I heard someone shout, "He has got his hand in my pocket," and I saw someone bungling with prosecutor. I said to my friend. "We had better go on," and we walked away. Prosecutor's wife was calling "Police!" I looked round and see a policeman coming towards me to grab hold of me and I ran to get out of the way. I did not want to be arrested for anything I was not concerned in. When the constable arrested me I said, "I don't know what you are catching me for. I am innocent." I was taken to the police station just before Bennett arrived. When the prosecutor got there he said, looking at me, "I don't think I will charge that man." The officer in the charge-room said, "Go on; you don't know wheat they are until they are found out. Go on and prosecute him." Prosecutor said, "No." His wife said "Yes, that is him right enough."
I have a faint idea that it was Bennett who attacked prosecutor. I did not go to help because I don't like to get mixed up in these things. I saw two women in front of us. I did not notice a third man. I see somebody running and then turned round to see what was the matter and saw a constable coming towards me, which made me run.
Bennett's further defence. This man (Exposito) said that he had a faint idea that I was the man who was there. What made him have a faint idea if he did not see me there and lost me at the bottom of the turning? He said he saw me in a public-house drinking with other men. Where is his witness if so? If so, why didn't he and the other man come to the gentleman's assistance instead of running away when the prosecutor said he had lost his money? Also at the police court he did not state to the magistrate that I was in his company. His solicitor had been to the prosecutor and said he, prosecutor, would not come against me, and he did not appear at the police court until he was subpœnaed by the police authorities. The prosecutor was sure at the police court that he did not see me but only knew me by being in the neighbourhood, and his wife also said at the last hearing at the police court, "I did not see Bennett there, but I knew him by living in the neighbourhood." I don't know this prisoner at all. I was never in his company.
Verdict. Both prisoners not guilty.
The Common Serjeant. You two men have had a most wonderful escape. It is a sad failure of justice.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Tuesday, July 23.)
FREEMAN, Hewan Archdale, REUTER, Albert (38, traveler), and FREEMAN. Leslie (36, architect) ; all conspiring and agreeing together to defraud Albert Mills, Robert Reitmeyer, Betts, and Co., Limited, James Hanson and Charles Windschueghl of their goods and moneys; all obtaining by false pretences from Albert Mills goods value £9 8s., from Robert Reitmeyer goods value £10 8s. 4d., from Betts and Co., Limited, goods value £3, from James Hanson goods value 14s., and from Charles Windschueghl goods value £17 13s. 6d., in each case with intent to defraud.
Sir Charles Mathews and Mr. Arthur Gill prosecuted. Mr. Daniel Warde and Mr. M. A. Taylor defended Hewan Freeman and Leslie Freeman.
WILLIAM BARTHEL , manager to Robert Reitmeyer and Co., 63, Crutched Friars. In December, 1905, my firm had transactions with Freeman and Co., 373, Queen's Road, New Cross Gate, and continued supplying goods up to April 30, 1906—acetic acid—on which date goods were sold amounting to £13 3s. 4d.; on April 23 the amount was £3 2s. 2d., and on April 25 a similar amount. On May 2 £2 was paid on account, it being sent in a letter from H. Freeman saying that he had been called away owing to the illness and death of his father. The letter was headed "Freeman and Co., wholesale merchants and universal providers, 373, Queen's Road, New Cross." We pressed for the money due, and received letter of May 11 signed, "For Freeman and Co.," and an initial underneath—indistinct. That letter contained a post-dated (May 21) cheque for £8 5s. 2d.; also another cheque which was cashed. On May 19 another letter came. We did not present the post-dated cheque on the 21st; when it was presented it was returned. On June 27 we again sent an account, showing balance of £10 8s. 4d., and saving that unless it was paid by 12 tomorrow we should have it collected. On that we received a letter headed, "The C.S. Chemical and General Supply Company, universal providers, trading as Freeman and Co., London and Bordeaux, manufacturers and importers, manufacturers of microbine; factory and warehouse, Herman Road." I had never heard of this company before. The letter said that they had taken over the liabilities of the late firm. We replied on June 30 asking them if Mr. Freeman had no connection with the firm and to let us have his empties, to which they responded on July 2 saying that they had absolutely nothing to do with the late owners and giving Mr. W. Freeman's address. We wrote again on July 3 still pressing our inquiries, and received a reply on July 4 saying that the carboys had been purchased by them. We dropped the matter until November 29, when we wrote asking them to let us know in confidence the address of the late owners, to which they replied. "We regret to say we do not know the where-abouts of the Freeman Brothers. We should like to know ourselves.
If we are successful in finding them we shall advise you, but we are afraid they are worthless." That was the end of our efforts to trace the Freeman Brothers; we were never paid. We believed we were dealing with a genuine business.
Cross-examined. I do not call our business with the Freemans a considerable one. Our firm has a large business. The goods were all supplied to the same address at Queen's Road, but some were to the C.S. Chemical Company and others to Freeman and Co. These receipt produced relate to the Chemical Supply Company. I do not know that certain cheques were received from the Freemans; I cannot recollect; there were payments made. I remember the dishonoured cheque for £8 5s. 7d. As far as I know, no payments were made by cheques from the C.S. Chemical Company; it was always cash as far as I remember. Our books would show. There is £10 odd owing to us from prisoners after their two years' dealings with us. Acetic acid varies in degrees and in price. The carman, when he has been to us for the acetic acid, has sometimes not had enough money for the higher grade, and has afterwards called and paid the balance. So far as our firm was concerned, these people had previously paid us and acted honestly.
Re-examined. We dealt first of adl with the Freeman. We did not know that the C.S. Chemical Supply Company was composed of the same members as Freeman and Co.; if we had we would not have dealt with them. (Witness having produced his firm's book found numerous entries on various dates of payments by the Freemans, extending from February 28, 1906, to February, 1907.) The book does not show whether they were cash or cheques.
EDWARD CUTHBERT MONTGOMERY , employed by Bette and Co., Limited, 1, Wharf Road, City Road. In June, 1906, we supplied Freeman and Co. with a capsuiing machine and accessories, price £3, on approval. I applied for payment three times. The letter (produced) of November 21 last was sent by our firm applying for a cheque; other letters were sent on December 13 and 17. On January 4 we got one from the C.S. Chemical and General Supply Company, saying. "The enclosed statement has nothing to do with us; we purchased this business from the Freeman Company on November 19 last, and took over no liabilities whatever." On January 5 we replied stating that we were surprised at the position taken up. On January 12 they wrote repeating that they had no concern with the late firm. On January 24 we wrote again, and said we were instructing our solicitors. I do not think we had any reply to that, and have not been paid for the machine.
Cross-examined. I have told the jury all my personal dealings the prisoners. These receipts (produced) are for money paid by the Freemans; they have been cash customers of ours for a long time. I will not deny that they were supplied with several thousand capsules by us. I do not recollect Freeman's carman calling and asking for the price of a capsuling machine. I believe it was
ordered on the phone. The price was £2 5s. We have an elderly man who looks after these machines—keeps them in order. I could not say whether he was sent to Freeman's to see how the machine was working, nor whether the latter complained that the machine would not work for half pints. Our firm did recommend that accessories should be added. I have never seen any of the firm of Freemans, aithough I have called on them three times. I do not know that we have ever sent them a solicitor's letter.
Re-examined. We have not had any money in response to our applications. I saw a boy at Freemans premises on the first occasion I called.
JAMES HANSON , 33, Cooper's Road, Old Kent Road. On July 7 last year I called at 373, Queen's Road, and saw an office lad there, taking some cork rings which were ordered on July 4 by Reuter on behalf of Freeman and Co. I called for payment several times, mostly seeing the boy and once Reuter. Hewan Freeman had called on me once or twice, but not about the cork rings. I gave a letter to Reuter to deliver to Hewan Freeman. I am not mistaken about that. As I did not get paid I took proceedings in the County Court against Freeman and Co. I received letter headed, "The Common Sense Chemical and General Supply Company," saying that they had purchased and taken possession of Freeman's Vinegar Company on November 19, and were not responsible for the late proprietor's liabilities in any way. That was initialled A.E.R. I did not take any further step; it was not worth it. When I supplied the goods I thought I was dealing with a bona-fide company.
Cross-examined. Ii was not Leslie Freeman who gave me the order for cork rings; it was Reuter. I do not know Leslie Freeman. Reuter has called on me and given one or two small orders, for which he has paid cash. I have a little girl, but I do not know that she collected tram tickets. Leslie Freeman never came to my house; it was Hewan. I do not recollect about any tram tickets lying on the table of my sitting-room, nor having any conversation about them.
Re-examined. I did not know Reuters name until recently; for Hewan's, until I got it from a cheque which somebody lent me; the was just before I summoned him.
To prisoner Reuter. When you brought the order you were driving a dirty little van and horse. That was about July 4. You did not take the goods with you; my girl delivered them. You called at my house more than once. I do not know the date when you first called; it was about June of last year. You have called about four times altogether. Once you paid me for an order in cash. You did not take any goods away without payment.
To the Judge. On the first two occasions Reuter paid for the goods, but the third time he gave me some samples and ordered the rings, which were not paid for. The fourth time I saw him was when I called at Queen's Road, and there was a notice outside, "Beware of
the dog, "but I took no notice of that. I do not remember a conversation with the man who called (whoever he was) about Bussey's or anyone else.
CHARLES WINDSCHUEGL , Leadenhall Buildings. I received a letter on March 4 last headed, "Freeman's Vinegar Co., London and Bordeaux manufacturers and importers. Offices and showrooms Queen's Road, London," and aaking us to quote for acetic acid. We replied, quoting for same, and then received a visit from Reuter, who gave me a card. He wanted to buy half a ton of acetic acid. I agreed to supply on references for cash. He said he would not be prepared to pay cash, as his principals were not in town, and they only met once a fortnight, and would only pay every other Saturday, when there is a meeting, and the cheques would have to be signed by both; but he gave me two references, which I applied for, and they were good. The goods were supplied, £17 13s. 6d. We were not paid. I gave fourteen days' credit on Router's representations. Mr. Laidlaw called for payment, and we wrote twice—March 25 and April 8.
Cross-examined. It was the first time I have heard that these people were and are prepared to pay my bill.
To Reuter. You did not give me to understand that you were one of the principals.
WILLIAM LAIDLAW , salesman to Charlee Windschugl and Co. deposed to calling four or five times on Freeman and Co., Queen's Road, and seeing a girl one time, another time Hewan Freeman, who Mid Mr. Freeman was away on his holidays. At other times witness saw no one.
ALBERT MILLS , 68, Wyndham Road, Camberwell. On May 3 prisoner Reuter called on me, saying he represented Freeman's Vinegar Company, giving me the card produced. He wanted some vinegar bottles. I told him I had none by me, but agreed to get some on terms he mentioned, cash on delivery, and send them to 373, Queen's Road. William Collins, the carman, took them, with instructions that it was to be cash on delivery. He returned with a sealed envelope, which contained a note, "Your carman arrived too late for Mr. Freeman, so am returning crates and will bring you cheque £9 8s. to-morrow." The next day I sent my man, and went myself to Queens Road, where I saw Hewan Freeman, who said he was the yard foreman. He afterwards admitted he was Mr. Freeman, but (said he could do nothing in the matter till he saw Mr. Reuter. I asked if the latter could not be found, and that he should tell me where he lived. He said, No, he should not think of doing that; it would be unbusinesslike, or something like that. He said Reuter would be there on Monday morning. I said I would make an Appointment, and he said, "All right, call on Monday morning at 10 o'clock." I went on Monday morning and saw Mr. Freeman again, waiting about an hour and a half, but no Mr. Reuter came. I asked Freeman if he intended paying me. He said he would do nothing at all till he saw Reuter. I have not seen Reuter. I have not seen Reuter since, and, being unable
to get the money or bottles, I went to the police. The document produced was given to the carman when he took the bottles. "Please turn over and return crates and please pay the carman and oblige." I saw some of my bottles afterwards at the police-station. I thought Reuter was genuine when he told me it would be cash on delivery.
Cross-examined. I have got the bottles back except about 15s. worth. I did not think Freeman was deaf when I spoke to him Freeman did say the bottles were sold on a monthly agreement, but I said they were not. I do not think prisoners were all along ready to pay me. I got information that my bottles were moved the same aight that they were delivered, or part of them, and the other part would be taken away on Saturday evening.
To Reuter. When you called it is true I showed you a bottle and asked if you ever did anything on commission. It is not true that you said, as you were leaving the yard, your firm's terms were the usual month. You said, "As soon as the bottles are delivered there your money." I said I would ring up my customer, and if the bottles were not sold I would try and get them. He came the next morning, and I said I had not rung up. He said, "I wish you would, we are so pressed." I said, "If I do, what are your terms!" "You must pay me cash as soon as the bottles are delivered. I am only a poor man." He agreed to pay cash, and came again in the afternoon. Just then my van came up with the bottles.
WILLIAM COLLINS , carman to Albert Mills. On May 3 I took 14 gross of bottles to 373, Queen's Road, Mr. Mills telling me they were to be paid for on delivery. On arriving there I saw Hewan Freeman, who said he was foreman of the yard and that Mr. Freeman had gene to Catford. He said he would be back before I went away, so I commenced to unload. Just before I finished Mr. Reuter arrived. He then gave me an envelope, and I was told there was a cheque inside. I would not have left the bottles had I known there was no cheque there. I went the next day to Queen's Road, being afterwards joined by Mr. Mills. I heard some of the conversation between him and Freeman, and the latter said he was not Mr. Freeman, afterwards saying he was.
Cross-examined. I did not notice that Mr. Freeman was deaf.
To Reuter. When you gave me the envelope you did not say the cheque was not in the envelope in reply to my question. You said, "Yes, all right."
JAMES CHARLES , clerk to Edwin Evans, 253, Lavender Hill, estate agent. In April last I acted on behalf of Mr. Bunker, the owner of the mission hall at Wandsworth. Prisoners Hewan Freeman and Reuter called on me in reference to taking it. We came to an arrangement that they should take it for three years, with the option of a lease at £28 per annum, they giving references (in the letter produced): Albert Reuter, 21, South Island Place, Clapham Road; and G. Archdale, Ayrshire House, New Cross. S.E. I did not know the names of the two prisoners then. We wrote to the referees and received
the letters produced upon which the agreement produced was drawn up and sent on and possession given. The agreement was not sent back, although I wrote three times for it. They had possession from about April 22 to their arrest.
To Reuter. I do not think you took part in the conversation when you called with Hewan Freeman.
CHARLES PENNACK , agent for 373, Queen's Road, deposed to letting these premises from March 25, 1905, to William Freeman—not one of the prisoners. I have not seen him since (February, 1905). I have seen the two Freemans at the premises on several occasions. I have cot teen Reuter there.
Cross-examined. I retook possession of the house between the March and June quarteis this year. The rent has been paid up to farch.
Re-examined. I had to put the brokers in on two or three occasions to get the rent. I was paid by cheque two or three times.
Mrs. DAISY PEACOCK. In May, 1906, I took some rooms at 373, Qieen's Road from Leslie Freeman. Hewan was there at that time. I stayed there 13 months. Leslie left there in October last. Hewan came every day before Leslie left and afterwards, but did not live there. Reuter has been there as a traveller ever since. I have been there. (Witness identified the handwriting of certain letters written or prisoners Leslie Freeman and Reuter.)
Cross-examined. The business was not carried on respectably after Mr. Leslie left. The vinegar and house agency businesses were carried on while I was there.
To Reuter. I simply knew you a traveller while you were there.
Re-examined. I knew Reuter had a lot of correspondence, but I did not know the nature of it. I knew nothing of the business till the office boy left about Christmas time. After that I had to answer the door. Goods used to come to the premises and people used to come for their money. Mr. Hewan used to tell me to say that Mr. Freeman had gone away. I never saw anyone paid. (Witness deseribed the process of vinegar making.) They used to sell the vinegar at 3s. 6d. a cask. The owners of the business all the time I was there, as far as I knew, were the two Freeman. I did not know of any showrooms at Herman Road nor of any place at Bordeaux. They used to bottle downstairs. Goods were taken from 373, Queen's Road, to the Mission Hall; they were going to start thebusiness there.
Further cross-examined. I know there are two kinds of vinegar—malt vinegar costing twice as much. I do not know anything about vinegar making except what I saw at Queen's Road. I cannot remember the names of all the people who came for money. One was Roberts, of Stratford. Mr. Hewan gave me notice to leave when the brokers were coming in.
To Reuter. You were there more or lees every day; not all day. I have often seen you at the desk writing letters and washing bottles,
(Wednesday, July 24.)
Mrs. PEACOCK, recalled. To Router. I never knew you to drive a van for the Freeman's. There was a carman named Monday.
PERCY BLISS . I was employed as clerk at 373, Queen's Road, from April to December of last year. Mr. Leslie Freeman engaged me. The name outside the house was H. A. Freeman. I do not remember whether the business was then Freeman and Co., wholesale merchants and universal providers. That was the heading of some of the letter-paper. The other was, "H. Freeman, architect and surveyor." Mr. Hewan used to sleep at the premises. Mr. Reuter was engaged there as traveller at the time I was there. I used to write the letters; sometimes they were typed, sometimes written; they were all dictated, either by Mr. Leslie or Mr. Hewan. Reuter used to come every day for a time, and sometimes two or three times a week. Hewan left about June or July last year; then Leslie left in November; and after that Hewan came back and took control. The C. S. Chemical and General Supply Company was carried on at the same time, and I thought they were the same; they were the same people. I never knew any William Freeman. The letter (produced) was typed by me and dictated by Hewan. The contents of the letter struck me as odd, but I did not say anything to Mr. Freeman about it. Up to the time I left Mr. Reuter did not write any of the letters, as far as I know. I was the only clerk; I do not know whether anyone succeeded me. Reuter wrote the orders. I did not know that there was any branch at Bordeaux, nor any factories or warehouses at Herman Road. I never made any inquiries about the statements on the C.S. Chemical Company's paper. I did know about the applications for money, but not as to how they were dealt with. There was a firm called the Western Electric Company at the premises when I went; they were tenants of Mr. Leslie. Mr. Archdale was the same as Mr. Hewan; Archdale was his second name. He would tell me sometimes, when people called, to say that Mr. Archdale would see them. The C.S. Chemical Company's paper was used when I first went there in April. I do not know that that company purchased the Freeman's business on November 19 last. In regard to the names of members of the Chemical Company, I know Miss C. Sopp; she was not in control of the business. C. Fraser is a gentleman who was going to be a partner. I only know one Mr. Fraser. When I first went there the name of the business was Freeman's Vinegar Company.
Cross-examined. There were two other clerks in my time; Mr. Mews and Mr. Hills; the latter managed the house agency part; he came at the same time as I. There were three travellers, Reuter, Waters, and Llewellyn. I have seen Mr. Fraser at Queen's Road: I have also seen him about here to-day. I do not know that he advanced a sum on account of purchase money.
To Router. I used to make out your commission book sometimes; you were paid like the other travellers. I have not known you to
drive a horse and van for Mr. Freeman, nor act as carman. When Mr. Leslie left in November Miss Sopp became proprietress, with Mr. Hewan as manager, and you were kept on as traveller.
Re-examined. At the time Mr. Leslie left the banking account ceased; that was last November. The house agency business belonged to Mr. Hewan. Mr. Mews used to write the invoices sometimes and help in the yard or in the bottling. There was a day book and a ledger kept while I was there; no copies of invoices were kept. There was no plant beyond the cask mentioned in which the vinegar was made.
SERGEANT ERNEST HAIGH , P Division. On May 27 I arrested Reuter and Hewan Freeman as they were leaving 373, Queen's Road. Reuter said, "What is the case?" I said, "Mr. Mills, of Camberwell, has complained of you and Freeman having swindled him out of a quantity of bottles." Reuter said, "Oh! that case; well I do not see much fraud about that. If that is all, I can get out of this all right." Then I said they might be also charged with other alleged frauds, and Reuter said, "All right, I shall know what to do, so we won't discuss it now." They made no answer to the charge when read. Reuter at first refused his address (afterwards giving 21, South Island Place, Brixton), but He was gave his as 194, Queen's Road, Peckham. Documents were found on both, also at the premises, 373 and 194, Queen's Road. On May 28 I went to the Mission Hall at Wandtworth, where I found the bottles identified by Mr. Mills, the capsuling machine, and other materials that have been identified by other persons. I found no trade books or manufacturing plans at Queen's Road—there were a tot of papers there. (Witness identified documents found at Reuter's lodgings and at the Mission Hall and Queen's Road, also some found on Hewan Freeman.) I do not know of any factories or warehouses at Herman Road. After further information had been received I arrested Leslie Freeman on June 18. He made no reply to the charge.
Cross-examined. (Counsel having produced a bundle of books and repers.) I did not see these at 194, Queen's Road; they were not there. I went there late at night, but I went through all the rooms, turned the desk over and found everything that was in it.
Police constable FREDERICK WARD, 408 P. I took Hewan Freeman to the station. On the I know which case it was. I said he would know at the station later on. He said, "I knew which case this is."
HIWAN ARCHDALE FREEMAN (prisoner, on oath). I am rather deaf. The premises, 373, Queen's Road, were taken by another brother, William Freeman, in March, 1905, who had no connection with them afterwards. I went there and started business as oil and colour merchant, "W. Freeman and Co." That continued till June, 1906, when Leslie came and joined me. "Freeman's Vinegar Co." started in January, 1906, but "W. Freeman and Co." was still carried
on as an oil business. In June, 1906. I had an offer to go to another firm, Cordell, Finnis and Co., Limited, 213, New Cross Road, oil and colour merchants and builders' materials. I was with them two months, and left because there was not sufficient work for me A, that time W. Freeman and Co., the oil business, was changed to the C.S. Chemical, etc., Co. Besides the vinegar and oil business we were agents for Cameron's coals, Pickford's, and the Parcels Delivery Co. From June to November last Leslie carried on the business I calling in at times to give assistance. After November 19 Leslie had nothing to do with it. Miss Sopp was then the owner, and until January of this year I was manager. Miss Sopp supplied some money to the business. After January I took it over entirely. Miss Sopp handed it over, according to the document read. We manufactured the vinegar in the usual way; we did not manufacture malt vinegar. The reason we took the Mission Hall was that we were giving up 373, Queen's Road, to reduce expenses. That was in April. I had a banking account with the London and County Bank, Margate branch. That was opened when I was at Margate, practising as architect and surveyor. Later on the account was transferred to the Camber-well Green branch, where I still have an account. I should say I first dealt with Reitmeyers in the beginning of 1906. It would be right to say December, 1905. We had a good number of transactions with Reitmeyers—which have been paid for. After the balance of £10 8s. 4d. was incurred we did business with them, paying cash, right up to last month. Miss Sopp used to attend at week ends—about four or five times—for the purpose of seeing the books and making payments. I have never been to Mr. Hansom's house, and had nothing to do with the purchase of cork rings. I have never sent Reuter out as carman. Munday was the carman. I had nothing to do with the purchase of the capsuling machine. In regard to Wind-schuegl's case, the acetic acid. I supplied the two references. If I had not been arrested I should have been able to pay him. In regard to Mr. Mills, I directed Reuter to make inquiries as to the price of bottles. The latter told me the terms were to be "one month." I should have been able to pay in that case. When the bottles were delivered a man came to the side gate, at three in the afternoon, and said, "I have brought a load of bottles." I said, "A funny time of the day to bring bottles." I opened the invoice and was amazed at the quantity of bottles. I said, "We do not require such a quan-tity." There were some 13 or 14 gross. He told me a gentleman had been to see Mr. Mills and arranged for a load of bottles. He had brought them, he said, from the other side of the water on purpose for us, and we must have them, so I saw no alternative but to ask him to uuload. While unloading Reuter came. I told him the circumstances, and he said, "Oh, that's all right." He was in a hurry to get away and said. "I will talk to you about it to-morrow," so he wrote a letter to Mills and handed it to the carman. I did not see the contents. Next morning Mr. Mills came fairly early. I opened the door, not knowing the man. He said he had come about the bottles
and wanted to be paid. I said I did not intend to pay him until I saw Renter. He said ne would either have the bottles or the money. I told him, "Upon Mr. Reuter saying the bottles were not on a month's credit I will pay you, otherwise you will have to wait a month He waited to see Reuter, and asked for his address, which I dia not feel justified in giving. It was arranged that Mills should meet Reuter on the Monday. Mills came on that day, but Reuter did not. In the vinegar business we had five travellers—three in London and two in the country. The vinegar business done is shown in the five books produced and two small receipt books. There is also the ledger. (A bundle of labels was produced.) We bought our malt vinegar from Slee, Slee, and Co. The receipt produced are for vinegar bought for the purpose of 'bottling and supplying to customers. (Two books and four bundles of correspondence were produced relating to the house agency business.) Reuters commission accounts are shown in these three books produced. Cross-examined. When I was arrested the business was being carried on at the mission hall. It had practically ceased at Queen's Road. Those were the only addresses. The documents and books (produced) were found at 194, Queen's Road, by me after my arrest. The detectives came there at 11p.m. when my wife was in bed; she came down and let them in, and I think in their hurry they did not look properly round, because one of the detectives had his arm like that (illustrating) on one of the ledgers—so my wife told me. I did not see the necessity for questioning Sergeant Haig about that before the magistrate. The books have been on my desk ever since. I did send a postdated cheque to Messrs. Reitmeyer which was not met. The letter of June 28 is not in my writing—I should say it was written by Mews. Exhibit 12 may have been written by Bliss; it was not dictated by me. In regard to Exhibit 16, I should feel inclined to deny that Bliss typed it from my dictation I wont say that Bliss invented such a story. I have no recollection of doing it. I don't see why I should turn round and swear. I should like to see the letter that would make me dictate that. (Letter pat.) I never heard about this when before the magistrate—I do not remember it. I swear that the letter Exhibit 15 wm not in my pocket when I was arrested. I had a bundle of letters and orders on me at the time, which I notice have not been brought forward. I do not remember the letter which saw: "We do not know the whereabouts of the Freeman Bros.; we should like to know ourselves; if we are successful in finding them we will advise you, but we are afraid they are worthless." I know nothing aibout Herman Road. The printing on the letter Exhibit 16 was done in my brother's time, and was continued when I went back to the business. It began to be used in June, 1906. The origin of the "Herman Road" address was when a member of the family (Leslie Freeman) had business premises in Bowles Road; there was some printing done there, and that is how the name came to be used. The C.S. Chemical, etc., Company never
had factories or warehouses in Herman Road. My brother had the dealings with Bordeaux; I have none of it on me. The business was done with a man named Cordew (?). I remember the ordering of eight carboys from Messrs. Windschuegl. I have no recollection of anyone calling for payment. I should say my conduct in regard to the mission hall was not honest; I did a very, very foolish act in giving myself as a reference, and why I did it I cannot say, but I humbly apologise for my misconduct, and if I had known it would have placed me in this position to-day I would rather not have taken the place, or given the rent in advance. I must have been been off my head at the time to have done it. Mr. Reuter was not a member of the firm, and I thought it was perfectly right for him to give a reference, if he thought the firm was worthy of a reference. I wrote the letter giving the names of the references. I did not arrange with Reuter that he should give a reference. I took the name Archdale because I did not want to bring the name Freeman into it; they would have known directly that it was a member of the firm. It is untrue that I told Mr. Mills's carman that Mr. Freeman was out, but that he would be back before he finished loading. I opened the letter from Mr. Mills. I understood that the carman would leave the goods but not the crates. I told the carman that Mr. Reuter had gone to Catford, but would be back before he (the carman) left. The carman left the goods at his discretion. I may have told him that I was the manager in the yard; so I was. The carman did not say that the goods were "cash on delivery," and that he could not leave the bottles without the money. I did not hear him ask Reuter if the cheque was in the envelope, nor can I say that Reuter said it was. The dishonoured cheque to Reitimeyer was drawn on the London and County Bank, Margate. I have no doubt there were other dishonoured cheques. I never heard that Miss Sopp was engaged to Leslie Freeman. They were well known to each other. I do not know what Miss Sopp's interest in the business was. She never got anything out of it. She used to come on Saturday, and went into the question of who was to be kept on and who was to go. When I took it over in January my first step was to give Mrs. Peacock and others notice. The agreements of November 13 (produced) is in Miss Sopp's and Leslie's writing.
Re-examined. The agreement of November 16 is between Miss Sopp and myself, that I should be taken on as minager.
To Reuter. You were kept on as traveller when I became manager. On Saturdays you did no travelling, and sometimes gave us a little a sistance in the office work. You answered letters from Messrs. Betts and Mr. Hanson at our request. You were also instructed to buy acid from Windschuegl and bottles from Mills. You were nothing but a servant, and knew nothing of the private arrangements that we made.
the back entrance in Bowles Road. At that time I had tome paper printed. "Common Sense Chemical Company," lithographed. The heading produced is the one altered in June, 1906 to the "C.S. Chemical Company." This has been cut out and printed in; the other was lithographed. In June, 1906, we had no premises in Herman Road; they were given up in 1904. The same printer did the printing on the paper, and I asked him about making a new plate. I do not know whether it was £2, £3, or £4 he said it would cost, but he said it could be cut out for 15s. and put in in type instead of being litho-graphed; the same plate would be used, but the price would be much less, so I had that done. I told him to put on "Trading at Freeman and Co"; that is printed also, instead of lithographed. That is the explanation of why "Factories and warehouses, Herman Road," is kept on. When I had the premises in 1904 in Herman and Bowles Road the upstairs was used as a bottling room, which opened into Herman Road. The downstairs was used as a warehouse, which opened into Bowles Road. I had that address lithographed and it taken £4, as far as I remember. The Queen's Road offices were not taken by me till June, 1906. I daresay if I had told the printer to fit out "Factories and warehouses, Herman Road," he would have charged more. When I went to Queen's Road in June, 1906, my eldest brother had taken the premises with the idea of my younger brother starting business there with hit family, the former to be responsible for the rent and to finance hit brother as far at he felt inclined to. In June, 1905, I was simply a lodger there. My mother took the room. I paid 5s. a week and left there every morning to my employment, returning about eight o'clock in the evening. That went on till August, 1905. Then I finished my employment and used to help my brother. In June, 1906, I bought the business entirely, and added the C.S. Chemical Company line to it. I was not the owner at all in 1905. It was first called Freeman's Vinegar Company in December, 1905, when Mr. Reuter came. I have had nothing to do with the business since November, 1906. I had a banking account up to that time. I have had dealings with Reitmeyer. The £10 8s. 4d. balance was my brother's account. I have paid them something between £40 and £50 in cheques and cash. It was I who went to Mr. Hanson's house. A little girl about 14 opened the door. She fetched her father, who said that he made shives. He took me into the sitting-room, and I told him what I wanted. He brought me up a handful of shives. He said he only made them to order. Meanwhile I noticed some tram tickets on the table and asked him what they were for. He said, "My kids are collecting them, hoping to get a lucky number." I remembered the conversation because I wondered what he meant by the lucky number. He asked me where I had been buying shives, and said he could do them much cheaper. I did not altogether believe it, because his were made of deal and the others are made of American white wood, etc. I had one lot from him and round they did not answer, so I did not have any more shives, but I had some cork rings from him. Neither my brother
nor Reuter has been to his place. The carman went, I think, two or three times. In regard to the capsuling machine, my brother in his time used to put the capsules on, but I could not do it, so engaged a girl when he went away, and she could not do it, so I decided to have a capsuling machine. I asked the carman to inquire about one at Betts', and Betts said they would send one down on approval. About three days after they sent one, price 45s. It answered for quarts and pints, but not half-pints. An elderly man came to see it, and he said they would send some accessories. They would be 12s. or 15s. He came a week after that, and I said, "If you have got the account I will pay you." He said, "No, I haven't got the account; it will come in the usual way from the firm. You can send me a cheque or pay me next time I am this way." I have never seen him since. The bill came in five days after I left. We had seven travellers in my time—five in town, two in the country. Mr. Reuter did the most. He did about 40 barrels a week. When I left there were 700 casks out in London, and our output was about £20 a week—£10 to £20. We had about 300 customers altogether. The first three books that have been produced were used in my time; the others since. In the first month of our vinegar trade we did about £3 12s.; afterwards it varied; it would be £10 or £20 according to winter or summer. In May I advertised for a partner, as I could pet get a living wage as manager, and my brother would not take me as partner with him. A man came to me at the end of June. I explained the circumstances to him, and he said, "We must buy your brother's interest out or start in opposition." We agreed to pay my brother £10, and he was going to another firm, but before paying him we suspected he was going to introduce the vinegar to his firm, so we agreed to pay him 10s. a week. The ledger produced has not been made up from the day book in my time. The London business was Chiefly cash, and the country credit. The house agency business was practically dropped when my brother left in June. I had very little to do with it. I was as a rule outside looking after the vinegar marking or writing letters.
(Thursday, July 25.)
LESLIE FREEMAN , recalled. Cross-examined. The firm of "Freeman and Co., wholesale merchants and universal providers," was my oldest brother, William, and Hewan, not I. William did take some part in it beyond taking the premises. In June or July, 1906, when I bought Hewan's interest. William wrote to me, saying that Hewan had no right to dispose of it, and that my interest in the business was exactly the same as before until I had seen him. I ordered the green lithographed circular of the C. S. Chemical Company about June, 1906. I had had some by me since 1904. We did not have a house at Bordeaux. I wrote to a Mr. Cordew, sen., to ask him about Orleans vinegar, also what arrangement we could make with him. The arrangement was that we were to represent his vinegar in England;
£25 worth at a time was to come over. Mr. Cordew died in 1904. This arrangement was in 1904. In 1906 I wrote to Mr. Cordew, jun., and he sent me a sample from Boulogne, I think. I udentood he had moved from Bordeaux to Boulogne. His price was too high, and the arrangement was never made. As the plate was lithographed, it has always remained the same since 1904. That is the explanation of "London and Bordeaux." I did not think it necessary to have it altered, as it would cost something like £4. When I said that my father "died yesterday" in the letter of 1906 that was a falsehood. The letter of July 2 to Reitmeyers would be dictated by me. It was true that I had nothing to do with the late firm. W. and H. Freeman. We had bought them out. The address given of W. Freeman was the only one I knew of. I did not know whether he was living there. In regard to the phrase in the letter, "We have the means of finding him out, and for reasons of our own we are going to"; that referred to H. Freeman, who had signed an agreement that he would have nothing to do with vinegars, and then we food he was inquiring of our cooper the price of casks, so I was determined to find his address to know whether he meant starting with vinegar or not. I did find his address, but I did not send it to Reitmeyers. I had no connection with them after July. I paid William Freeman £10 and released him from the lesse and all connected with it. The purchasers of the new business were C. Sopp and A. Fraser, not C. Fraser. There was not an L. Fraser; that is evidently meant for myself, L. Freeman. It must be a clerical error. I meant it for L. Freeman. Miss Sopp had let me have money, before October 16, not on account of purchasing the business, but she had an interest in it as long as she advanced the money. In reference to the £50 which she advanced she has never asked for it back. I have had letters from her up to three days ago. When I wrote the letter to Reitmeyers I had only three carboys of theirs, which I wanted credit for.
Re-examined. The case produced is the one in which the vinegar was sent from France. The writing on it is in French. I have been a personal friend of Miss Sopp for a long time. Mr. Fraser paid me £46 6s. on account of the partnership. The receipts produced for £30 I gave him. Mr. Fraser is on good terms with me now. The reason he did not become a partner was that he could not find the rest of the money. The letters produced, both dated June 15, 1906, are in the respective handwriting of Hewan and myself, agreeing to the transfer of the business from him to me.
To Reuter. You were in my employment as traveller, and nothing more. You never did any clerical work for me, and always kept to the public side of the counter in my time. You never drove a horse and van for me, nor had anything to do with our internal business, as to what has come to light. In the last month of my connection with the business I paid away cheques amounting to £85 to settle up accounts, and there was more than enough to pay the bills of £3 and 14s. if they had come in.
ALBERT REUTER (prisoner, on oath). I went into the employment of Freeman's Vinegar Company in December, 1905; before that I was travelling for the Anglo-French Vinegar Company. In the early part of 1905 we had in inquiry from Freeman's, and I called upon them, the result of which was that we did business with them. In December I had trouble with my firm and left them. I approached Messrs. Freeman, as previously Leslie Freeman had told me he wished he had a traveller like me. That is how I joined them. I was engaged at 10s. a week, with 15 per cent, commission. The proprietor Was introduced to me as William Freeman, whom I only saw once be-fore I joined them, when I was trying to sell them a larger parcel than usual. At the end of May or beginning of June Leslie told me he had come into sole control of the business. I had often before that asked him to lend me money on account, but he said he could not as he was not proprietor, but he did so privately. When he took the business over he reduced my salary to 5s. a week. I may say I have a large connection of customers and have sold a large quantity of vinegar. I had nothing to do with Any internal arrangements did no clerical work, and drove no horse and van. In November I was introduced to Miss Sopp, who was going to purchase, the business, and I was asked to witness an agreement changing over the business, and I saw the money pass. Then Mr. Hewan became manager, and I received my instructions from him. I saw Miss Sopp at week-ends once or twice. Hewan showed me a letter from Messrs. Betts' asking for payment for a capsuling machine, and he asked me to write as he was busy, it being a Saturday and I had no travelling to do. He explained that this was a purchase before Miss Sopp had the business, which had not been paid for, and would I write to repudiate it for him, so I wrote the letter. Afterwards he told me somebody had called from Betts' and wanted to see the writer, so Hewan asked me to write again and say I was out, and I wrote a second letter explaining. Then a summons came from Hanson for corks. I have never seen him before. I do not know his place nor where it is I think he is mixing me up with the carman. Then Hanson came, and the same thing was explained to him—that Miss Sopp was not responsible. I wrote and told him so. Then we were getting busy with the bottling season, and it was difficult to buy vinegar bottles cheap. I tried one or two places, and was recommended to Mr. Mills. I gave him an order for bottles, saying he was to apply to Messrs. Freeman. I have never in my connection with 373, Queen's Road been anything but a traveller for the firm—simply a servant.
Cross-examined. I knew nothing of any fraudulent business. The letters (produced) were written by me on instructions. I forgot about the mission hall. When Hewan said he was taking a new place at a reduced rental, he asked me to give a reference. Well, I was his servant; it was difficult to refuse, and I had no idea but what he would be a good tenant. I understood Queen's Road was to be given up and the goods removed as time afforded. The van was used in the middle of the day for the business, so to save expense the goods
were taken by degrees in the evening to Wandsworth. I deny that goods from Mills were to be cash on delivery. The letter given to the carman on May 3 was written by me. He was not told there was a cheque in it. No man would be insane enough to tell, a carman there was a cheque in the envelope; and, besides, I would not have it him without a receipt. I had been to Catford collecting an account, and I was going on to Wimbledon, so had no time to stay. I said I would write to Mills, and have a chat about it the next morning—that would be Saturday. Next morning I had to go to Mother firm whom I represented, to collect my money, and in the meantime Mills called at Queen's Road. "Your carman arrived too late from Mr. Freeman" was not true. Mr. Freeman was there; but I had not time to explain in the letter. In writing, "Will bring you cheque, £9 8s., to-morrow morning," I thought I might induce Mr. Freeman to give me a cheque, but when I told him it was a month's credit, he put it back and said he would not pay. Nothing for more was heard from Mills till the detective arrested me; and I concluded that Mills had accepted the condition on which I bought the bottles.
Verdict, each prisoner, Guilty. Reuter recommended to mercy. Two previous convictions were proved against Leslie Freeman, one for receiving, six months; the other for stealing, nine months, Reuter had been convicted 10 years ago, with a short term of imprisonment. Prisoners had been well educated.
Sentences: Leslie Freeman, Nine months' hard labour; Hewan Freeman, Six months hard labour; Albert Reuter, Four months' hard labour.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE DARLING.
(Wednesday, July 24.)
Rogers pleaded guilty.
Mr. Arthur Gill and Mr. Graham-Campbell prosecuted; Mr. Arnold Ward, at the request of the Court, defended Lucas; Mr. Bornie appeared for Rogers.
AMELIA BARBER , 41, Northdown Street, Islington. The prisoner Lucas lived with deceased at my house in the name of Mr. and Mrs. Rogers. The prisoner Rogers, who is her brother, called about a month before the death, and said, "How does that man treat my sister?" I said, "Very well, as far as I know." He said, "Oh, he has been knocking her about, and a fortnight ago she came up to me with a black eye that he had given her. I have cautioned him that if he ever raises his hand Don my sister again he is a dead
man; I will kill him, leave him stone dead." The female prisoner put her arms round her brother's neck, kissed him, and said, "He deserves it, Charlie." Deceased and prisoner continued living in my house until June 16. He did not knock her about as far as I knew—I saw nothing of it. I believe she had a black eye, hut she did not come down into the kitchen, and I am an invalid—I did not see her. On June 16, at 6.40 a.m., I heard deceased persuading her to go upstairs. She said she would not go, but she intended to follow him. He made some remark concerning her face. She said, "I am not ashamed of my face if you are, and I am going to follow you, and the first copper I meet I will have you charged." They both went out together. I did not hear what he said about her face.
Cross-examined. I never saw deceased ill-treat prisoner or hear it said by the neighbours.
GEORGE SHEARS , 41, Northdown Street. I live in the same house as the prisoners. On Saturday, June 15, at about 10 p.m., Lucas spoke to me. Deceased hit her in the mouth and on the cheek with his clenched fist. He said, "Hullo, mashing a builder."
Cross-examined. I had not seen him knock her about before.
ARTHUR WILLISMAS , 18, Northdown Street, horsekeeper. On June 16, at 1.35 p.m., I was in the "Albion" public-house with a number of other persons, including the deceased. Prisoners and another man came in just before two p.m. Lucas said to deceased that she had fetched her brother to give him a good hiding. Her face and lip were discoloured on the left tide. Smith said nothing. Rogers said, "What did you come round to my house last night for, you f—bastard? I am a good mind to put your light out." Deceased said, "I wish for no trouble," walked away to the corner of the bar, called for a packet of cigarettes, and lit one. Rogers lifted his right hand and said, "If I was to put that across your snitch and (raising his left hand) were to hit you with this one it would put your light out." Lucas said, "When we return you may have your jaw broken and a few ribs broken, and then you can go to the hospital and rot, you old b——," Prisoners went out at about two and returned again at 2.30 or 2.40 p.m. Smith was sitting down Rogers walked deliberately up to him, saying, "You are still here, Mr. f—Smith. I am a good mind to out you," and, raising his right hand, he caught him on the left point of the jaw. Deceased fell on to a man's shoulder who was sitting on the seat with him, and Rogers hit him with the left hand. I did not hear Lucas say anything. Rogers walked to the door, turned round, and said, "You have got it, you old bleeder," and went away. I went across to deceased, got water and bathed his forehead, He did not speak or move until the doctor arrived.
Cross-examined. Litton and Bell were both present. Lucas spoke distinctly. I swear she said. "I have been to fetch my brother to give you a good hiding," not, "It would serve you right if my brother gave you a good hiding."
ARTHUR BELL , 30, Red Lion Square. On June 16, at two p.m., I saw the prisoners come into the "Albion." Rogers said, "What did you go round to Mrs. Leonard last night for?" I did not hear Lucas say anything.
Cross-examined. I was present at the earlier visit of the prisoners. I did not hear Lucas say, "I have been to fetch my brother to give you a good hiding," nor, "When we return you may have your jaw broken and some ribs." I was two or three yards from her in the same bar. I was not taking much notice. I heard Rogers make some remarks.
RICHARD LAWRENCE CAUNTER, M.D . On June 16 I was called to the "Albion" at 3.15 p.m., and found the body of deceased lying on a bench in the tap room. He was quite dead. There were marks, of injury to the lips and on the angle of the left jaw. The blow on the angle of the left jaw was the cause of death, from hemorrhage and pressure on the nerve. I saw Lucas at 10.50 p.m. at King's Cross Police Station. She had a cut on the inner surface of the upper lip, a food deal of swelling on both lips and the left cheek, and a small bruise on the upper part of the left arm. She said she had taken her brother to this public-house for the purpose of giving the deceased man a hiding.
Cross-examined. Prisoner made that statement before I examined her. She told me Smith had given her those injuries. She was perfectly sober, but rather excited. I think she quite understood what she was saying.
Inspector ANDREW KING, G Division. On June 16, at 7.30 p.m., I went with Sergeant Selby to 41, Northdown Street, Islington, and saw Lucas. I said, "We are police officers. Is your name Smith?" She said, "No, my name is Rogers, but I am living with a man named Smith." I said, "You will have to come to the station in connection with him "She replied, "There is to be trouble here. Let me get a rasor and I will finish it." She went towards the mantelpiece. I restraned her, and afterwards took her to King's Cross Police Station. I then told her she would be accused with her brother of causing the death of John Smith. She replied, "You do not mean to say he is dead. He had bean knocking me about all night, and I went with my brother to fight him. He only got one blow; he cannot be deed." I afterwards charged her, and she made no reply.
Cross-examined. She was in a very excited condition certainly. I could not say she was distracted.
JESSIE ELIZABETH LUCAS (prisoner, on oath). I have lived with deceased for about four years. He was an ostler. I have gone in fear my life for these last three years from this man. I had one dear little child which he said was not his, but it was, and I should
have had two other children, but he has been so brutal to me that I have never been able to carry them. I have had my ribs fractured by his ill-treatment—by his striking me. We lived at 41, Fulford Street, and while there he stayed at home three days and treated me himself. I went a long time if I went a month without blows. He struck me every Saturday. He was not a man that drank to show it but he drank to an extent. On Friday night, June 15, the row started, and he beat me. On the Saturday I sent my little boy to meet him coming from work and went and had a drink at a public-house opposite his place. We came home on the tram. As we passed the butcher, whom I have dealt with ever since I have lived in the street—and I have always been a jolly sort of girl—I said, "Hullo, butcher!" I had no sooner said that than I got two blows one after another. I ran and called "Murder!" and went into the arms of two police officers. They said, "My good woman, go home; he can't shut you out. If he hits you any more I will take him in charge." With that we walked up the street, and the policeman walked away. My witness, who is outside, helped me to go in and spoke to deceased. He said, "I wish you to take my davey that I will give that cow a good hiding. I do not intend her to come in any more." I have been in the hospital eight days for the injury done to my face by his striking me. On Sunday at dinner time I met my brother by pure accident as I was going to get myself a drink of beer. He said, "Hullo, old girl, you have got it again." I said, "No, I have the toothache." He said, "That is no faceache. Has that wretch been knocking you about again?" I said, "Charlie, I am nearly off my head. I wish I was dead. It has been going on from Friday night till this morning. I have a bruise on my arm which I got at six o'clock." He said, "Girl, why don't you lock him up? If there is any more of it you go with my wife to-morrow morning and have him locked up." My brother took me away once and let me live with him. On June 16 we went into a little public-house—the "Charles I."—and my brother said, "Never mind, cheer up." and we had a drink with a friend of his. I said, "I must be going, because he will only come after me, and there will be a row." He said, "You stay where you are, you are all right with me." So I stayed, and while we were there Smith looked in the window, and before I could say "Here he is," he looked in the door and said, "You f—thing." My brother said, "You have caught her with the wrong one. You know me." I had left Smith in bed with my little boy, and he had come to look for me. My brother said, "What were you rowing about in my house?" One word brought up another, and my brother said, "What do you mean by following her about? Are not you satisfied with what you, have done?" Smith turned round and said, "The next time I see the f—cow I will give it her." He put his hand up as if to put his fingers up my brothers nose. Then the gentleman in the bar asked us not to have a row. Smith went out. We finished our drink and went out after. I said, "Charlie, let us go home." He said, "We will go a little further down," and
we went into the unfortunate public-house, the "Albion," and there stood Smith. He had got there before us. I did not take my brother there to give Smith a hiding. My brother only said to him, "Smith, be a man, fight a man, not a crushed woman. Do not you think you have done enough to her?" When we went in the first time I did not say, "I have been to fetch my brother to give you a good hiding," or that "When we return you may have your jaw broken and some ribs broken, and then you can go into hospital and rot." I said as I went outside the door, "That just serves you right, my gentleman." I never spoke another word, either the first or second time.
Cross-examined. I have had great provocation. I was very excitable. I have always pictured my death at this man's hands. He has said to me, "I would never go behind iron bars for you, I would watch you slowly die." Mrs. Barber has a grudge against me because I told her a certain party was keeping a loose house. My brother said to her, "It is a pity he did not have her when she was 17, for she could give him a good hiding." My brother taught me to box as a girl. On June 15 he had treated me very badly, had knocked me down in the street, and had assaulted me in the night, and I had screamed, but we live at the top of the house and nobody came. The next morning I said I would give him into custody and followed him out with that intention, but he walked me round and round, and I found I had no hat on, and I was ashamed to walk any further in that way, so came home. I did not charge him. I did not know Smith was in the "Albion"; when we found he was there we walked out not to have a quarrel. When we went in afterwards I did not see him until my brother had struck him and I saw his mouth bleeding. What Mrs. Barber says is untrue. Williams's statement is quite untrae. I do not remember telling Inspector King what he says. I do not remember what I said to the doctor. My brother and I did not go to the "Albion" to fight Smith.
Re-examined. I was in a thoroughly excited condition when I saw the doctor and Inspector King.
Verdict, Guilty, under great provocation, with the strongest recommendation to mercy.
It was admitted that Rogers bore a very good character.
Mr. Justice Darling said it was very creditable to the jury (though not exceptional in this country, and especially in this Court) that they should have returned an honest verdict upon the facts, a verdict most painful for them to return, looking at the great provocation. He should give effect to the recommendation of the jury as to Lucas, and, having regard to Rogers's excellent character, he should treat the recommendation as extending to Rogers also. Sentence, each prisoner, three days' imprisonment (entitling them to be at once discharged).
Mr. Clarke Hall prosecuted; Mr. Curtis-Bennett defended.
The Judge directed the jury that there was no evidence of carnal knowledge.
Verdict, Guilty of indecent assault. Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Wednesday, July 24.)
Mr. Arthur Gill prosecuted.
On the early morning of Sunday, July 7, prisoner was creating a disturbance in York Road, Battersea, and was taken into custody Samuel by Inspector Davis, who, with the assistance of Constable Samuel Ham, proceeded to take him to the station. A crowd of roughs, numbering, it is estimated, 300, assembled, and prisoner, encouraged by the presence of those who are presumed to be his friends, offered violent resistance, and the constable being thrown to the ground, kicked him in a part where a kick is dangerous. When Constable Ham was afterwards seen at the station his face was ashen grey and he was obviously in great agony, and in consequence of the injury there is a tendency to rupture, rendering it necessary for a truss to be worn. Constables who assisted were struck with stones. Previous convictions were proved.
Sentence, 20 months' hard labour.
Mr. Clarke Hall prosecuted; Mr. W. B. Campbell defended.
Mr. Campbell raised the defence that prisoner, a man of excellent character, at the time of committing the act was in such a state of mental alienation owing to an accident as not to be responsible, but admitted that there was no evidence on which the jury could be asked to say that he was insane.
The Recorder observed that on the depositions the evidence was all the other way. He did not think he could go into the medical question, but as an alternative to ordering prisoner to be detained during His Majesty's pleasure would put the case back till next Sessions in order that prisoner might be under the observation of Dr. Scott.
Judgment respited to next Sessions.
ILLINGWORTH, Ernest (26, milkman), and COLLIS, William (16, errand boy) ; Illingworth committing an act of gross indecency with William Collis; Collis committing an act of gross indecency with Ernest Illingworth.
Mr. Drysdale Woodcock prosecuted; Mr. Curtis-Bennett defended.
Verdict, both Guilty. Sentences, Illingworth, 12 months' hard labour; Collis, six months' hard labour.
LEVESON, Edward John (46, stockbroker), said COOKE, Paulin Cotton (43, stockbroker) pleaded guilty , to both having been en-trusted by Henry Alfred Harvey with certain property, to wit, an order with for the payment of £314 6s., in order that he might apply the same for a certain purpose, did fraudulently convert the same and let proceeds thereof to the use and benefit of a certain other person of the firm of Starkey, Leveson and Cooke; Cooke having been entrusted by Charles Stedman Jupp with certain property, to wit, an trier for the payment of £103 10s. in order that he might apply the the same for a certain purpose, did fraudulently convert the same and that proceeds thereof to the use and benefit of the the firm of Starkey, Leveson, and Cooke. Leveson having been entrusted by Addison Bramwell with certain property, to wit, an order for the payment of £1, 451 6s., in order that he might apply the same for a certain purpose, did fradulently convert the proceeds thereof to the use and benefit of a certain other person of the firm of Starkey, Leveson and cooke. Leveson having been entrusted by Percy Coloquhon Atkins with certain property, to wit, orders for the payment of £1,000 and £1,259 1s. 4d. respectively, is order that he might apply the same for a certain purpose, did fraudulently convert the same and a part of the proceeds thereof to the use and benefit of a certain other person of the firm of Starkey, Leveson, and Cooke.
Sir Charles Mathews and Mr. Bodkin prosecuted; Mr. George Elliott appeared for Leveson; and Mr. F. E. Smith, M.P., for Cooke.
The charges against prisoners, Sir Charles Mathews stated, were many in number and large in amount. Four were framed upon the first section of the Larceny Act of 1901, and the indictment was that prisoners converted to their own use different sums of money and different valuable securities consisting of debenture stock, annuity bonds and Government stock. The firm of Starkey, Leveson, and Cooke was formed in 1892, but after 1906 Starkey took no part in the conduct of its affairs, and prisoners had control of the business. By the early part of this year they had got into terrible financial difficulties, and on June 6 attended the office for the last time. On June 7 they were "hammered" by the Stock Exchange. On June 27 a receiving order in bankruptcy was made against them, followed on July 6 by warrants, to which prisoners voluntarily surrendered. Up to the date of the trial there had not been time to investigate the bankrupts' affairs, but proofs in respect of moneys or securities entrusted
by clients to prisoners, amounting to £100,675, had been lodged, and it is estimated that to that sum will be added another £100,000 before the full amount of the liabilities is reached.
The Recorder asked what had become of all this money. Had it been lost in speculative accounts?
Sir Charles Mathews said he had no information.
Sentence, each prisoner, Five years' penal servitude.
NOLAN, Patrick (28, painter) ; stealing a pair of boots, the property of Wilfred Joseph Bottrill, a pair of boots, the property of Percy Charles Bottrill, and a pair of shoes and other articles, and the sum of 12s. 6d., the goods and moneys of Henry Bottrill.
Mr. M.G. Fleming prosecuted.
WILFRED JOSEPH BOTTRILL , clerk. I live with my parents at 89, Victoria Park Road. On the evening of July 3 I came in at about quarter to 10. The pair of boots which was stolen had come back from the mender early that day. I saw them that day. When I came down the following (Thursday) morning the boots were nowhere to be found, and several other things were missing—bacon, butter, and sugar, and 12s. 6d. in money. Entrance had been effected through the back lavatory window. My boots have not been recovered, but I saw a pair of my brother's at the police station the following Saturday.
Sergeant ALBERT HANDLEY, J Division. On the morning of July 6, acting on information received, I went with Detective-sergeant Saunders to Rowton House, Whitechapel. Prisoner had a cubicle there which I searched. I told him we were police officers, and should arrest him on suspicion of breaking into 89, Victoria Park Road, at the morning of July 4. He made no reply to that. I searched his locker, and asked him if he could account for a quantity of tea. He said he had bought it of a man in the kitchen, but did not know who the man was. I then took him to Bethnal Green Police Station and requested him to take off the boots he was then wearing. I notised the mark on the boots reported to the police. He said, "I bought them on Wednesday afternoon off a man in Petticoat Lane for 7s. 6d." I said, "Would you know the man?" and he said, "No." He was taken to Victoria Park Station, and charged. In reply, he said, "I shall have my own back on the man who gave me away." I found a pair of boots in the room where he was sleeping.
Sergeant SAUNDERS, J Division, corroborated.
Sergeant HANDLEY, recalled, said two old pairs of boots were left behind when the boots, the subject of the indictment, were stolen. These old boots were claimed by prisoner, who laughed and said, "They fit me well."
Verdict, Guilty. Prisoner confessed to a previous convifties.
Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Wednesday, July 24.)
Verdict, Guilty. The prisoner had previously been convicted of watch-stealing, assaulting the police, and drunkenness. Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.
ROBENZON, Abram(otherwise Abraham Robinson), being an undischarged bankrupt did unlawfully obtain credit to amount exceeding £20, to wit, to the amount of £108 6s., from Alphoeus Lovell; £22 17s. from John Cameron Mather; £20 from Robert Charles Trass, without informing them that he was an undischarged bankrupt.
Mr. Arthur Gill and Mr. Graham-Campbell prosecuted. Mr. Huntly Jenkins defended.
GEORGE INGOLDS BOYLE , London Bankruptcy Court messenger. I produce the file of the bankruptcy proceedings in the defendant's case. He was adjudicated bankrupt on July 20, 1893, on a creditor's petition dated April 8, 1893. Defendant is described as of 77, St. Mark's Square, Dalston. The liabilities are £359 19s. 11d. (taken from his own statement), assets nil. There was no dividend. The trastee was released, but there has been no application for discharge. I slso produce the file of the proceedings in his bankruptcy of 1906. A receiving order was made against him on August 23, 1906. He was an undischarged bankrupt on September 29, 1906. There are two statements of affairs—original and amended—the latter being dated November 12, 1906, and filed in court on December 15. The liabilities are £704 3s. 10d., and assets £200 (a commission note), leaving a deficiency of £504 3s. 10d. In the schedule of unsecured creditors I find the name of A. Lovell, of South Hackney, with no amount against it. The consideration is disputed. I also find the same of Truss and Taylor, Wool Exchange, £27 13s. 3d. The consideration is money lent. I also find J. C. Mather, 17, Alwyne Villas, Cononbury, £22 17s. The note against that is, "Guarantee for sonin-law. Each sheet of the schedule is signed by defendant. He was publicly examined. (A portion of the evidence of the defendant's examination in bankruptcy, given on November 13, 1906, was read.)
Cross-examined. As regards the creditor, Mather, the defendant's own observation is that it is a guarantee for his son-in-law.
ROBERT CHARLES TRASS , Solicitor 25, Coleman Street, E.C. I became acquainted with defendant in 1902. He called upon me on August 18, 1903. He wanted money to complete a contract, he said, and to pay his workpeople, and I lent him £15; for which I gave him ton cheque (produced), signed by ray partner, Mr. Taylor, "Trass and Taylor" It was to be repaid within a week. Nothing was said about interest. It was a friendly loan. He came again on August 21
and said he had been disappointed in the receipt of his expected returns, but that the matter was quite temporary, and he required another £5, which I lent him by this cheque (produced). This seems to have been drawn to the order of Taylor and endorsed by him. He will tell you about that. I am not sure whether I or Mr. Taylor gave it to him. Defendant never told me a word that he was an undischarged bankrupt. I never recovered any part of the £20. My partner frequently applied for payment. We took proceedings and got judgment, but the result was absolutely nil.
Cross-examined. I am not now inpartnership with Mr. Taylor. It came to end early last January. The cheques would be signed by Mr. Taylor probably because I wished to save myself the trouble. I had been to defendant's house once under special circumstances by his invitation, and by my invitation he brought his daughter to my house in Alcroft Avenue to sing and to meet some musical friends. I was not aware that there was a contract for the purchase of 37 houses at Grafton Square, Clapham Common, for the defendant's son-in-law from Dr. Hewitt. There were no secrets between my partner and myself that I know of. He would attend to his portion of the business and I to mine. Dozens of matters went on that were attended to by Mr. Taylor. I did not always tell him of everything I did with my clients. I know Mr. Taylor was on friendly terms with defendant and visited at his house. He never told me defendant was in very low water, or I should not have lent the money. He never told me that he or someone in my firm drew up an agreement between Robert Robinson, the defendant's son, and Mr. Lemare for the sale of a harp, a valuable instrument. I knew that something of the kind was going on. I did not know of the existence of this agreement with my firms name at the bottom (produced). Nor did I know that Mr. Taylor was to have £300 on the Grafton Square matter, and that he was to be repaid the money lent out of that. The money was last by me.
Re-examined. I am quite clear as to the purpose for which these cheques were given to defendant, and that they were loans.
HARRY ALFRED TAYLOR , solicitor. I was at the time in question partner with the last witness. Defendant came in August, 1903, and asked me to lend him some money to pay his workpeople. I refused and said, "If you like, you can ask my partner; but I do not think you will gel it." Mr. Trass then made a communication to me, upon which I either drew or signed a cheque for £15. The whole of this cheque is in my writing. It was handed by me, I believe, to defendant. The other cannot be right. It is a cheque in my favour for £5. A cheque for that amount was drawn on August 21 and handed to defendant, but I do not think it was this. Defendant never told me he was an undischarged bankrupt, and I was not aware of it till the last bankruptcy proceedings were taken against him. I dissolved partnership with Mr. Trass in January last.
Cross-examined. The cheques are both signed "Trass and Taylor." At that time the capital of the firm belonged to Mr. Trass. I had
most of the dealings with defendant. I had a very erroneous idea of his financial position. I did not know he was hard up. I did not draw this contract for the purchase of 37 houses in Grafton Square Clspham Common. I perused one at the instigation of another client. I have a defective draft copy of it. (Handed.) This copy was made some time prior to the end of June, 1903. It is in blank. The erasures were not made in my office. Defendant's son-in-law had nothing to do with it. Defendant had a contract to buy from a Dr. Dewar and to sell the houses to a client of mine. I was to get my costs—certainly not—300. It is the first I have heard of—300. I have no recollection of any letter written by me for defendant to sign. I was at his home sometimes. I went there once in connection with a harp matter. I was not told that defendant was very hard up and could not put any money into it, and that somebody else had to be food. Somebody was found before the thing came to me. I may have heard that defendant was not in a position to deal with it financially. After the partnership deed was signed I had to communicate with Mr. Lemare, who was putting money into it, for the purpose of fitting the money. I was not told that the bank account could not be in defendant's name and Mr. Lemare's, as the defendant was a bankrupt, and that it must be in the joint names of Lemare and Furst When I was at hit house in reference to the harp I saw the son, and probably some of the other children.
Re-examined. The cheques for—15 and—5 have nothing to do with the agreement. There is no truth in the suggestion that the banking account was to be kept in the names of Lemare and Furst because defendant was an undischarged bankrupt. The reason given was that defendant could not write. When he did sign anything it was pencilled for him and he wrote over. The first cheque is "Bearer," and did not require his endorsement—that is the reason he gave for its being made payable to bearer. The second one is drawn to "H. A. Taylor," and endorsed by me. I think that it not the right cheque. The writ against defendant was issued on January 15, 1904. Judgment was obtained on February 9 for—21 6s. 1d. It is on a promissory note or bill of exchange given by defendant, including £1 1s. for costs and the judgment. As a solicitor I should know there was not much object in bringing an action against an undischarged bankrupt or in throwing away £10.
ALPHOEUS LOVELL , house and estate agent, 12, Kempton Road, South Hackney. I have known defendant for some years. I met him in Copthall Avenue in May, 1904. I said I could do a little more in the way of work, and he said he could put something in my hands by which I could get £2 or £3 a week—that he knew somebody who wanted some money, a Colonel James, who would pay well. Defendant appeared to be in temporary difficulties, and between May 3, 1904, and February, 1905, I lent him, in all, £108 6s., sometimes by cheque and sometimes in cash. The cheques are Exhibits 1 to 11. The amounts are in my cash book; this statement is taken
from the book. I have received nothing from him. He did not say when I was to be repaid; but he expected some money from Germany, and then he said he would pay me—that he had a manufactory there for a patent harp. I saw a notice of his bankruptcy in the paper and sent in a claim. I did not know he was an undischdrged bankrupt until I heard from the Official Receiver this last year.
Cross-examined. I have known him for 30 years. I did not tell him that I had money to lend. I lent Colonel James about £1,800 on the security of a reversion on the death of one of two aunts then living, when he was to come into a considerable sum. The bond was for £5.000, and he expected nearly £400,000. A solicitor who drew up the bond went to Somerset House to see the will and was satisfied. I cannot say that I was satisfied with my deal. The money I paid defendant was not commission. I may have written to Colonel James asking him not to tell defendant how much I had lent him. I do not think I said so at the police court. I began to mistrust the defendant. I lent Colonel James money through defendant—he knew all the money I lent him, and Colonel James told me that defendant got half of what I lent him as commission. I never took proceedings against defendant for the money, or asked him directly to pay. I sent in my claim, but never went to the Bankruptcy Court. I may have told Colonel James to tear up the letter I wrote him and not show it to the defendant. I used to go to defendant's house pretty often. I went to tea once, and saw Mrs. Furst there. She did not tell me of the great misfortunes her father (defendent) had had. His wife had died and his son Leo.
Re-examined. There is no truth in the suggestion that the moneys I lent defendant were commissions in respect of money I lent to Colonel James. I do not remember the word "commission" being mentioned. I am not a moneylender.
JOHN CAMERON MATHER , builder and contractor, 17, Alwyne Villas, Canonbury. Defendant came to my office in March, 1906, and said he wanted the ground floor of 78, High Street, Islington, fitted up as a hairdresser's shop and partitions put up and asked for an estimate. I had tome further interviews with him, and furnished the estimate. He offered £20 for the job. On March 13 I wrote to him saying that I could not do the work for that amount, but offering to do it for £22. I again wrote on the 13th: "Dear Sir,—Re 78, High Street.—I am willing to carry out the work at the above in accordance with specification enclosed for the sum of £20, an additional sum of £ 2 to be paid by you if the work meets with your approbation." I then had an interview with him, and I did the work on those terms. I sent in an account for £22 10s., which included an extra that I did by his order. I have not been paid. On May 7 I wrote, "I shall be glad to receive cash for £22 10s. in settlement of my account" (Several similar letters were read.) I never knew defendant was an undischarged bankrupt, nor have I got any of my money.
Cross-examined. The reason for non-payment is not that the work was unsatisfactory. I think Mr. Furst said he was going to open the premises as a hairdresser's. He complained of the work. He did not say he would not pay me unless the defects were put right. He did not tell me he was surprised that I had made a claim against defendant.
Re-examined. The order for the work was given me by defendant and the account rendered to him.
Inspector JAMES BUCKLE. I served a summons on defendant on June 29 relating to the Lovell charge. He said, "Lovell knew: I was an undischarged bankrupt. It was a commission paid in cheques and gold. I have witnesses—my children."
Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate:" I please a not guilty. I will call witnesses at the trial."
ABRAHAM ROBINSON (prisoner, on oath). I have known Mr. Lovell for 30 or 35 years. He was formerly headmaster of a school in Houndsditch, where two of my children attended. I was on friendly terms with him. Early in 1904 I met him in Copthall Avenue accidentally. I had not seen him for a long time. I said, "How are you getting on?" He said, "All right; I can do much more." I said, "Have you got plenty of money?" He said, "I have got some money. I said I knew a gentleman, Colonel James, who said he had got two sunts, and he would come into a great fortune after their deaths, "he would like to borrow money on his reversion." He said, "I would like to see him, but I want large interest on my money. I will give 'you 5 per cent. on what I get for my money and I will make you a handsome present besides." Then I wrote to Colonel James for them to meet, which they did at my house. Lovell said he wanted to see that will and to take it to a solicitor to examine. I said, "I know a very respectable solicitor at 27, Copthall Avenue." I think his name was Halliday. Lovell went there with Colonel James and myself, and Lovell instructed him to go to Somerset House and examine the will. Lovell advanced Colonel James several sums of money. He also advanced me money. I did not see him again for about a fortnight, when I met him in the street, and he said, "Meet me at the corner of Old. Street, and I will give you some money." I owed a lady some money, who lent me a few pounds to go on with, and she was coming and wanted it, and I said I was going to get some money from Lovell, tad I told her to meet me to-morrow. I met Lovell the next day, and he gave me two £5 notes. I said, "Is that all the money you are going to give me? It ought to be £250." He said, "I am going to collect some rents and I will give you some more in a few days. I gave the lady £5 and the other £5 I kept myself. He was there at the time I gave the lady the money. I did not see Lovell for some weeks, and I met Colonel James. He showed me a letter and said, "I have a letter from Lovell. I was not to show it to you, but to
destroy it." Lovell wrote to Colonel James. He wanted to cheat me out of my commission. When I met Lovell afterwards, I said, "You are a very nice man! You want to rob me of my commission." He said, "What do you mean!" I said, "You wrote to Colonel James not to show mo a letter or see me any more. Is that the way to rob me of my commission!" He said, "He is a fool to tell you that." He said that at the police court, too. I told him I would sue him for the balance. I was entitled to £250. He said, "Oh, don't bother yourself about that; I will pay you." Lovell has often been to my house, and once when my married daughter, Mrs. Furst, was there. My daughter told him of my misfortunes and losing my wife. I do not remember what she told him. He asked her how she was getting on. She said her father had lost a lot of money. Lovell said, "Never mind, your father has recommended me a very good thing. I shall make a lot of money out of it. I am going to give him 5 per cent. on the mortgage bond of £6,000 or £5,000, and when the money is paid I will give you a nice present besides." In regard to Mr. Mather's case Mr. Furst took the premises, 78, High Street, Islington. The lease is in his name, and he paid the rates and taxes. I met Mather in the street in February or March. I said, "I think I can recommend you a job. He said, "I am slack." I said, "It is 78, High Street, Islington, a hairdresser's business," and we made an appointment to go and see the place, which we did; but we made another appointment, as my son-in-law was not there, and he would have to tell him what he wanted done. They met together a day or two after. I met Mather afterwards, and told him, hundreds of times, "As soon as you do the work properly my son-in-law will pay you." I cannot say how these letters came to be written to me. I had one letter from him, that is all. I cannot read. My children attend to my letters. Sometimes my daughters write for me and sometimes my grandson. I did not myself do any business with Trass and Taylor. I had some business I ought to have made £1,000 by. Mr. Taylor took the commission note and wrote it himself for £300. He put my name in in pencil, and I wrote it over in ink. I got those two cheques, one for £15 and one for £5. I borrowed them of Mr. Taylor. He wrote them out. It it a falsehood that I asked Mr. Trass for money. I went to Mr. Taylor because he had all the business of Grafton Square—the 37 houses. I had a contract with Dr. Hewitt, of 37, Sloane Street, to buy and sell again 37 freehold houses. I said to Mr. Taylor, "I have bought these houses for my son-in-law—I think I have got a buyer who will buy them of my son in-law." I asked Mr. Taylor, "How much do you want to carry this through for my son-in-law?" He said, "£300 I charge you," and he wrote out some document, which I was obliged to sign for £300. He read the document to me, and said, "You sign it." He wrote it in pencil, and I wrote over in ink, and I went away. Mr. Taylor said. "When the deposit is paid I will knock off £20." That it how he was to repay himself. A little later on he came to my
house, and had a chat with my son-in-law, and he explained the matter of the harp and everything. He said he was very sorry about my misfortunes. "Your son has got a very good thing in hand that makes you all right. You can pay 20s. in the £. "My son answered him, "As soon as we get sufficient money to work the harp then I will give my father his discharge to pay all the creditors 20s. in the £. "Mr. Taylor answered, "Yes; I see you have got a fortune in your hands." I introduced Lemare to Mr. Taylor, and they went into partnership in the harp business.
Cross-examined. When I met Mr. Lovell accidentally in May, 1904, no one else was present. It was then I told him that I knew Colonel James. He said he would give me 5 per cent on what he received. There is no document in existence as to this arrangement for commisiion. I trusted Lovell and took his word. He gave me his bond, and I took it. That it all. The commission was to be paid in instalments. When Lovell paid money to Colonel James I was to receive commission. I said to him, "Now you have a bond, I am to get my money in fall." I went with Lovell and Colonel James to the solicitor's office, 27, Copthall Avenue. I do not remember the name. The arrangement as to commission was not mentioned. I trusted Lovell. The ladies concerned in the reversion are still alive—one is 80 and one 85. Afterwards he wanted to cheat me out of the balance, and wrote that letter to Colonel James. Instead of his lending me £108 he really owes me about £150 on those commissions, and I think more. That amount I would hand over to the trustee for the creditors. The gentleman in the, court made out a statement for me and I forgot it. I never sued Lovell for the balance through misfortune. I do not beheve in law. I have lost thousands. I had not money to go on with the case. I have no money to sue him. The interview at which Mrs. Furst was present and my grandchildren was about 1904. I do not remember the date. It was a few day after the accidental meeting with Lovell. It was then Mrs. Few told him her father had lost all his property. My daughter told Lovell I was an undischarged bankrupt. In regard to Mather's case I met him in the street and did not go to his office the first time. My son-in-law wanted the shop done up. I took him there and said, "How much will you charge?" He said he mast look at it, and I went with him and my son-in-law to 78, High Street. He said he would send in an estimate, which he did, but not to me. It was put in my letter-box. I said, "My son-in-law will pay you £20, but, mind, it is to be done satisfactorily." I do not know that I saw any letter saying he could not do it for £20, but would do it for £22. There was no conversation about paying an additional £2 if the work met with my approbation. I cannot help the letters being addressed to me and accounts being made out in my name. I have not got the letter enclosing specification. He never rent me in these sent accounts. I have a builder here to prove what has been done. I had two accounts. I said to him, "My son-in-law, when you do the work, work pay you at once." I never promised the cash on June 5.
The work was no good at a 1. I never saw the letter of June 16 saying. "You have again failed to keep your promise of payment and caused me great difficulty. I will call on Monday morning for the money." He never came and asked me for the money. I never heard of the letter of Augunt 18, "I am very short of money now, and must ask you to settle my account at once. I will call on Tuesday next." When I met him I told him the work was no good and was shockingly done. Mr. Mather asked me for an order, and would not sign it. I admit the £15 and £5 from Mr. Taylor, but I say he was to take the £20 out of the £300. The contract was never carried through. It is not true that I went to Mr. Trass and asked him for money. Mr. Taylor knew I was an undischarged bankrupt before he lent me the £20. I got the contract for the 37 houses on behalf of my son-in-law. I had no contract. I had an option.
(Thursday, July 25.)
JENNIE FURST , prisoner's daughter. When a child I attended the school where Mr. Lovell wan head master. In April, 1904, he came to our house, 6, Alwyne Place, Canonbury. I had not seen him for many years before. Father came down into the breakfast room and brought Mr. Lovell with him. I introduced him to my children. I said, "Since last seeing you, Mr. Lovell, we have had our full share of trouble. My mother was ill for years, and she died, and we hardly got over that trouble when my brother Leo" (he was a pupil of Mr. Lovell's) was ill for two or three years, and then he died. You know what illness runs away with. Father was unfortunate in business and lost all his property, and they were not satisfied, and they made him a bankrupt. We have often said to him, 'How silly of you not to apply for your discharge'; but father is peculiar, and wants to wait, as he hopes several makers will go through and pay his creditors 20s. in the £." Mr. Lovell said he was very sorry to hear all this, and added, "Never mind; cheer up; you will be all right soon." I said, "By the way, Mr. Lovell, I am pleased to see you; but what brings you here?" "He said, "I have a little, business with your father, and he has introduced me to a Colonel James. I am lending this Colonel James some money on a reversion, and I have agreed to give your father 5 per cent. commission on the amount of the bond." I said, "I hope it will come through." He said, "I have every hope, because it seems all right. I have made full inquirie and I think the security is good." I saw Mr. Lovell hand father money on one occasion, but that was on another occasion when Colonel James met Mr. Lovell at our house. I was in the drawing-room, and Mr. Lovell and father came into the drawing-room and Mr. Lovell handed father. I do not know whether it was £3 or £4, but not more than £4 in gold. Father said, "This is not sufficient. You are slow with me. You are making a good thing out of it and you do not seem to want to part up with my commission." He answered, "That, is all I have by me—you know I have just parted with some
money with Colonel James and I have got to collect some accounts and I will let you have some more." I sometimes attended to father's correspondence and sometimes my brother. I generally opened the letters. I did not bring those letters to his notice because I did not think they concerned him. I never troubled him with them. He has been in a very bad state of health and we gave him the least trouble we could.
Cross-examined. I knew those letters from Mather were addressed to my father in respect of 78, High Street, Islington, but I did not think they concerned him. Mr. Mather knew that my husband gave him the order and that he was answerable for the amount when the work was done in a proper workmanlike manner. I did not think it neccessary to tell my father and get him to write to Mather, as he lives in the neighbourhood and my husband and father met him and had conversations with him. I do not know whether I showed the letters to my husband. I told him about them. He did not write to Mr. Mather abiut it. He never called at the house. My father spoke about Mr. Mather not completing his work, and I heard him say, "I will speak to him about it." I do not know whether he met him. My father did not make himself responsible. He recommended Mr. Mather to my husband, and naturally he would interest himself in the work. I have not discussed the matter with my father. The gentleman in the Bankruptcy Department; who made out the statement entered Mr. Mather as a creditor. Mr. Mather came to my husband is 78, High Street and said, "I see your father-in-law's name is gazetted," and the answer was, "What has that to do with you? I am responsible for that work, and as soon as it is done in a workman-like manner I am ready to pay." That was almost immediately the bankruptcy was gazetted. The interview relating to Colonel James's business was about three years and three months ago. I had not seen my old schoolmaster for years, and why should not I remember the conversation? I have not had an interview with my father about it recently. When I saw them give information against him which was not the truth, I thought it my duty to say what occurred, and I came forward without any request from my father. I know the whole of his affairs, so when the information was laid, of course I voluntarily offered to tell what occurred. I remember other things as well. I remember I cooked some fish that day and gave some to Mr. Lovell. He agreed to give father 5 per cent, commission on the amount of the bond. How it was to be paid I do not know. I did not hear the amount of the bond. I know of no document in reference to the commission.
CAROLINE BLUMENTHAL . I am a widow, and no relation to the defendant. In the summer of 1904 I met prisoner and Mr. Lovell at the Old Street Tube Station by appointment. Prisoner owed me £10. He received £10 at the station from Mr. Lovell in two £5 notes, of wich he handed me £5. It was for commission on some transaction. There was a little altercation between them, and Lovell said, "When I have collected some of the rents I will pay you some more of the
money." Prisoner seemed very much excited and upset at not receiving some more money. I said I thought it was not policy to make an exposure in a public place like that and asked them to come outside.
ROBERT ROBINSON (prisoner's son), hairdresser, 6, Alwyne Place. In the early part of June, 1903, Mr. Taylor came to our house with my father. I was there with my brother-in-law. I showed Mr. Taylor a patent harp. Father asked me to explain the harp to him. I asked him if he was interested in music. He said, "Very much so." I then proceeded to demonstrate the particular points of the harp. Mr. Taylor said, "It is a very fine idea, and there ought to be a lot of money in it." My father then said, in the event of his finding someone to finance the business, Messrs. Trass and Taylor would act as the solicitors. I thereupon disclosed to Mr. Taylor the fact that my father was not a free agent, that he was an undischarged bankrupt, and that any business transactions which accrued from this harp business he had full and unrestricted power to deal with. In the course of conversation I told Mr. Taylor that my father had had several heavy losses through having fallen into bad hands. He give my father instructions to instruct Messrs. Trass and Taylor. There was a power of attorney. I do not know who drew it up. My father found Mr. Lemare.
Cross-examined. I am 34. I have not been talking the matter over with my father and sister lately. The whole thing went out of my mind, for the reason that the harp business went off through my father stopping his finances.
ALBERT FURST (prisoner's son-in-law), hairdresser, 78, High Street, Islington. Mr. Taylor came to 6, Alwyne Place, Canonbury, in June, 1903. I came into the room with my father-in-law and brother-in-law and the harp was there, and my brother-in-law explained all the details of the harp to Mr. Taylor and told him at the same time that prisoner was an undischarged bankrupt and that, unfortunately, we had to see about a capitalist to run the patent, or something similar to that, and that we gave him full power to act for us in this matter. Mr. Taylor said the instrument, he thought, was an exceptionally good thing. He tried to play it himself, and he thought it was a great thing to make capital. In fact, I remember the words when he left. He said he hoped the instrument would pay us and that all our losses would be recovered. It was not so successful as we expected. In reference to Mather's case, I took the premises. I paid the rent, rates, taxes, gas and water rate. Prisoner introduced Mr. Mather to me, and I went with him and gave him all the orders in the shop at the same time. I absolutely told him the shop was for me, and the work was done for me, but I wanted my father-in-law to see about the upper part. The premises wanted to be painted and the walls papered, and I wanted him to look after this, and to give his opinion about it, that my father-in-law would see to the upper part, and see that it was done properly, at I did not understand it,
so I left it to his judgment if the work was done satisfactorily, The work was absolutely bad—the gas-fittings as well as the the plumbing—the water did not seem to run off at all. I complained to Mather and he said he would see to it. It has never been put right. He came to my place once or twice and brought a fitter to make certain alterations, which have never been done properly. Mather never wrote to me for payment. I told him as soon as the work was finished in a workmanlike manner I would pay him. I went several times to complain, but never found him there. I called on Mather about a fortnight or three weeks ago. I never offered him a promissory note. I said, "I am astonished you are in this case. You have so claim on Mr. Robinson. I have told you many times, as soon as you finish the work I will pay you." He said he was very sorry he was mixed up in the case, and he hoped Mr. Robinson would go on all right. I did not offer him anything. I offered to pay when the work was properly finished.
Cross-examined. I did not know that Mather was making applications to my father-in-law for payment. My wife did not tell me that letters had some from Mather to my father-in-law asking him to pay. I did not know that my father-in-law entered Mather in his statement of affairs as a creditor and put a note against it, "Guarantee for son-in-law." I have not talked the matter over with my father-in-law or my wife, because I go away in the morning, and, in fact, it is very little that I see of my father-in-law from morning till night. I am, from 7.30 a.m. to 10 p.m., in my shop. For many weeks I do not see him. I have not discussed the question with my father-in-law or wife, except on one occasion, when my wife told me Mr. Mathor was a witness. Then I said, "I must go and see him, because he knows very well he has done the work for me." It astonished me. I never offered to pay my account by an acceptance at three months, nor did I tell him that prisoner had incurred the liability for me or that I was not in a position to accept the responsibility myself.
LEONEL FURST (son of Albert Furst). I was present at the interview on July 6 at Mather's office, when my father was there. My father told Mr. Mather that he was surprised that he was appearing against my grandfather, and that my grandfather owed him nothing. My father said he owned the shop. He gave the order, and if the work was properly done he was willing to pay. Nothing was said about a promissory note or bill at three months.
Cross-examined. Mather said he was sorry he was in the affair at all, but he had to appear, and he hoped it would go well with my grandfather.
GEORGE NEWELL , gasfitter and plumber. In August last I saw the work done at 78, High Street, Islington. It was in a very bad state. The first thing I saw, as I sat in the chair, was the gas brackets were upside down, and the lead pipes looked very bad. It would cost between £7 and £8 to make what I call a respectable job of it.
Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, Twelve months' hard labour.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL. (Wednesday, July 24.)
BECKER, Morris, and BECKER, Jacob; Morris Becker being adjudged bankrupt, within four months of the presentation of the bankruptcy petition against him, unlawfully and with intent to defraud the creditors of Harris Becker and others, did make a certain delivery of certain delivery of certain property to the value of £1,000, being part of the property of those people; Jacob Becker aiding Morris Becker to commit the said misdemeanour.
Both pleaded guilty.
It was stated that there had been a fire in the business with which prisoners were connected, and that prior to that the firm were perfectly solvent. Friends of the prisoners had come forward with a sum of £500, which was paid over to the trustee for the benefit of the creditors.
Both prisoners were released on their own recognisances in £50 to come up for judgment if called on, within six months.
LEVY, Isaac (39, salesman) pleaded guilty , to being adjudged bankrupt unlawfully attempting in a cash account filed by him to account for a certain part of his property, to wit, the sum of £1,400 by fictitious losses.
At a meeting of his creditors prisoner had told a story of a burglary at his house, when £1,400 in cash was carried off by the thieves. Though pleading guilty to the indictment, prisoner did not admit that there had been no burglary.
Judge Rentoul said that, although it had not been proved before him, he could not help coming to the conclusion that the whole thing was a concoction and a plot.
Sentence, Two months' hard labour.
SOANES, Ernest Victor (37, stockbroker) pleaded guilty , to having received and been entrusted with certain property, to wit, the sum of £307 6s. 7d., for and on account of William Alfred Burrows, £703 9s. for and on account of Ada Mary Burrows, £1,053 9s. for and on account of Ann Harley, and £904 9s. 6d. for and on account of William Brooker, unlawfully and fraudulently did in each case convert the same to his own use and benefit; having received and been entrusted with certain property, to wit, the sum of £724 6s. 7d., for and on account of William Eliza Scott and Ann Scott, unlawfully and fraudulently did convert the same to his own use and benefit.
It was stated that the defendant's books had been well kept, and that if certain debts owing to him had been paid he would have been solvent. His drawings on account of his private affairs had been quite reasonable, and three of the prosecutors desired to recommend him to mercy, including Miss Scott, who said (in the box) that she had had transactions with prisoner since 1902, all of which had been
satisfactoy until the last one. She thought prisoner had no intention of wilfully defrauding her, and she had had no desire to join in the prosecution.
Judge Rentoul said he had been informed that it was the habit of stockbrokers to deposit securities of their clients in the Bank of England, in order to get money for themselves for the time being. He was exceedingly astonished to hear it, because in his judgment no amount of custom could possibly prevent a transaction of that sort being entirely illegal and entirely criminal. It was impossible for custom to overcome a doctrine of tie criminal law. It had often struck him whether there could not be a system whereby a stockbroker's transactions might be reviewed by a responsible person and vouched or verified, so as better to safeguard clients. Referring to this particular man, he thought it would be impossible to find a case where a number of people had been defrauded in which there were so many circumstances in the prisoner's favour. He was bound to pay attention to the recommondation to mercy from three of the prosecutors, which was a very gratifying as well as surprising feature, andhe thought the justice of the case would be met by sentencing prisoner to one month's imprisonment in the second division.
(Thursday, August 1.)
Judge Rentoul. In the trial of a stockbroker before me in this Court last week it was stated by counsel, somewhat as an excuse for the prisoner, that it was customary for members of the Stock Exchange to deposit the securities of their clients with the Bank of England and to borrow money thereon, taking the use of the money and mixing it with their own and afterwards replacing it without any loss to their clients. I was asked by counsel to take notice of this alleged custom and say whether it was legal or not. I expressed my very great surprise that any such custom should exist, however innocently intended, and I stated that no amount of custom would make the act legal. I am, however, informed by the secretary of the Stock Exchange that, so far from any such custom being sanc-tioned, if a member of the Stock Exchange were known to do such a thing he would be at once expelled, however innocent his intention might be. I am very glad to hear that, if any such acts are done, are heavily punished by expulsion when they are detected.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE DARLING.
(Thursday, July 25.)
SMITH, Charles (25, tinsmith), and CHURCHILL, May Vivienne (31. artist) ; both feloniously shooting at Edward Guerin with intent to kill and murder him and to do him some grevious bodily harm; unlawfully attempting to shoot William Rhodes, with intent to kill and murder him and to do him some grievous bodily harm; Smith feloniously shooting at Robert Boulding, a police officer in the execution of his duty, with intent to do him some grievous bodily harm and to resist the lawful apprehension of him, the said Charles Smith.
Mr. Arthur Gill, Mr. Leicester, and Mr. Kershaw prosecuted; Mr. Huntly Jenkins defended Smith; Mr. Purcell defended Churchill.
EDWARD GUERIN . In the early part of 1901 I made the acquaintance of the female prisoner. I knew her as "Chicago May," "May Churchill," and "May Latimer." I took her to Paris. On our return I was arrested by the French police at Amiens, she proceeding to London. She was afterwards in custody in Paris, and we were both tried, with another man, and all convicted on a charge of robbing the American Express Company. She was sentenced to five years' imprisonment. I was sentenced to imprisonment for life and conveyed to the penal settlement off the coast of French Guians known as Devil's Island. After 3 1/2 or four years' detention I made my escape and returned to London at the end of 1905. I met Churchill in February, 1906, and renewed my intimacy with her about a month, taking her to Aix-la-Chapelle, where we parted. I afterwards met her on the street in London and went to Mrs. Skinner's house, Kenton Street, Bloomsbury, with her for one night. She was very drunk. I was not much better. There was a quarrel all night She wanted me to take her back again. I would have nothing more to do with her. When she left Aix I concluded to have nothing more to do with her, and told her the same again at Skinner's house. She flared up and said she would send me back to Devil's Island to die like a dog there. I told her she could not. She said, "I will sec. I will go to Tottenham Court Road Station, and Inspector Kane will do it. I will' use my influence to do what I can to send you back" I left. She declared that if she could not do me one way she would do me another way. She wrote some letters to me, but I separated from her. At the end of April, about three weeks after, I was arrested, and was charged at Bow Street as a fugitive from French justice and committed for extradition. I applied for a writ of habeas corpus, claiming to be a British subject. I remained in custody in Brixton Prison for 13 1/2 months until June 14, 1907.
Mr. Justice Darling said that, as he was one of the Judges who decided that Guerin was a British subject, he would like to explain that the reason why Guerin was in prison so long was that his father lived in America, it was probable Guerin was born there, and it was necessary to send over and make careful inquiries and obtain evidence from people in different parts of America before the fact could be ascertained.
Witness. I make no complaint about that. Whilst in prison in March or April, 1907. I saw Smith, whom I had not known before. He told me he knew the person (using very bad language) who had me arrested in London, that it was Chicago May, and to take care, as she had sworn she would do me again if she could if I got out. I paid
no attention to what he said as the warders were there, and we could only talk when their heads were turned. I succeeded in establishing my claim to be a British subject, and was released on June 14. I slept that night at Skinner's house in Kenton Street. Between eight and nine the next evening I went out in the West End with Skinner; we went to Gambrino's and to two or three other places, and we were at the Provence Hotel at about nine p.m. I passed there again at 10.30 with Skinner, who went across and spoke to somebody at the door. I saw Oswald there; Mrs. Skinner knew him. We went to some other public-houses and made our way home along Southampton Row to the Russell Square Tube Station in Bernard Street, where Skinner left me to go to the lavatory at the station, I waiting on the opposite side at the east corner of Marchmont Street. A cab drove past me in which I saw Chicago May and another person whom I did not recognise. As the cab pasted she pointed to me and said, "There he is." The cab went on a short distance along Bernard Street and stopped. A man jumped out of the cab and fired four or five shots at me, the second of which, struck my foot. The first shot may have been fired from the footboard of the cab. All the shots were fired very rapidly. In firing the later ones I think he was coming towards me. I had no revolver and I fired no shots. A constable (Boulding) who was round the corner in Marchmont Street came towards me. I said, "I am shot." The man who shot me ran round the corner followed by Boulding. I did not see Churchill get out of the cab, but after the shots were fired I saw her crose the street and crouch down in the entry of a house in Bernard Street four or five doors from the station. I crossed the road and said to her, "You could not do me one way, you stoop to murder, would you?" She replied, "Yes, and I am sorry we did not succeed." People were coming on the scene just at that moment, and when she saw people got around she said, "I know nothing about it. I was in the cab alone." Skinner then came up. I told her I wat shot. I turned to the cabman and said, "Cabby, was this woman alone?" He said, "No, there was a man with her." A constable then asked me to get into the cab and took me to the Royal Free Hospital. To an officer who came up I said, "I am shot. This woman I believe to be con-cerned in it."
Cross-examined by Mr. Huntly Jenkins. I was angrv at being at Brixton Prison. On June 16 I had been at four or five public-houses—a. "Gambrino's" for tupper, "The Grapes," a house in Long Acre, and others. I am positive I was not looking for anyone. I did not know that Smith went to the "Provence," knowing nothing about the man. I have been told he went there soon after I was there. Smith got out of the cab first. He was about the distance from here to the clock from me. After the first! shot he might have come towards me. I believe the first shot was fired from the step of the cab, about 20 yards off. I believe I was struck by the second shot and that after that he came towards me. I turned to run. I could not run very
far. I did not Hear anyone say he was firing in the air. It was close to the Tube Station and people were coming about all the time. I never had a revolver in my possession since I was arrested in France, when I had one on me. When I was arrested for extradition I had a razor in my breast pocket—in April, 1906.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purcell. I was never in Dublin with Churchill. I do not know that she is Irish, but I have been told so. In 1901 she told me she was married in America and that she was entirely separated from her husband. I was married in January, 1901, in Leeds, and I met Chicago May in February or March, 1901, at the "Horseshoe," in Tottenham Court Road. Shortly after that we lived together. I do not think she was very much attached to me. I was fond of her for the moment. I may have said before the magistrate that Churchill was fond of me at one time till I broke off with her. When I took her abroad other things transpired to make me think the contrary. She is a woman of passionate nature, strong in her likes and dislikes—I should think more in the latter. I was convicted at the Seine Assizes for breaking into the American Express office, binding the manager, blowing up the safe with dynamite, and clearing off with a lot of money. I have never said I did it. There was no manager bound—it was a negro caretaker. They claimed that there were three or four concerned. I and another man were arrested and sent to Devil's Island. The other man is still there if he is alive. Churchill came back to England. I was taken to the Commissary's. I had a revolver on me; the police searched me, but did not find it till afterwards; I had it in an ordinary pocket Churchill and Skinner both came back to Paris, visited us while awaiting trial at the Seine Assizes, and were both arrested and charged with complicity in the robbery. Churchill was committed and sentenced to five years' imprisonment, as having received from me part of the proceeds, Skinner being released. Churchill had nothing to with it that I know of. From what I heard after I do not know whether she came to assist me or because she was fascinated with Paris. I escaped from Devil's Island in a dug-out canoe with two other men, one of whom was drowned and the other I left in Dutch Guiana. I had no revolver or other weapon and the other men were not shot. That was a story invented by Pat Sheedy, of New York, and which he sold to the Hearst Newspaper Company, and they published it with illustrations. I got to Georgetown, in British Guiana, came to England, became intimate with May, and took her to Aix-la-Chapelle. She told me she was suffering from scrofula and wanted to take the mineral baths. I was with her for about three weeks. We stayed at an hotel at about 10s. or 12s. a day. I got money from my brother in America. I escaped from Devil's Island in April, 1905, and worked in Chicago until Sheedy's articles drove me out of it. I came to England for a special reason, not with reference to a jewellery robbery in Milan. I did get to Italy, but not to Milan. I met Chicago May again in London and spent a night with her at
Skinner's. We quarrelled, and I refused to have anything more to do with her. She siid she would send me back to Devil's Island, where I should die like a dog. She also said, "If I cannot do you that way I will do you another." She afterwards sent me an invitation to go to see her. My arrest was due to her information. I should have ignored her if I had seen her on the street before that, but after that I was naturally angry with her. I was not arrested for shooting a policeman in America. In Chicago a policeman was very familiar with a barmaid in a saloon there; I was visiting the place, there was some jealousy over it, and this policeman came in one night and there was some trouble—he was shot. Two men were arrested, but I do not think they had anything to do with it. The policeman was only slightly injured. In 1888 I was extradited for an offence committed in France and sentenced to 10 years'. It was common larceny—no violence. I received nine months' imprisonment in America for common larceny. I have been convicted in America more than once—only for common larceny. In or out of Brixton Prison I never talked about punishing the woman who had given me away, about spoiling her good looks or throwing vitriol over her, or said anything which would lead anyone to believe that I was going to be revenged upon her. I had no such intention in ny mind. I thought she had done me a favour at the last in making me prove my nationality, so that I can now stay in England without fear of arreat.
Re-examined. I was never convicted of any crime of violence. No violence was alleged in the American Express case except tying up the man. Chicago May was convicted because they thought I gave her the proceeds of that robbery. I never hid anything to give her. I was not under the influence of drink on the night of June 15. I was not looking for Smith. When he fired at me I did not know who it was. From the first to the last shot was about half a minute—I had no time to run away and I was struck by the second shot. I want to state also that I have not got any ill-will towards these people in any way; I am not the prosecutor in this; I was told the Public Prosecutor would have to do it.
EMILY SKINNER . I have known Guerin seven or eight years and Churchill eight or nine years. In 1901 I was living in Huntley Street. In April, 1901, Guerin went to Paris, and shortly after Churchill left London, returned alone, and she and I went to Paris, where we were arrested. Churchill was sentenced to five years' imprisonment, and I came back to London. At the expiry of her sentence she came straight to me. I was living at No. 1, Waverly House, Kenton Street. I saw Guerin early in 1906, when he went to Aix-la-Chapelle with Churchill. She returned alone and Guerin returned a week after. He spoke of going to Italy, and Churchill wanted to go with him—they had words about it in their room. Churchill left my flat and three or four weeks after Guerin was arrested. Churchill had told me she would get him sent back to the
island. I saw Smith first about about October, 1906. He war arrested and released about May 8, 1907, when he came to my flit. He told me Guerin had told him when he came out to tell me I had not done sufficient for him, that I might have done more for him; then he started a conversation about Churchill and said he would like to know where to find her—if he could get on with her—that he would throw acid over her, which she deserved for giving a man like Guerin away after he had escaped from the island. I told him he was very stupid to interfere and to let the acid alone. He said, when he thought it over, that he would have nothing to do with her. I told him if Guerin thought I had not done sufficient I would not do any more. I told Smith, "T suppose, then, Guerin will be after me when he comes out." He said, "I will see that he does not. I will shop him." I said, "How can you stop him?" He said, "I will shoot him if he comes after you." I saw Smith several times about this time—he said he was living at 32, Park Road, Clarence Gate, Regent's Park. I assisted him. On June 14 I saw Guerin on his discharge—he stayed at may flat. On the Saturday, June 15, we went out in the morning, and at 8.30 p.m. went to the "Provence Hotel," Leicester Square, where we saw Oswald and Davis. We had supper at "Gambrino's," called at two or three public-houses, and walked to the tube station in Bernard Street, where I left Guerin to go into the lavatory. As I was coming out I heard a shot fired. I saw Smith jump out of a cab on one side and Churchill on the other. Smith pointed a revolver, fired four or five shots, and ran round the corner. I ran after Smith and saw him almost fall into the hands of a constable. He was still pointing the revolver. He was taken and I returned into Bernard Street, when I saw Guerin standing against the railings a door or two from the station. He told me he was shot. I caught hold of Churchill by the wrist. She said she wanted to get her handkerchief from the bag. I said she should not. We struggled a little, the constable came up, and we were both taken to the station. She repeatedly said she was in the cab by herself. I told the constable. I had seen them both get out together. Smith was at the station when we got there. From the time Guerin came to me he had no revolver or firearms.
Cross-examined by Mr. Huntly Jenkins. There had been a shot fired before I came out from the lavatory. As I came off the step I think Smith went a few steps towards Guerin, firing all the time. I saw the flash of the second shot. He was about four or five yards from Guerin. Smith advanced and fired two or three shots, then he stopped against the lamp-post in the road. He then seemed to be coming back, and after firing the other shots he ran round the corner. I remained in the road nearly on the other side. He was in front of me, Guerin at the corner of Marchmont Street, a good distance off from me.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purcell. Churchill and I went to Paris to assist Guerin, and we were both arrested when we went to visit him.
I think she was more attached to Miller, the man who is now in Devil's Island, than to Guerin. We went to help them both. I knew Churchill well. She was not a very passionate woman. She was angry because Guerin would not take her away the second time, and when she threatened to inform the police he sneered and said he did not believe the English people would give him up. She saw Inspector Kane at Tottenham Court Road Police Station. I know Kane well. I visited Guerin at Brixton nearly every day, but I missed him a little towards the last, and that was why he complained. I did not expact he would be after me with anything. I never was afraid of what might happen to me. I was afraid of some people, but not of him. I thought he might be after me to do something unpleasant. I have never seen him in a temper. Churchill told me she had not put him away. I knew she had. I never said to her, "I am no particular friend of yours, but I do not want to see you blinded, and that is what Guerin is going to do," nor anything of that kind. I had a little trouble about some furniture with Churchill. At Clerkenwell Police Court I did not say, "This is the woman who got a man in prison. When he comes out he will blind her," or any such thing. I said to her, "You cannot do the same thing to me as you did to Eddie Guerin," but nothing about blinding. In Brixton Guerin said he did not believe Churchill had given him away. Kane made it clear that she had. Guerin used no threats as to what he would do to her. He simply said he was surprised—he never would have believed it; that when she had done imprisonment herself he could not believe she would go the length of sending him back to the island. I have never been charged with any criminal offence. I have been raided for keeping a brothel—not an opium den.
Re-examined. I was not afraid of violence from Guerin. He never said that he would blind Churchill, and I never mentioned such a thing. When he came out he said, "May did a very fine thing for me—in fact, I am very pleased that she did it. It has made a free man of me, and for the future I may cut all these people out; I need have nothing more to do with them."
JOHN CHARLES SMITH , 224, Caledonian Road, cabdriver. On June 15, at about 11.45 p.m., the prisoners directed me to drive to the corner of Marchmont Street. I drove along Bernard Street. At the tube station I was ordered to stop, and I stopped just before reaching Marchmont Street. The female prisoner jumped out on the near side, vent in front of the horse's head, and went into a doorway close to the station. At the same time I heard a report from a firearm. I saw the prisoner about two feet from the horse's bead pointing a revolver towards Russell Square. I saw a man coming from the corner of Erbrand Street. Prisoner fired three or four more shots and ran away.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purcell. Churchill crouched in the doorway, seemed thoroughly frightened, and screamed. She appeared to be trying to hide herself.
GEORGE OSWALD , 28, Montague Place, betting agent. On June 15 I was in the Hotel de Provence when Skinner, whom I had met several times, introduced me to Guerin. A short time afterward I saw her at the hotel again. After that the prisoners came in. I had seen Churchill once or twice, but did not know Smith. I told them that Guerin and the woman had just left. It was lucky ther did not meet them. I knew it was common talk that if they met there would be trouble. They asked me to go to the Queen's Hotel and have a drink. I knew Churchill and Guerin were bad friends. She said she was afraid he would throw acid at her. Smith said, "He will not do anything to her while I am with her because I am her friend. If he is a bad man I will be a bad man to him. I will fix him," tapping his breast. They then left. This was a little after 11 p.m.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purcell. It was common talk that Chicago May had given Guerin away and that there would be trouble if they met—something nasty. May told me it would take the shape of vitriol in her face. I had never met Guerin before.
Re-examined. I heard nothing about vitriol except from Churchill. Police-constable ROBERT BOLDING, 43 E R. On June 15, at 11.50 p.m., I was on duty in Marchmont Street, when I heard four or five shots from Bernard Street. Guerin was standing at the corner of Marchmont Street on the kerb. He shouted, "There is the man who fired the shots." I saw Smith. He fired another shot in the direction of Guerin and ran away. The shot came between Guerin and myself. I blew my whistle and followed Smith into Kenton Street. Police-constable Williams had him in custody. I went with him to the station. On the way he said, "It is a good thing for you it would not go off or I would have done for you two b——s." At the station whilst being detained Smith said, "He fired two shots at me and threatened to throw vitriol at May. Do you think I would stand that!" That was the first time be mentioned the two shots.
Police-constable WILLIAM RHODES, 426 E. On June 15, at 11.50 p.m., I was on duty in Kenton Street when I heard four shots and saw Smith running towards me. He levelled the revolver at me, saying, "I will shoot you." I heard the revolver click. He ran across the street and levelled the revolver at Newenden. I heard it click three times. I seized Smith and took the revolver from him. Bolding came up. We took him to the station. On the road he said, "It is a good thing for you it would not go off or I would have done for you two." At the station when the prisoners were being charged Smith said. "She has done nothing. I fired the shot. When the charge was read over Smith said, "She has done nothing I do not see how you can charge her." When he said he would shoot me I was in uniform.
Police-constable WILLIAM TOWELL, 492 E. On June 15 I was on duty in Erbrand Street at 11.50 p.m. I heard the report of shots, ran into Bernard Street and saw Guerin and Churchill. Guerin said, "Take that woman into custody for shooting me." She had a bag in her hand.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purcell. Churchill seemed very excited but not frightened.
Inspector FREDERICK WRIGHT, E Division. On Saturday, June 15, I was on duty at Hunter Street Police Station. Smith was brought in; the revolver (produced) was examined by me. It contained six empty cartridge cases which appeared to have been recently discharged. I asked Smith his name. He said, "I am Mr. Nobody, of Nowhere." Afterwards he told me his name was Charles Smith, and he lived in Marchmont Street. Churchill was already there. I told Smith he would be detained for shooting a man in Bernard Street. He said, "He had acid. He fired two shots at me and had acid for her." A small brown hand-bag (produced) was brought in. Churchill said, "That is mine." I opened it, and found knife (produced) open as it is now. She said, "I carry that to protect myself." The prisoners were formally charged together. Smith said, "I do not know how you can charge her—she had nothing to do with it." When I visited the cells afterwards Churchill said, "He fired at him twice, and had vitriol for me. I crouched down in the doorway and put my hands over my face to protect myself." I afterwards found two bullets, one in Marchmont Street and one at the junction of Herbert and Bernard Streets. One fitted the revolver; the other has been run over.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purcell. Churchill said, "I heard he was going to do for me or throw acid over me." (To the Judge.) The revolver is marked, "British Constabulary"—I have never seen the pattern before. (The witness was directed to try the revolver out of court, and returned with a plank.) I have tried it at over 40 yards range. It has punctured this board and knocked a piece out of the wall.
ANNIE DAVIS , 26, Bernard Street. On May 25 Churchill came to live at my house with a man, under the name of Mr. and Mrs. Thompson. After a short time I gave them notice, and they left. I saw there the day they left, and believe he visited there two or three times.
HARRIET KNIGHT , housemaid at 107, Gower Street. Churchill came to live at 107, Gower Street, on June 8, 1907, with a man under the name of Mr. and Mrs. Williams. Smith visited her, and slept there for two or three nights. After the arrest I pointed their rooms out to Inspector Stockley.
far as you are concerned those letters of yours would help. Will I use them, as your name would not appear? Good-bye, you might never see me again. This fellow Smith was the one Eddie got to throw the vitriol, so you see I lost no time to turn the tables.
Detective-Inspector JAMES STOCKLEY, E Division. On June 16 I saw Churchill in the cell at Hunter Street Police Station, and she told me her address as Mrs. Williams, 107, Gower Street I found in the bedroom there box (produced) containing 43 cartridges which fit revolver (produced).
Cross-examined by Mr. Purcell. Churchill did not tell me she was going home to 26, Bernard Street, because she knew that Guerin knew her address in Gower Street. She gave me to understand she was afraid that Guerin would do something to her.
Verdict, both Guilty.
It was stated that Smith was a native of Kansas City; that he left America at the age of 17; that he had served through the Boer War, and was expelled from Cape Town on December 30, 1906, after serving four years' penal servitude. He was arrested in May, 1907, for burglary in Southampton. Churchill was born in Ireland; she was married to an American, and had been eight or nine years in England. She was a notorious thief and blackmailer, and had driven men to suicide, and was one of the most notorious women in London.
Sentences: Smith, penal servitude for life; Churchill, 15 years penal servitude.
(Friday, July 26.)
Mr. Justice Darling said he wished to say a word or two which he had intended to say yesterday, but which he omitted to do in consequence of the disturbance caused when he was pronouncing judgment on the man Smith. He had intended to say, and he said it now, that, in addition to the sentence of penal servitude for life, which he passed on Smith, he intended to recommend to the Home Secretary, when his sentence came up for consideration, as life sentences always did after a certain number of years had elapsed, that Smith be sent back to the country of his origin—America. That was an exceptional kind of power he had, and he desired to state publicly his reasons for exercising it. Smith, who was an American citizen, was an absolutely lawless man. He committed a crime in Cape Colony, for which he was sentenced to four years' penal servitude, and he was ordered to be deported to America. He was on his way to America to came to Southampton for transhipment. He escaped at Southampton, committed a robbery there, and with the proceeds came to London, where he remained until his arrest. It appeared to Mr. Justice Darling that in this case there was every possible reason for continuing the treatment in regard to Smith which seemed good to the authorities in Cape Colony, and it certainly appeared to him to be an appropriate course to take in the interests of this country also. He did not make the same order with regard to Churchill, although she was
an American subject, for this reason. She was married in America, and she left her husband and came here. He thought it most inexpedient that at the expiry of her sentence the should be sent back to America to trouble a home which he had no doubt was far happier by her absence.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Thursday, July 25.)
MORRIS, Edward Janet (59, dealer), was indicted for feloniously receiving two oil-paintings and a gold and enamel snuff box, the property of Charles Wertheimer , and five bronze figures and two daggers, the property of Charles Hoghton, well knowing the same in each case to have been stolen. The case in respect of Mr. Hoghton's property nw taken first.
Mr. C. F. Gill, K.C., and Mr. P. M. Beachcroft prosecuted; Mr. George Elliott and Mr. W. H. Thorne defended.
EDITH EMILY WHEELER . I am housemaid at 13, Hyde Park Terrace and have been there just over two years. It is my duty to see that the house is properly looked up at night. At the beginning of last October the family was away. On Monday, October 8, I went to bed between 10 and 10.15 p.m. The house was then properly locked up and the front door fastened. I looked at the windows. They were all fattened. On the morning of the 9th when I came down at seven o'clock I found the rooms all in disorder. The front door was open and the landing window unfastened. A pane of glass had been taken out near the lock. Access to the landing window is obtained from the back drawing-room balcony. There is a little grill you can stand on. This pane of glass could be cut out quite easily by anyone standing on that. I missed several bronzes and other articles from the Smoking-room on the first floor.
Cross-examined. No. 13 is the second block in Hyde Park Terrace.
GERALD EDWARD HOGHTON . I reside at 13, Hyde Park Terrace. I produce a list of the articles stolen on October 8 or 9. Seven of the articles are produced by Mr. Letts, five have been restored to me by Mr. Marks, two have been handed to me by the police, and others are still missing. The value of the articles stolen is £353.
Cross-examined. There are no particular marks by which I identify the bronzes, but I identify them from my general recollection of them.
GEORGE IZOD , picture restorer, 220, Great Portland Street. I was introduced to prisoner by an Italian named Canini and have known him about ten years. Prisoner is, I believe, an Englishman. I know the house of Mr. Hoghton at 13, Hyde Park Terrace, and there in March last, accompanied by prisoner, to take away two
pictures. Morris was in my employment for just one week. Prisoner went into the house with me and into the room where I had to get these pictures. I had only to just unhook the pictures, take them down, and place them in my cab. As I unhooked the pictures I handed them to Morris. At the end of the week he ceased to be in my employment. He assisted my men in cleaning the large picture. He has some knowledge of picture cleining.
Cross-examined. I have had business with Morris at one time and another. I have given him pictures of considerable value to sell on commission. I have always trusted him and found him worthy of it. The last picture he sold I think he sold for £50. He brought me back the money. He has first of all with my authority pledged pictures subsequently, when a customer has been found for a larger amount, redeemed the picture and given me the balance, less commission. He has done that many times for me in the last ten years. I knew he was also doing a considerable business with other people and that he was known in the trade as dealing in all kinds of articles of vertu. I should say he is known to pretty well everybody in London. His reputation in the trade was good; everybody trusted him. I only bought one picture of him. He was known as a man of considerable skill and judgment, having an extensive knowledge in matters relating to antiques. When we went to Mr. Hoghton's house we were in the smoking-room I should think five minutes at the most. I go to that house to work and the servant knows me. Morris was not left alone at all. Mr. Hoghton's maid stood alongside me the whole of the time. Morris had never been there alone. It is a place I always go to myself. I should not send a man there.
Re-examined. The bronzes were on the chimneypiece. Morris was long enough in the room to see the chimneypiece. The last picture transaction I had with him was in November. He pawned that picture and I only got the pawnticket on June 6, after his arrest.
FELIX RODINI . I pleaded guilty at this Court on May 31 to the burglary in Hyde Park Terrace, and afterwards made a statement to the police. About five years ago I was employed as waiter at "Gargini's Restaurant," Whitcomb Street, near Leicester Square. I first came to know Morris through his coming as a customer to the Restaurant. I have seen Morris there in company with Canini. I was only employed at the restaurant about two months. I did not see Morris after I left till the beginning of September or the latter part of August last year, when I met him in Leicester Square. He looked at me and at my clothes, and remarked that I appeared to be very, very low down. I said I had been three months out of work, having been disappointed in a letter of recommendation to go away on board a ship. He said to me, "What, a waiter like you cannot find work!" I then drew his attention to the fact that I had lost my character and that since then I had found considerable difficulty in finding regular employment. I was convicted of forgery in 1899. He said he was very
sorry, but he was not well off himself at that time and could do nothing for me. Of course, I had not asked him to do anything. He asked me to go and have a drink, and in the public-house showed me some pawntickets. He then said that if I would go and see him at his place in Clapham (50, Studley Road) he might put me in the way of earning a few shillings. He asked me to go that evening. I went between seven and eight o'clock and saw him in the back garden. He told me he was nearly as badly off as I was, owing to his wife being ill in bed, that he felt sorry for me, but could not help me in any other way. "Of course," he said, "you would never be able to get your living honestly," so he said he knew of a place where there were some bronzes if I liked to risk going to get them, and he could easily tell them, as they were in his line of business. I told him I could not entertain the idea, as I had gone straight up to then and that I had a wife and children to study. "Well," he said, "I do not know any other way you are going to get out of this difficulty. Think it over and let me know what you decide to do. I will see you tomorrow at 12 o'clock." Accordingly, next day I saw him at the "Leicester" public-house and he gave me 2s. We had a drink, and as we were having it he again started the conversation about the bronzes by saying lie did not exactly remember the place where the bronzes were, but could easily find it out. He told me to wait in the public-house whilst he went to see about the number. He did not tell me the street or anything else at that time, but went out and left me there. I followed him. He went down Piccadilly and turned into Bond Street, and I saw him go into either the sixth or seventh house in Bond Street. I stood at the cornar, and when he came out he had a slip in his hand with the address of the place and the number. It was Mr. Hoghton's address. He said, "I will find out if the people are at home; I believe they are away." He told me where the bronzes were. He said, "You get in at the back; there it a garden at the back, and then you go straight to the front ground floor room—that is the library, I believe—and there is a shelf on one of the walls where the bronzes are kept altogether." I was in the habit for some time after that of meeting him every day at 12 o'clock, and I kept putting this affair off because I still hoped to get a letter to go away on a ship. My wife was expecting her confinement at the time. When I agreed to do this job was about four or five weeks after that. One day, when my wife had teen unusually ill; she had been lying down on the bed; there had been nothing to eat in the place; she got up late at night and said the would tramp all the way to Walworth to see a sister of hers to see if she could borrow a shilling. She went and was refused. That made me a bit wild. I went out and walked in the direction of the Oval, and, being there, I thought I would go and see Morris, so I went there and told him what had just taken place between my wife and her sister." He said, "I have told you before I can do nothing. If you think of going there (Hyde Park Terrace) I have just found out that the people are all away. The house is empty so you will not be disturbed." This was in October. I said
"Well, I suppose it will have to be done. I do not see any other way out of it," and I told him I was going to do it. He gave me a few coppers to pay my railway fare back in the morning. It was arranged that I was to bring the things to him. That night I got into 13, Hyde Park Terrace. There are same gardens at the back with a fence round. I climbed the fence and got into the garden of second house, which was No. 13. I had no tools for breaking in. I had only a little pocket knife. I could not succeed in opening the windows, and it was about three o'clock in the morning that I pushed the knife through one if the glasses and broke it. I then put my hand inside, pulled the catch, and opened the window. I got on to the landing and went down a flight of stairs straight to the library. After I had made sure the blinds were down and the light could not be seen I lighted a candle and saw the bronzes on the shelf where I had been told to find them. I took tome of them upstairs to the drawing room and made them into a "parcel" with one of the canvas covers of the chairs. I believe there were ten or twelve. I do not know. In the drawing-room I saw some little things in a cabinet, some little snuff boxes, an antique gold watch, and a coral bust, and took these as well. I also took two Japanese swords. The boxes looked to me like stone boxes. I left the house by the front door. It must then have been going on for five o'clock. It was dark. I went to the Twopenny Tube Station at Marble Arch. From there I went to the Bank and then changed on to the line to the Oval. From the Oval I walked to prisoner's house, 58, Studley Road, and arrived there about a quarter to seven. Prisoner was waiting for me at the gate and took me through the side entrance into the front garden. His wife was being nursed by her sister Kate. There was do other lodger. We had breakfast in the front kitchen, and he undid the parcel there and put all the things on the table. As they were lying on the table his sister came in. Prisoner showed her the Japanese swords and asked her what the thought of them. He said he would dress at quickly at he could and would take the Twopenny Tube and meet me at nine o'clock under the arches in Regent Street in front of the Cafe Monaco. He gave me some money to take to my wife—a few coppers. When I met him he had some of the bronzes with him. He said he had been to show them to somebody who had told him they were no good, meaning that they were not worth anything or not worth much. After that he went about to all the West End shops which deal in antiques, I standing outside for him. In the afternoon when we got back to Leicester Square we met a man named Hopgood, whom I had seen with Morris before. It having got late in the afternoon and nothing having been sold during the day I told prisoner I could not go on any longer, and my wife had nothing to eat at home. He said, "I will take one of these bronzes to the pawnshop if you like." I said, "Take it wherever you like so long as you get me a few shillings." He left me and Charlie Hopgood in the "Leicester" and went over to Hawes' pawnshop, which is about fifty yards away. When he came back he said he had pawned one
of the bronzes for 15s., and gave me 10s. out of it. I then went home, leaving him to dispose of the rest of the things. A few days afterwards he sent me a message that somebody was after him, not to go near him nor his place, and if I met him in the West End to pass him by, not to speak. He sent word also that he had some money for me, and I was to send my wife to his place. When she came back she handed me £20 in gold. After some seven days, or it might have been more, I went to his place at Clapham. He then told me at had sold the two Japanese daggers to a man that keeps a shop in Shaftesbury Avenue, and that a day or two afterwards a policeman went round with a list of the stolen things, and the daggers had been identified and sent back to him (Morris). Prisoner also told me he had sold some of the other things to a man who keeps a shop in Bond Street at his private house in Knightsbridge, that the police had found these out as well, and had written him a letter telling him to go and see this man again, give him his money back, and bring the bronzes. I understood he was writing all over the shop trying to collect some of the £20. I had some of the money left, and gave ana back £10 out of it, and he said he would make it up later on. He told me that Inspector Stockley had the Hyde Park Terrace in hand, and also another officer called Williams. These officers, he said, had asked him where he had got the stolen property from, and he told them he was sitting in the "Leicester" when a man came in well dressed and of foreign appearanoe, rather tall, and with a dark moustache, and asked if he was Morris. Morris said he replied, "Yes," and the man then said, "I have some things here if you think you can tell them," and left them with him. He also told me that Inspector Stockley and two other officers were going about with him all over the West End trying to come across the man that had given him the bronzes, and said that if I happened to come across him in the West End I should not speak to him or go near him. Prisoner did not tell me about his selling the rest of the property. The £10 was not repaid. I asked him for 30s., and used to go nearly every night to his place at Stockwell, but I never got a penny. Subsequently when arrested I made a full statement to the police.
Cross-examined. It may have been in 1901 that I first met Morris. I had just done three years at that time for forgery. I was sentenced in 1899, and was then out on ticket-of-leave. Previously to that I had been convicted of burglary at Streatham, and sentenced to 15 months' hard labour. That was in 1897. Before that I had been a waiter at various restaurants in the West End of London. When I committed that burglary I had been out of employment four or five months after leaving the Exhibition, where I had been employed as waiter. At the time I again met Morris I had been released close on six years from prison, and had gone straight ever since, although there are people in London who can tell you that many and many a time I had been hard on to starving. I was not an innocent man
when I met Morris, but I was struggling to go on straight. It was after I had pleaded guilty that I made a statement to the police. I had nothing to hope for after my arrest. It is a fact that from October 9 last to May 31 of this year I never said a word to the police with reference to Morris, and then only after I had pleaded guilty to the offence myself. I did not mention him when I was arrested on May 7 or 8. I was visited by my wife whilst I was awaiting trial, and in the course of conversation with her I instructed her to write and ask Morris for money. She told me subsequently that she had done so and had received no reply. I told her to write again a pressing demand for money. She told me she had had no reply to the second letter. It was after that I made a statement involving Morris in this offence. As to whether I refrained from making any accusation against Morris so long as there was any chance of my wife obtaining money from him, Morris promised me when I went to do the Hyde Park Lane job that if I fell into trouble (there were plenty of people in the house and I might have been shot) he would look after my wife and children, and I naturally expected him to do something for them. It was not a sort of blackmail. He had got some of the stuff, and so long as I thought he would keep his word I refrained from involving him in this accusation. I gave Morris back the £10 because I thought Inspector Stockley was giving him a chance by allowing him to raise the money and buy the goods back. As Morris could not raise the money, he asked me to let him have it. I did so, though I was practically penniless and my wife was in need of medical assistance, because I did not want to be caught. The police had caught Morris because he had the stolen stuff. There was absolutely nothing so far as I knew to connect me with the Hyde Park Terrace robbery; but you never know, and I did not want to be seen going to his place. I knew the police were in touch with Morris, because he showed me the list the police had given him of the stolen goods. I told him when I gave him the £10 to do everything he could to get the things back. He suggested to me that I was in danger, when he told me to keep away and told me he did not want to be seen about with me. I was going about with him to find the man that had given him the things—the tall, dark Italian, with a silk hat and dark moustache. Of course, I did not answer that description. I had not a silk hat at that time, nor a frock coat; I should have pawned it if I had. There was someone who knew that Morris had been seen with the things besides the police, and had been seen in a public-house with Morris drinking, and Morris had been seen by somebody else going to pawn these things and coming back again and giving me money, and, therefore, if the police once caught one end of the rope they would soon drag the whole lot of it. As to the tall, dark Italian being at the other end of the rope, the tall, dark Italian was not in existence. I knew that Morris told the police that was the person he was looking for. Of course, I knew I had done the thing, and that the dark Italian had nothing to do with it. Notwithstanding that, I gave back the £10. There were
others concerned in the disposal of the things. A man named Crescenti was one. Morris let me have some of the bronzes back. I came to know Crescenti a few days after the Hyde Park Terrace robbery. When Morris told me these bronzes were no good I did not believe him, because before I got them he said they were so valuable and afterwards that they were worth nothing. I could see what the game was. When once they were in his hands they were worth nothing so far as I was concerned. When, after the burglary, he was lagging me about all over the West End with the bronzes in his pocket pretending they were absolutely rubbish I could not take that. The fact is, I wanted money, and when Morris gave me three of the bronzes back I mentioned the matter to a man—an old man. I do not know his name. I did not tell him they had been stolen from Hyde Park Terrace. I told him they were "crooked." I meant by that they were not honestly got, and the old man knew what I meant. This old man was not a mysterious person at all. I knew him very well by sight. I had known him about a month before the burglary. I had met him in the West End—in Shaftesbury Avenue. I saw him speaking to an acquaintance of mine who had been a waiter at the "Monaco," where this old gentleman used to come in his palmy days when he had some money to spend. He gave me to understand that he was a fruit merchant from Sicily. He was an Italian and a countryman of Crescenti's, and that is how I was introduced to Crescenti. I never had even the curiosity to ask the old man his name. He used to be referred to as the old traveller. Between the introduction and the date of the burglary I might have seen the old man two or three times—always at the West End, accidentally. I never used to go to see him anywhere. When I used to meet him he was going about selling blouses and ladies' materials. I believe he kept his stock at his own place. He was married and lived at Shepherd's Bush. I did not carry the bronzes with me. I mentioned that I had two or three bronzes. I did not ask him whether he cared to buy any because I knew he had no money to buy. I broached the subject, and the: led up to Crescenti. He said he knew somebody. The old man did not say anything when I told him they were "crooked." I understood that Crescenti as well as the old man would be all right as far as the "crookedness" was concerned. The old man told me Crescenti was a countryman whom he had known in Sicily. As to whether I am in the habit of talking to people like this every day without referring to their names by any chance, we do not show visiting cards. I did not care to know the old man's name. I sold some of the bronzes to Crescenti. I last saw the old man two or three days after I sold the bronzes to Crescenti. He kept away from the West End because he had borrowed some money. I got £3 from Crescenti. It was within 24 or 26 hours after Morris gave me back the bronzes that I came across the old man in the West End. I never mentioned anything about Morris to the old gentleman. I do not think that is curious. If you were concerned in a burglary you would not go and tell everybody about it. I did not think Morris was acting perfectly
straight I could not believe he had only £20 for all that lot. At the time of my arrest I had £3 15s. 2 1/2 d. The police when they searched my premises found some snuff boxes and some money—£186 gold. I have never suggested I had that from Morris. When my wife went to Morris to ask for assistance before I was imprisoned she did not bring me back £2 in gold. On one occasion she brought 12s., besides the £20. I told Morris I had been convicted of forgery I never mentioned the conviction for burglary to him.
Re-examined. No charge has been made against me in respect of the burglary in Hyde Park Terrace. At the time I met Morris in August or September of last year I had been out of prison five years and nine months I had married and had three children. During that time I had been working at several places, not permanent regular work, not more than three months at a time, wherever I could get work without reference. Such places as I had in Whitcomb Street I got by applying to a registry office. There was a contract between the registry office people and the employer to try to get as much out of the applicant as they could in the way of commission and then square it up with the employer, and then the employer, being quite satisfied, did not inquire into the references. What I made at Whitcomb Street was very small, about 10s. or 12s. a week. I had also an employment in the summer at the exhibition. After that I worked nine months for a builder who did not know the language and engaged me to keep his correspondence. I worked at Folkestone for two seasons. I also tried a small business in wet and dried fish, but that was unsuccessful. I have always been trying to get employment on board ship. First of all I tried through an agency and paid commission, and I went down to Blackwill Docks on board the ship with several other waiters with a letter of introduction to the chief steward, but when we got there we found it was a bogus anair, and the people connected with the agency were prosecuted. The police know about that. Morris promised me that if the worst came to the worst, "I will see that your wife and children do not starve; I will look after them." It was in consequence of that promise I communicated with him when I was in Brixton Prison. The articles which are now produced are some of the things I stole from 13, Hyde Park Terrace. I recognise the big bronse, the two Japanese swords, and the antique watch. When I learned after my arrest that money had been found in the house I guessed in once that it had come there through the police.
HARRIETT RODINI . wife of Felix Rodini. In the autumn of 1906 we were living in Oakdene Street. In September or October I was expecting to be confined. I remember about two weeks before my confinement my husband sending me to 58, Studley Road. Prisoner let me in at the side door. I told him I was Mrs. Rodini, and that my husband had sent me. He asked me into the back parlour, and there gave me £20 in gold. He told me to tell my husband that he had some for himself. I brought the money to my husband. I remember Morris coming to Lansdowne Gardens
at about 10 o'clock one morning in February. My husband raw him in the front room. At that time we owed the landlady two weeks' rent. I paid my rent that day after prisoner had gone away, receiving the money from my husband. My landlady spoke to me about the man who had come that morning. Prisoner on that occasion had on a square hard felt hat with a flat top. I went to prisoner's house on another occasion about four days after. On that occasion he gave me 12s. and something wrapped up in paper to give to my husband. I do not remember any message being sent to my husband about not going to see Morris. I remember going to see my husband in Brixton Prison. I afterwards wrote to Morris from Lansdowne Gardens, where I was left with a baby and two other young children. I got no answer. It was at my husband's suggestion that I wrote to Morris for assistance. A fortnight later I wrote again. I told my husband I had had no answer. At Lansdowne Gardens we had two rooms in the basement, a sleeping room and living room. Morris came to the door in the basement.
To the Recorder. I was in domestic service before I married prisoner.
REBECCA BARRETT , wife of Ernest Nash Barrett, 4, Lansdowne Gardens. Mrs. Rodini came with, her husband and children to lodge in the basement about Christmas of last year. I remember in February of this year the Rodinis owing two weeks' rent and it being paid me on a Tuesday evening. On the morning of that day, between nine and half-past, I had noticed a man leaving the basement. The lodgers were not in the habit of receiving people there and I never saw anybody except on this occasion. I saw a man leaving the bed-room who was wearing a flat-topped felt hat and had an overcoat on. I noticed also that he had white hair (corresponding to prisoner's). I spoke to my husband about it, and he told me it was a friend of Mr. Rodini's from Studley Road. The rent is 7s. 6d. a week, and after this visitor was gone I was paid the 15s.
JOHN WILLIAM SMELLIE , assistant to Joseph Hawes, pawnbroker, 7, Cranbourne Street. Mr. Hawes' shop is near the "Leicester." I know the prisoner as John Morris, of 58, Studley Road. He pawned a bronze figure on October 9, upon which 15s. was advanced, in the evening, near closing time, half-past six o'clock. This is the ticket (produced). The bronze was redeemed on the 16th.
Cross-examined. I did not take the bronze in. I come here represententing the firm. I had no conversation with the person who pledged it. Though I had nothing to do with this transaction, I happen to know Mr. Morris extremely well. He has had a number of transactions with the house while I have been there, and in those transactions has always behaved in a perfectly hones and respectable way. He has frequently pledged articles of considerable value and redeemed them, and has also pledged and redeemed articles in the name of Izod. During the years I have known Morris I have known him as having a good reputation in the trade
for skill and judgment and as dealing with pretty well most of the people in the trade. He has dealt with everything in the way of antiques. I have never heard a word against him. Ho has some times sold things for us on commission. Articles of considerable-value have been entrusted to him for that purpose. I know the dates of this particular transaction from the books. It is not possible that there should be a mistake in the dates because the bonks are never done up until it has turned half past six, which is our closing time.
The Recorder directed that Mr. Hawes manager should attend on the following day with any books showing dealings with prisoner.
Mr. MURRAY MARKS, dealer in articles of vertu and antiques, 142. New Bond Street. I carry on business in the name of Durlacher. On October 10 last year prisoner came to my shop and offered me five small bronzes for £25, stating that the owner wanted £20 and that he wanted £5 for himself. He said he was a picture dealer, and I think he showed a card, but I am not certain. I wanted to buy one of the bronzes, but he said he would not separate them. He said they must ill go together. I said I would take them, gave him a cheque for £25 and took a receipt. I recognise three of the bronzes, and I suppose the others are the two I bought. I recognise the one that I wanted to purchase. I subsequently heard that the bronzes were stolen and handed them over to the police. We took proceedings against Morris and got judgment but no money.
Cross-examined. It is quite possible we might have had dealings with prisoner before. His face seemed familiar to me. I am certain he showed a card. I have looked for it but cannot find it. There was no kind of secrecy about this transaction. These bronzes are quite ordinary sixteenth century work, and there is nothing remarkable about them, but mere is one model I have never seen before which I can identify for certain. I should not have bought them at all because they are so unimportant, but that little bronze pleased me. I certainly should not nave given him £5 more for them. I think I gave more than they would fetch at an auction. When the detectives came Morris accompanied them. There are a good many people whose faces may be familiar to me through having seen them in auction rooms. Private people constantly come in who want to raise money on things. Even the biggest dealers in Europe will sometimes come in; it is a common practice.
ALFRED MARCUS , antique dealer, 124. Shaftesbury Avenue. On October 11 I remember a man named Hopgood coming in and showing me a Japanese sword. He made a statement to me, and afterwards returned with prisoner, whom he introduced as the owner of the sword. I had never seen them before. I believe Morris asked £8 for the sword, and I offered £6 10s. He went out, and in a few minutes came back and said he would accept it. I paid the money in cash. That would be a fair auction price. Next day another Japanese sword was brought to me by Hopgood. I refused to buy it and he took it away. I did not want another one. The two swords
were not a pair. A friend of mine, a Mr. Lee, happened to be in the shop when the first sword was brought in. In consequence of information I went to Tottenham Court Road Police Station, and I afterwards handed over the sword to the police. I lost my £6 10s. I never saw either Hopgood or prisoner again, till prisoner was at Marlborough Street.
Cross-examined. Hopgood was introduced to me by a Mr. Field, whom I have known as an antique dealer for some years, and as a very respectable man. I gave what I considered was a fair price for the sword. I have an interest in things of this sort, as I lived in Japan for 20 years. If I had had a fair offer I should very likely have sold it.
CHARLES HOPGOOD , picture restorer, 18, Rutland Street, Hampstead Road. I first saw one of these swords in the possession of prisoner at the "Queen's Hotel," Leicester Square. He asked me to try and sell it and said he wanted £10 for it. He suggested I should take it to Mr. Cutter, of the British Museum. I took it to Mr. Field and afterlards to Mr. Marcus. Mr. Marcus was a stranger to me, and in consequence of what he said I fetched Morris and introduced him as the owner of the sword. I got 10s. for my trouble. I know Rodini by sight, having seen him at the "Queen's" and in the street. Morris spoke to me about the second sword shortly afterwards. He said it was a better one and asked me to go and see Marcus and try to get £10 for it. As I could not sell the sword I took it back to Morris in the "Queen's Hotel." I think it was the next morning that I learned that these two swords were the proceeds of a burglary. Two detectives called at my house at about twenty to eight in the morning. As the result of inquiries they made of me I communicated with Morris by telegram and met him in the Vauxhall Bridge Road, near Victoria Station. When I told him the two Japanese daggers were the proceeds of a robbery he exclaimed, "Good God! what shall I do?" I went with him to Studley Road when he went to get the second dagger. I saw nothing of the watch or bronzes. The police arranged to see me next day at Swallow Road, and I went there with Morris about one o'clock.
Cross-examined. I have known Morris for over five and twenty years and have had hundreds of transactions with him. I should say Morris is exceedingly well known in the trade and is regarded as a highly respectable man. When he showed me the dagger I regarded it as in the ordinary course of business. It is not usual when dealers display articles for their customers to say where they have come from. If they did so they would have to give away a good many secrets. It is customary in this particular class of business for the bargaining and selling and negotiating to take place in hotels and places of public resort. A great deal is done outside shops, and therefore there was nothing unusual in meeting him at the "Queen's Hotel" and seeing the dagger there. I have known Morris to be engaged in the negotiation and sale of articles of considerable value, miniatures and other
articles running into hundreds of pounds. Transactions relating to pictures running even into thousands of pounds are sometimes carried out in hotels and places of public resort—every day, I should think. When I told Morris the daggers had been stolen he appeared to be genuinely surprised and astonished. He did not show the slightest reluctance to meeting the police.
SIDNEY EDWARD LETTS , dealer in works of art, 100, Great Russell Street. On October 16 last, about seven o'clock, prisoner brought; to my place three bronzes, three snuff boxes, and a watch. I identify one of the bronzes and the watch. I do not think I had ever bought anything of him before. I think he asked me £60 for the things, and I bought five of them for £30, for which I gave him a cheque. Just as he was going he said I might as well have the other two. I had first of all offered him £40 for the lot, but he would not take it, but finally he agreed to let me have the other things for an additional £10. for which I gave him a second cheque. I do not remember whether he said where he got them from. The cheques bear date October 16. I did not see him again until he was in custody. I saw a report of the fact that he was in custody, and that brought this transaction to my recollection, and I communicated with the police. I handed the things over and have lost my £40. I do not think the things would have fetched more at auction. I left a margin of profit for myself.
Cross-examined. I have known Morris 20 years. When I was in the City he had a picture shop in Crosby Square. So far as I have known, his reputation has always been good. I think I gave fair value for the things, but, of course, I bought them as cheaply as possible. I have never seen the police list. If I had seen the list produced I should certainly have known that I had the Gladiator, the yellow tortoiseshell box, and an embossed watch. I might not have known that it was the same watch. Finding that I had the bronze figure and the gold watch, I should certainly have taken them round With regard to other things in the list, there is an "oblong yellow box" (French)—I think that is a very good description; a "dark porphyry box, with cameo of woman's head," also a very good description; the bronze Gladiator is a good description; and "Two bronzes on red marble plinth" is not a good description. The "Gladiator" and the "Discus Thrower" are common forms of statuette. The date of the Gladiator is about 1680. I have had one or two examples of that model through my hands in the course of my business career. They vary in size and colour, and I do not think you would be likely to see many models of the Gladiator on a black marble base. I do not think the black marble base is common; it is not interesting enough. The figure is not common enough to say that any base would be common to it, but if I were to see that bronze in a police list, and if I possessed it, I should give it up. It is, of course, possible that if the transaction with Morris took place late in the evening of the 15th I might have dated the cheques the 19th, but I do not think it probable.
ARTHUR WELLESLEY WOODTHORPE , manager to Mr. Hawes, produced the books of the establishment and said that the number of the ticket showed that the bronze pawned on October 9 was pawned late is the day. Prisoner personally redeemed the bronze on October 16.
In cross-eximination witness said prisoner had been known there for many years and had sold goods and pictures on commission. He had always been found perfectly honest in his dealings.
Mr. LETTS, recalled, said that having looked the matter up he was now able to swear positively that his transaction with prisoner was on October 16.
Detective-sergeant EDWARD WILLIAMS. The burglary at Hyde Park Terrace was reported at the Paddington Station on the morning of October 9, and on the evening of that day the matter was placed in my handd by Inspector Stockley, who was then my immediate superior. As the result of inspecting the premises I was able to form an opinion as to how the burglar had gained access. He had evidently climbed from Hyde Park Street, passing the back garden of No. 14, to the wall of 13, getting into the back from the sloping wall going up to the balcony. When on the balcony he took out a small pane of glass in a French window, put his hand in and lifted the bolt. He left by the front door, leaving it open as was discovered by the servant the next morning. I learned the nature of the property that had been stolen. On October 12 information was received by the police from Mr. Marcus. As the result of that inquiries were made and the witness Hcpgood seen, and in the result an, appointment was made for October 16 at the "Swallow" public-house. I kept the appointment in company with another officer named Parsons, and there met Morris with Hopwood. I told him we were police officers and found that he had sold to Mr. Marcus a dagger which was part of the property stolen from 13, Hyde Park Terrace, and I also said that there was Another dagger stolen. Morris replied, "I have it here in my pocket," and handed it to me. I told him there was a lot of other property missing and gave him the list that has been put in to read. After reading it he said he had sold five of the bronzes to Mr. Durlacher, of New Bond Street. I then asked him whom he got them from. He Said he got them from an Italian whom he described as being tall and dark, as wearing a silk hat, and of gentlemanly appearance, whom he met in the Queen's Hotel, Leicester Square. Morris stated that this man came into the hotel on October 10, addressed him by name, and told him that he thought he knew him and gave him the property to sell on commission. Morris also told me that he had sold the five bronzes for £25 and had £5 as his own commission, and also had 10s. commission on the dagger he sold to Mr. Marcus. He also said that he had met the Italian and paid him the money; also that he was not to sell the other dagger he had in his possession under £10, as the man was not satisfied with the price given for the first dagger. He said he
only knew the Italian by going into the "Queen's Hotel" and did not know his address, but thought he would come back again, as he had not paid him for the second dagger. I then made an arrangement with him as he stated that he was a dealer, to meet him at the "Queen's Hotel" daily between 10 a.m. and 2 p.m. He was not there the whole time. He went there at 10 o'clock for dealing purposes to see if there was any business to be done, and again at two o'clock. The next day, October 17, I had a list of the stolen property prepared and gave it to him in accordance with his own suggestion the previous day and asked him about the remainder of the property. He said he knew nothing about it; that that was all he had seen, the five brouses and the two daggers. He told me to stop the five bronzes at Durlacher's, so that they should not dispose of them. At that time I had no knowledge of the sale to Mr. Letts or of the pawning on the 9th I met Morris daily down to October 29, except one day, that on which he buried his wife. I have also met him casually since then, as lately as when Crescenti was on remand. If he had said he was in close touch with the police that would have been a right description of the state of affairs. Prisoner was also seen by Inspector Stockley and by Parsons more than once. On May 23 I sent him a postcard to meet me at the "Queen's Hotel" at 10.45 am I then told him the two men Rodini and Crescenti were in custody and asked him if either of them was the man he had the bronzes of. He said, "No; I have seen the photographs in the 'Star.'" I then asked him to accompany me to Marlborough Street Police Court to identify them. He said he knew they were not the men, and that he had an important appointment that morning which he must keep. I did not press him to go to the police court. So far as I am aware, he never came to the police court during the time Rodini was under remand. I did not see him after May 23 until he was in custody.
Cross-examined. When I saw Morris on October 16 he seemed to be suffering and complained of his leg. I think he mentioned that he had rheumatism. I have verified his statement that his wife was lying dead at the time. When I told him about the daggers he handed the second dagger over at once. His story about selling the first dagger I have since found out is true, also his story about selling the five bronzes to Durlacher. He told me it was his practice to go to the "Queen's Hotel" between 10 and two, and as I frequently met him there I took it it was so. If I had wanted to see him again after May 23 I should have gone to the "Queen's Hotel." We were given to understand the stolen things were of great value—worth hundreds of pounds. Mr. Marcus said that one of the bronzes out of the five was worth the money he had given for the whole of them.
Detective CECIL PARSONS, H Division. On October 16 I was with Sergeant Williams, when he saw Morris, somewhere about one o'clock in the day. I was present when the list of property was handed to him, and he read it. I wrote out a copy of it, which was given to him the followig day.
Cross-examined. I agree with the last witness that on the 16th Morris was ill and appeared to be in a distressed condition. He told us he had lost his wife. He put on his glasses and read the list right through, and then handed it back to Sergeant Williams. Williams represented the things to him as being worth hundreds of pounds.
Inspector JAMES STOCKLEY. In October, 1906, I was in charge of the Paddington Division. On October 9 I placed this matter in the hands of Sergeant Williams. On October 17 I saw Morris at the "Queen's Hotel," Leicester Square. We then had information of his having sold the bronzes and a dagger, and I asked him for an explanation of how he became possessed of them. He said they were given him by a man he had met in the "Queen's Hotel," and who asked him to dispose of them. He described this man at an Italian—a tall, dark man of about 30, wearing a silk hat. I told prisoner that I suspected him strongly of receiving the property knowing it to have been stolen, but there was not sufficient ground for charging him at that time. I arranged with Sergeant Williams that he should go with Morris to meet this Italian. I did not hear of the sale to Letts on the evening of the 16th, nor of the pawning on the 9th, until prisoner was actually is custody, and I knew nothing of his connection with Rodini.
Inspector HENRY FOWLER, W Division. I was in court on May 31 when Rodini was arraigned before my lord and pleaded guilty. After he had pleaded I was allowed to see him below. He made a statement to me, in the course of which the burglary at 13, Hyde Park Terrace was dealt with. On the night of June 1, at 11 o'clock, I was with Constable Ebbage in the Clapham Road. I saw prisoner Morris in company of a lady. I walked a little way behind them and then said, "I believe you are Mr. Morris, of No. 58, Studley Road." He said, "Yes," and I then spoke to him with regard to another charge, and said I should arrest him. On the way to the station he said, "I know the man you are speaking about, Rodini." I had not mentioned Rodini to him. Morris added, "He used to be a waiter at Gargini's, where I used to go." Prisoner was subsequently taken to Marlborough Street Police Station, and on the way there he said, "You know that Mrs. Rodini wrote to me after his arrest for assistance, but I did not answer the letter. I suppose this is the Italian vendetta." I afterwards told him he would be charged with receiving some valuable bronzes and daggers stolen from 13, Hyde Park Terrace, in October last. He said, "They know all about that. I told the detectives all I could as soon as I heard they were stolen. The last I heard was that they had been handed back to the gentleman who had lost them. It looks as if those foreigners will say anything." At Marlborough Street he was charged with receiving the property, the proceeds of the Hyde Park Terrace burglary. He said, "I did my best as soon as I knew they were stolen, and assisted Detective Williams to find the man I bought them of. Mr. Stockley came to me and I did all I could to assist him." After the arrest the police
received information with regard to the sale to Mr. Letts and the pawning on the 9th.
Cross-examined. When Morris mentioned Rodini I had not referred to him at all.
Mr. HOGHTON. recalled, said that all the property produced was his father's. The price put upon the articles was the price paid for them plus 1 per cent. He was of opinion that the prices given to Morris were too low.
EDWARD JOHN MORRIS (prisoner, on oath). I was 59 in June and am the son of the late Mr. John Morris, who was for 50 years stock manager to Messrs. Hunt and Roskell, the well known jewellers. I was educated at the Catholic College, Woodhampton. Berkshire, and after leaving there was apprenticed to Giuliano, the well known dealer in Piceadilly. I then went to America, and remained there six years. Having married my late wife, an Italian lady named Marina di Ym-ceaca, Francescs, I returned in 1875 to this country and took up the business of picture-dealing in 1876. I have had to do with pictures all my life since I was a little boy. I first opened a shop in Crosby Square and remained there until about 14 years ago. I afterwards went into partnership with an Italian named Dominic Canina in the business of purchasing pictures and curios for sale, and selling on commission as well. Canini had a studio in King Street, where he worked in pastel for Mr. Asher Wertheimer. We remained together until about five years ago, when Canini retired and went to Italy. While in partnership with him I was in the habit of frequenting Italian reataurants all over the West End for the purpose of meeting persons connected with our business. It was in that way I came to visit the Genova Restaurant, kept by Gargini. I speak Italian. I have lived at 58. Studley Road, Stockwell, for 22 or 23 years, I cannot say exactly, which was my own leasehold property. In addition to the Italian restaurants I have also used the bar oi the "Queen's Hotel," Leicester Square, the "Charing Cross Hotel," and different hotels is the neighbourhood. People in this class of business seem to pick it up in such places. As to pawning pictures and curios, I have always made money and done a lot of business with pawnbrokers in that way. I place a picture or whatever it may be in pawn and take gentlemen to see it. I do not sell the ticket, as has been represented bv My Mr. Gill, but I have the object brought up, sell it, and redeem it with the money I receive. I do nothing in the way of bartering or selling pawntickets. I only pawn things for security. I sold three pictures a little while ago for £175 through Mr. Percy Attenborough. As to how it came about that I met Rodini in September or October of last year, Rodini came up to me at the corner of Leicester Square and tola me he had been a waiter at Gargini's, and after conversation
with him I remembered him. I had two or three friends with me, and we were talking about horseracing, and Rodini said if I would give him my card he might be able to send me some tips. He told me he was out of work, and I said I was sorry to hear it. He was always clean and tidy, and I gave him my card. He said nothing been that interview about having lost his character, nor about having been convicted for forgery. I wish he had. He called on mt afterwards in Studley Road. I cannot say exactly when that was, but it was light, between six and seven in the evening, because I was down in my garden picking some beans at the time. Rodini told me at would call upon me the next day at he was expecting a good tip from a waiter at the "Cecil" about a racehorse. I told him I was always at the "Queen's" at a ten o'clock in the morning till eleven and at two for half an hour or so. I did not see Rodini that day, but between four and five in the evening a man came into the "Queen's" and showed this bronze (the Gladitor). He was a French porter sort of man. I told him it was a very rough model made in the time of the empire, and the wrong colour altogether. He pressed me to buy it, but I told him I did not care for it as it was not sort of thing that I could sell. He asked me to lend him a few shillings, and I told him I would go and pawn it if liked. I took it to Mr. Hawes and asked £2 10s. or £2 for it. The manager told me the same as I had said myself that it was a very rough model and quite modern, and he only let me have 15s. on it. I have known Mr. Hawes since 1876. He is, I may say one of the finest judges of bronzes. I gave the whole of the 15s. to the man and kept the ticket. He afterwards came to the "Queen's, Hotel" and asked me for the ticket. I suppose that would be on the morning of October 16. He then produced this agate box, and I bought the ticket and the box, giving him £5. I may have seen him since without noticing. I never ask for the addresses of anybody with whom I am doing business and very seldom get receipt. I pay the money and take the goods. On the morning of October 10 between 10 and 11 in the morning I was in the "Queen's Hotel," when a gentleman came in and asked. "Is your name Morris?" He was quite a swell and carried a yellow bag. I said, "Yes." He then said, "Can you do with these things?" and opened his bag. I said "Yes." I think I can sell those." I am referring now to the bronzes I sold to Durlacher. I asked him what he wanted for them, and he laid they were worth about £30. I told him they would be no good to me at that price. He said. "See what you can do with them if you like. I will come back this afternoon." He left the bag and the bronzes with me, and I made an appointment for two o'clock in the afternoon. I went with them to several dealers, who would not touch them because they were modern, and I finished up with Durlacher. The bronzes are mostly copies. Three of them are sixteenth century, one seventeenth century, and are quite modern. The sixteenth century bronze boy is worth all the rest, but it is a difficult thing to sell as it is so small. After consideration Mr. Marcus gave
me £25. of which I was to have £5 for myself. I should like to say that I took the detectives to Durlacher's myself. I got back to the "Queen's Hotel" about one o'clock, and a little after two the man came in. I handed him the £20 and fold him that was the best I could do. I did not tell him I had made £5 for myself. He did not grumble and put the money in his pocket. Then he took out one of these daggers. I am not a judge of such things beyond knowing that they are very fine work. I took it myself to the Japanese people in Bond Street, and to several places, but could not sell it because they said it was modern. (Witness proceeded to detail his negotiations with Hopgood in reference to the dagger.) This gentleman turned up again at the "Queen's Hotel" between five and six o'clock, and I handed him £5 10s., giving Hopgood 10s. and keeping 10s. for myself. He then took the other dagger out of his pocket and said, "Here is a much finer one. I shall not take less than £10 for this one. If you cannot get £10 do not sell it." Next morning I went round to different shops but could not sell it. They all said the same thing, that it was modern, and that £10 was a good price for it. I kept the dagger as the man did not turn up, and I nave never seen that tall dark Italian gentleman since. On October 13 I went to Boreham's auction rooms to see an Englishman named Asher Nathan about a picture, but he did not turn up, and I went to one or two other places where I thought I might find him. In Hanway Street I met a stout, elderly Frenchwoman, accompanied by a young man. I knew her by sight, but not her name. She showed me this watch and the cameo box. She did not say where she had got them from. I bought the watch for £2 10s. It was damaged and knocked about, and the only value of it was the gold case. I do not doubt that it is 200 or 250 years old, but it is worn through in holes. For the cameo I gave £3 10s. or £4. Some other things I bought from the young man, and altogether I gave about £12. I bought these two bronzes of him, which the young man had in his pocket. The dealing took place in a little public-house of Hanway Street. As to whether I am in the habit of purchasing curios from people I meet casually in the street, there are hundreds of people in the West End who get their living in the same way, and I have never bought anything "wrong" that I know of. I do not ask any questions. I did not think the things were stolen or anything like that. I next saw Rodini on the night after I had met Mr. Stockley. He came to my house in the evening. He said I looked very queer, and I said, "Yes, I am very much worried. I have got the police on to me. I bought some stolen goods." I had got Mr. Stockley's card in my hand and I put it on the table. Rodini looked at it, and said, "Stockley! Oh, yes, I have heard of him." I had not even at that time the slightest idea that Rodini had been in trouble before. I knew nothing of that until I saw an account of his life in the paper. Rodini asked me what it was through, and I told him through some bronzes and some daggers. He stopped a little while talking about one thing and another, and then he went
away. As to my interview with the police on October 16, what the police said is perfectly correct; I cannot say anything different. The list of the stolen things was shown to me. I did not read it carefully as it has been stated; I was too queer at the time, but I looked at it and gave it back. I did not read it right through, but I saw 'Japanese dagger." The list is quite legible now I have my glasses on. I said to Stockley, "Come with me and I will show you where the goods are," and I took him to Durlacher's there and then. I gave the list back to the police. I had a copy of it given me in the "Queen's Hotel" some time afterwards. It is very likely I did ask for a copy. With regard to my interview with Mr. Letts, I have known him a good many years, and I have had a suite of furniture from him of the value of £1,200 and a miniature worth £200 or £300, and I have shown him lots of things, silk and different things, but I have never done any business with him until this occasion. When the police told me that the articles stolen were worth hundreds and hundreds of pounds 1 expected to see very different things from these, and that had an effect on my mind in relation to the articles I had in my possession. With regard to the cameo box that cameo is not worth anything. If it was taken out of the box it would not be worth 5s., though the cameo is old. It is a well-cut cameo, but if it was taken out of the box you could not sell it for more than 5s., and when the police talked about hundreds of pounds I could only turn round and say, "My goodness!"
Mr. Elliott pointed out that the total of £353 included a large number of valuable articles that had not been traced.
Witness. When the police talked about hundreds and hundreds of pounds I did not think that could apply to the articles I had seen, and I never made any comparison at all. I think I went to Mr. Letts' on the morning of October 16, and he told me I had better come in the evening. I got there about six o'clock. When he paid me £40 for the things I took to him I thought I had done wonderfully well. I arranged with the police to try and find this dark Italian from whom I had bought the things, and I went to the "Queen's Hotel" every day for that purpose. It has been my custom to go there every day for five or six years. I did not see the slightest trace of him anywhere, neither did I see the stout Frenchwoman and the young man I had seen in Hanway Street. During this time Rodini used to visit me once or twice a week, and sometimes I used to meet him in the neighbourhood of Leicester Square and talk about horse-racing. I showed him a nugget in November or December. When my wife did I took all the pieces of jewellery, broken chains, old ear-rings, and all that sort of thing, put them in a pot, and melted them down. I have served my time as a jeweller and understand all that sort of thing. One Sunday morning Rodini brought his little boy round to me and said, "There is a nice little boy. Wouldn't you like to have that little boy? Why don't you adopt him? You have lost your wife. You have nobody now to look after or care for. You have got
a nice garden for him to run in, and this will be pleasure to you." I did not like it exactly, and I refused at once, and told him that after Christmas I should sell everything and get out of the place. Upon that he turned quite nasty and said, "You are a fool, why don't you have somebody to care for you?" After that I never cared much about him, as I saw that he was trying to get the best of me. When he called I nearly always gave him a few shillings, and at Christmas time I gave him a bottle of wine and some things to take home, and. I think, half a sovereign. He was out of work at that time. I remember after Christmas he was talking about going to Southampton, and asked me if I could let him have £2 so that he might go there and get work. I told him I would if I could manage it, and that I was expecting to make £15 on a picture I was selling at Shepherd's Bush and I would send him a couple of sovereigns out of that. He sent his wife afterwards to my house because my sister, who was living with me, objected to him. He used to push the door open and walk in as if the place belonged to him, and she did not like it. He was rude in his manner. I gave his wife the £2 the second time she came I understood he was hoping to get a situation as waiter on board a ship. After that I did not see him again for a long time. I met him at Waterloo Station on Easter Monday. I was then going to Hurst Park, and he got into the same carriage. We had conversation about horse-racing, and he said, "It is a funny thing that Mr. Wertheimer's goods are not found yet?" He said he believed they would never find the pictures. I came away before the last race. I saw him backing horses. I know he backed three horses in one race and never find the winner. He told me also that he had been to Brassels, where he was mistaken for an anarchist and detained three days. He was very well dressed then, and very smart and clean, and I made the remark that he had been spending some money. The next I heard of him was what I saw in the papers that he had been arrested. I have never been to Rodini's house in Lansdowne Gardens. I lived in Lansdowne Gardens about 25 years ago. Mrs. Barrett is mistaken in saying that I was there.
Cross-examined. For some time past my business has been carried on, without any business premises, either in public-houses or in the street, or sometimes in gentlemen's houses. It would be an ordinary transaction for a man to speak to me in a public-house and give me something to dispose of whose name and address I do not know if I thought he was a respectable looking sort of man. The man I described as a French porter looked like a man who was a porter in some large firm. I think he was a man I had seen before about Soho or round about the West End; his face was familiar to me. He looked like a man who earned his £2 or £3 a week or something like that I never ask questions about name and address. As to whether mine is a dangerous business I do know from my experience of London that there is a large amount of stolen property to be disposed of if people can be got to buy it. I know that efforts are made to
protect the public by the circulation of police lists. As to the meeting with the elderly Frenchwoman and the young man they may have known me, though I did not know them. I have seen the woman before but not the man. I do not know her name, but as I say I never ask questions. They came up to me as I was looking is the door of a public-house. I bought the watch, the two boxes, and the two bronze figures. Some of the things were shown to me in the street, and we arrived at a price in the street and then went into the public-house. It was quite an ordinary transaction and had happened hundreds of times before. That occurred the day before I went to Letts. I knew from the police list that I had been in possession of stolen property. I knew that the two awords formed part of the proceeds of the burglary at No.13, Hyde Park Terrace. It did not flash across my mind at the time that I had been in that house. I know now that I have been in it, and in the room that this stolen property wag taken from. Having regard to the things before me I should call the watch a gold embossed watch as described in the police list, and the same with regard to the snuff box with a chased gold cover and the same dark tortoiseshell rounds box with cameo of a woman's head on the lid. But, as I say, I never remembered the list so as to make a comparison, because these I things were supposed to be worth as many hundreds of pounds. Another article described is an oblong box, gold-rimmed, like that produceed, but all the snuff boxes like this are the same and have all got pld rims. Every one of them is made with a gold rim. The bronze gladiator on black marble base about 14 in. high is incorrectly escribed. It is nothfng like 14 in.; it is about 7 in. The list also contains a pair of bronze figures, male and female, but I never read the list properly; but now that my attention it drawn to it I realise that in this list there was a description of these articles. I knew that bronzes had been stolen, but it did not occur to me to look closely at bronzes like this when I had been told the property was worth hundreds of pounds. At the time I met Rodini in September I was not a difficulties or hard up. I always had means. At to why I did not pay Durlachers the money they had parted with, I told them I would pay in January, and in the meantime they summoned me. I understood from the police that all this business was going to be settled, but Mr. Hoghton would not have anything to do with them. I thought Mr. Marcus had had his money back. I did not go to see because I had no reason to go. At that time I was pawning several things of my own for small amounts, but I was also pawning picture and articles of vertu of the value of £700 or £800. I pawned a picttre of Mr. Izod's. Mr. Izod knew all about it. I heard Mr. Izod say that he did not know where I had pawned it, that he only got the pawnticket on June 6 after I had been arrested. I helped Mr. Izod to carry the pictures out of the house in Hyde Park Terrace. It is not right to say that I was not then doing business. I was always doing business. Mr. Izod asked me to go there to oblige him. I never asked him for a week's work nor any other man. At
the time I met Rodini in September he had no claim upon me, and from that time he made himself a frequent visitor at my house. I gave him a little money from time to time, just a shilling or two, or something like that. I cannot tell how much I gave him altogether I heard Rodin is wife say that I had given her £20 in gold for her husband, but that statement is quite untrue. I do not know the date of the burglary at Mr. Wertheimer's. It is not true that I happened to be at Rodini's place on the morning after that burglary (February 11). I heard Rodini say that I was, and I heard his wife say so, but that is quite untrue. I heard Mrs. Barrett state that between nine o'clock and half past an elderly gentleman with white hair, wearing a hard felt hat with a flat top, came from the bedroom at Rodini's. I doubt if at that time I was wearing a felt hat with 4 flat top. I never had a hat with a flat top. With regard to my leading Rodini £2, I have lent hundreds of pounds to different people like that who have had no sort of claim upon me out of charity and good heart, even when I have been pawning things for a few shillings. The reason I pawned things from time to time was so that I should not break into money. I say that from beginning to end Rodini's story about my telling him that there were bronzes in this house is entirely untrue. The story that he brought the articles to me on the very morning that he had committed the burglary is quite untrue. But it is true that on October 9 I was in possession of the gladiator, that on October 10 I was in possession of the two swords and four of the bronzes, and that on the evening of October 16 I was selling the rest of the things to Mr. Letts. Those are unquestionable facts. As to whether I received in all £72 for these things, I have not added it up. I never told Rodini that I had melted gold snuff box in the melting pot I did not give him a gold snuff box to take away. I did not go to the police court when Rodini was arrested because it had nothing to do with me. It is true I told the police officers that I had seen the portrait of one of the men arrested in the "Star," and that I did not know him. I knew Crescenti when he was in business in Bond Street, but the detective never spoke to me about him.
Re-examined. When the police list was shown to me I did not read it through, and it was not until the copy was supplied to me that I was conscious that the description tallied with the articles that were in my possession. I am not myself an Italian. I am an Englishman, but I married an Italian lady, and since 1862 I have always been mixed up with Italians. Rodini was a Swiss-Italian.
The following gentlemen were called as witnesses to prisoner's character: Mr. Edward Horncastle Smith, sale clerk to Messrs. Christie, Manson, and Wood; Mr. Charles Stopp, manager to Messers. Whistler and Sons, curio dealers and pawnbrokers in the Strand; and Mr. Ernest Renton, dealer in pictures, curios, and works of art, 26. Kings Street, St. James's. All said that prisoner bad the reputation of being an honest dealing man.
(Monday, July 29.)
Verdict, Guilty of feloniously receiving.
Mr. Gill said it would be desirable that the trial of the indictment charging the prisoner with receiving part of the proceeds of the burglary at Mr. Wertheimers residence should be postponed until the September Sessions. All the property had been recovered with the exception of the two oil-paintings, which were of very great value, and a snuff box. The police had information as to where the pictures were.
The Recorder accordingly postponed the trial, and likewise pottponed sentence in the case in which the prisoner had been convicted.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Thursday, July 25.)
Mr. Dunn prosecuted; Mr. C. H. Pierson defended.
ARTHUR JAMES STONE , printer, 53, St. Joan's Road, Hoxton. On juse 29, just, before 12 p.m., I was in the "Brewery Tap," Bacchus Walk. When I came out there was a lot of chaps there, and they stopped me as I was crossing to the urinal. The prisoners were amongst them. webb went round my pockets, and when I resisted I got two blows on the jaw from Tyce and a kick on the leg from one of the others. I lost 2d. and my latch-key. My wife came np and screamed. The police came just after the men made off. I next saw prisoners at Old Street Police Station on July 3. I identified them amongst 12 or 15 others.
Cross-examined: It was on a Saturday evening it happened, just before dosing time. I had been there about half an hour and had three drinks. I had not been to any other public-house. It was not dark because of the lamp and the lights of the public-house, and there is a lamp at the urinal. It was not darkness that prevented my seeing vho kicked me; but after two blows on the jaw I was pretty well stunned. They did not run away before my wife came. It was some ten days after that I identified them. I did not have a conversation with the barman about it.
Re-examined. I have not the slightest doubt as to the prisoners.
ALPHONSO WILLIAM PALMER , barman at the Brewery Tap. We were closing about 11.55 on the night in question. I saw a crowd outside and the prisoners surrounding prosecutor and Webb searching his pockets. Thenn Tyce struck him in the face. I told prosecutor's wife that her huhhand was being robbed. I had seen prisoners once or twice previously. I identified them on July 3 at Old Street Police Station.
Cross-examined. It was pretty dark that night. I should say there were ten or twelve people round. I was only two yards off. I should
say it was about 15 yards from the urinal. I saw Webb put his hand in prosecutor's pocket, but I had my business to attend to. I took particular notice of prisoners. The struggle was going on when I told prosecutor's wife. I believe she had been with him drinking in the bar. She was just behind me as I came out.
EMMA STONE , prosecutor's wife. On the night in question the potman where we had been drinking told me my husband was being knocked about by a number of men. I went up and saw the potman knocking them across the legs with a broomstick—what they call a long arm. Tyce hit my husband one or two blows in the face and made it bleed. Webb was rifling his pockets. I got under the mas's arm between them and called "Police!" and got a blow and a black eye, but who did it I don't know. The police came a few moments later. All the men ran away Ten days later I identified prisoners at Old Street Police Station. I am sure of them.
Cross-examined. I went to the public-house that night a little before 11.55 with my husband. I don't know that we were there half an hour. A lamp was shining in the urinal. When the potman called me I drank up my drink and waited for my husband to come out of the urinal. I was standing at the top of the court. I had never seen the men before. The potman did not tell me their names or that he knew them.
Re-eramined. I have no doubt whatever.
Police-sergeant SAMUEL COX, G Division. I received a complaint on June 29, and arrested prisoners on July 2, at about 11.30 p.m. I took them on another charge for robbing a man at the "Queen's Head." I afterwards told prisoners they would be put up for identification for robbing a man at Bacchus Walk on the night of June 29. They made no reply. Prosecutor and his wife at once picked them out.
Cross-examined. The potman gave me information.
Prisoner's statements before the magistrate: (Webb. "I know nothing about it, and can call two or three witnesses who are not here now.") (Tyce. "I am innocent of this charge. I will call one witness.")
ALBERT WEBB (prisoner, on oath). I was not at the public-house in question at the time, or outside. I was at the "Birch Tres" public-house, Great James Street, from 11 till 12; that is about 250 yards away. I was with my brother and three friends. They were playing bagatelle, and I was watching them. I then went with my brother to Horton market-place to get his Sunday's dinner and left him at 12.30.
Cross-examined. I did not wait outside the public while they were playing. I expect they are here. The potman of the "Brewery Tap" has a grudge against us. He is committing perjury, and the prosecutor and his wife. If I put my hand in prosecutor's
pocket may I drop down dead now. I am fair innocent. It it the potman's doing.
HENRY TICE (prisoner, on oath). I went to the Britannia Theatre that night and came out at 11.30, and went to a public-house opposite and had a glass of ale. I then went into the "Red Lion" public-house, and stayed there about five minutes, and had a glass of ale. I then went to an eel stall and had three pennyworth of eels. I returned to the "Red Lion," and stayed there till 12, turning out time. I never saw Webb all day.
Cross-examined. I know him. The Britannia is a good five minutes walk from the "Brewery Tap." The eel-stall man came to the police court and denied I was at his stall, but, of course, could not tell the met time. He is not here now. I was not outside the "Brewery Tap," and do not use the house.
THOMAS WEBB , prisoner's brother, 26, Bacchus Walk, upholsterer. I spent from 11 till 12.30 with prisoner on June 29. We had a drink at the "Birch Tree." I was playing bagatelle and he was watching. I asked him if he was going to treat me, and he had not not it. When the house closed we stopped outside about 10 minutes and then went to buy a bit of meat.
Cross-examined. It would take five minutes to get from the "Birch Tree" to the "Brewery Tap." Prisoner did not leave the public-house while we were there. The witnesses must be mistaken. You have not to pass the "Brewery Tap" to get to my home—you can go five or six ways. I have not had any conversation with the witnesses for the prosecution.
ALFRED COX , wood-chopper, 18, Turner's Square, Hoxton. I was playing bagatelle in the "Birah Tree" on Ae night in question. Webb and his brother were there. I left just before they closed, and went round the other side waiting for my nephew. Webb came in about 11.55.
Cross-examined. I said before the magistrate that he came in about 10.45.
Verdict, Guilty. Webb confessed to having been convicted of felony at the North London Seasions on August 25, 1903, in the name of Albert Cox ; Tyce confessed to having been convicted of felony at the same Sessions on October 1, 1901. Several previous convictions were proved against both. Sentence, each prisoner, five years' penal servitude.
NORMAND, Joseph Clovis (54, architect) , obtaining by false pretences from William Luck Legge the several sums of £2 tad £8, from Frank Mervin the several sums of £2, £8, and £10, and from Alfred Henry Freeman the several sums of £2 10s., and £7 10s., in each case with intent to defraud; unlawfully attempting to obtain by false pretences from Charles Alfred Port the sum of £15 with intent to defraud.
Mr. Muir and Mr. Leycester prosecuted.
FRANK MERVIN , 48, The Drive, Fulham Park Gardens, clerk. On April 24, 1907, I replied to advertisement in "Daily Telegraph": "Required, steady man (24), to manage small office. Salary 35s. Deposit of cash security required." I received letter of May 3 from prisoner, stating that £10 security would be required on which 6 per cent. interest would be paid, returnable at one month's notice. I afterwards met prisoner at the British Museum Tube Station by appointment. He told me he was an architect, that he was about to take offices, and produced a draft agreement (produced) under which I was to be engaged at 35s. a week, to pay £2 on signing agreement and £8 on commencing duty. On May 8 I met him by appointment, paid him £2 and executed agreement. On May 11 he wrote asking me to meet him in Bucklersbury, where I paid him remaining £8 Prisoner said he had taken offices on the third floor at 66, Finsbury Pavement, but that they were being decorated. He asked me to go and view some land and report, which I did. On May 18 he wrote from Waterloo Place, Kew, stating that he was concluding tome business, and if I could make a further deposit of £10 he would pay me 20s. more salary. I sent a telegram agreeing to do so, met him again in Bucklersbury and paid the £10 at the Bodega. He stated the offices were not ready. I received for the first week 35s.; after having paid the second £10 I received £2 5s., as he said he could not give me more than 10s. extra that week. The following week he paid me £2 15s. After that I received £1 postal order. On June 12 be wrote. "I was in hope to return from the Continent to-day, but I find it will not be possible for me to do so before five or six days, having a very heavy case to attend to here and sending this letter to let you know. At same time if you wanted money before my return please give a word to bearer or send it to Kew Green. It will be communicated to me at once and attended to." After paying the first £2 I went to 66, Finsbury Pavement and saw the proposed offices. Kew was not mentioned as the place where he carried on business. When I parted with my money I believed prisoner was in a positions to give me genuine employment and to pay my wages. On June 19 after the arrest, prisoner wrote me from Brixton Prison that a man named Jowssett had got the money, asking me to see him if he came to the office, and also to see Kelsey, Legge, Freeman, and Boss, who had been dealt with in the same way as myself.
ALFRED HENRY FREEMAN , 58, Jessel House, Page Street, Westminster, clerk. I replied to advertisement in "Daily Telegraph" of April 24, 1907, and saw prisoner by appointment at the British Museum Tube Station. He said he was an architect and wanted to get a clerk for certain before he took his office which he had arranged for at Finsbury Pavement. He said he had a business at Kew. He handed me draft agreement. I afterwards met him by appointment at Westminster District Railway Station. We went to "Stephen's Tavern," in Bridge Street, and I paid him £2 10s. We executed
agreement, by which I was to receive 35s. a week; that my duties were generally to receive clients, take their orders, receive their cash deposits, attend to the correspondence, the cash account, and look after juniors; to pay £10 deposit—£2 10s. on signing agreement and £7 10s. on taking up the post on May 11. On May 11 I received letter from him stating that the offices were not ready and asking me to go to Muswell Hill Estate, of which particulars were enclosed, and view the land and report on it. I previously met him at Westminster Bridge Station and paid the further £7 10s. We then drove in a cab to 66. Finsbury Pavement, and he showed me the offices. I went and examined into the Muswell Hill property and wrote a long letter on May 13 reporting thereon. On May 18 he wrote me: "I and just considering some business and can make you an offer if you can see your way clear to make a further deposit of £10 cash as early as possible this week. I will be able to give you at once £1 more a week. I afterwards met him at the Café Royal, when he stated that he had been asked to make another deposit, that he had not happened to have it handy, that with my £10 he could have managed, and that it meant a couple of pounds a week to him if he could do it, and so he could let me have £1 a week more; but, however, he said, it did not matter. I did not pay any further money. I received for the first week £1 19s. 3d. as wages and expenses; the second week £1 18s., and the third week £1 through the post, when he wrote that he would send the remainder when he came back to town. I believed it was a genuine business and that he was in a position to pay my wages. When we drove to 66, Finsbury Pavement it was 3 p.m. on Saturday, and a person was sweeping, the, offices. He did not tell me he had engaged other persons for that same office.
Cross-examined. He told me he had not made up his mind what offices to take. When I paid the second sum he said he had decided on 66, Finsbury Pavement and drove me down there.
WILLIAM LUCK LEGGE , 48, Anson Road, Tufnell Park, clerk. I replied to advertisement of April 24, received a reply from prisoner accepting my services, and met him by appointment at the Post Office Tube Station. We went into Lyons' Restaurant. Prisoner said he was an architect, surveyor, and contractor, and that he had had an office at Twickenham which he had given up and that his present office was at 4, Waterloo Place, Kew, where he had a large connection and employed a staff of four—two clerks and two draughtsmen. He said he was building some flats in the south-west of London, and that was why he wanted a manager for the London office. I said I could furnish references. An appointment was made for the next day at the Post Office Tube Station. I said, "Of course I am handing over money practically to a stranger," and he said he could show me references. He showed me a letter from T. Green, landlord of 66, Finshury Pavement, saying his references were satisfactory. The next day we went from the Tube Station to the offices, and I saw the rooms, Nos. 16 and 17, of 66, Finsbury Pavement. We went to the
"Bodega," and he produced the agreement produced, which we signed. I paid him £2. and arranged to meet at the offices on May 27 to settle. On May 27 I received a letter asking me to meet him at the Post Office Tube Station, which I did. He explained that the offices were not finished. We went into Lyons's Restaurant and I paid him £8 and asked when I should start in the office. He said there would be a little outdoor work that day. I was to go to Catford to see and report on some land, which I did. The next day he wrote me saying the whitewashing of the offices was not finished and asking me to view three roads at Catford to see if there was any vacant land, which I did, and wrote him in the evening what information I had I went to the offices and found the door locked on Thursday at 2 p.m. He sent me £1 postal order on account of wages, which was all I received. He had told me he had a large City connection, and that was the cause of opening the City offices. I believed he had a business connection and could pay my wages.
HERBERT GEORGE KELSEY , 31, Sandy Hill Road, Ilford, clerk. I replied to advertisement of April 24 in "Daily Telegraph" (produced) and met prisoner by appointment at the Post Office Tube Station, when we went to the Aerated Bread Company. He told me he was an architect at Kew, and intended to open a City office, and as he had so much work to do at Kew he wanted me to relieve him of the City work. I asked him what was the reason he wanted a deposit. He said I should have large sums of money coming through my hands, and it was necessary he should have some security. I asked what security he would give for my money. He said he had a French bond value £10 which he would give me, and he would also refer me to the manager of Barclay and Perkins brewery. He showed me copy agreement (produced). I said I would agree to it if he altered the wages to £2 a week, which he did, and I then paid £1 as deposit. On May 9 I met him by appointment at 3, Southwark Bridge Road, where he introduced me to a Mr. Watcher, who called himself the manager of Barclay and Perkins Brewery. He asked Watcher if he would hold the French bond for both of us. Watcher would not do this, and said he had known Mr. Normand a matter of 20 years and he considered his word quite good enough for paying back the money. We left there and went to Lyons' Restaurant, in Queen Victoria-Street, where I accepted the bond and paid prisoner £9. (Bond produced.) I asked when he intended opening the office. He said the men had not finished working on it. He said he should like me to go and see some land at Ilford, get all particulars, and report to him the following day (Saturday). I did so, and met him at the Bodega, in Bucklerabury, by appointment. He then paid me my week's wages, £2, and 4s. 4d. expenses. I think that was the Saturday before Whit Monday. He made an appointment the following Tuesday at 66, Finabury Pavement. On the Tuesday morning I received a letter cancelling that appointment and asking me to go to Wimbledon to view some land, which I did, and sent particulars to prisoner. On Saturday, May 29, I received a letter containing a
postal order for my week's wages and expenses, £2 4s. On May 31. I paid him £10 further, out of which I received £3 for wages. I received letter dated June 5 stating that he had bought furniture and paid the deposit, and found there was a bill of sale on it, and so had to pay a large sum for removing part, and asking me to wait for my wages. I replied asking for something to go on with on Saturday. He wrote making an appointment for June 6, at 1.30 p.m., at 66, Finsbury Pavement. He arrived at 2.15 p.m. I asked if his furniture had arrived. He said it would be in on the following Tuesday. I then asked what he was going to do about that week's wages. He said he only had a few shillings, and I could have some of that to go on with. He did not pay me anything. In consequence of what the housekeeper had told me I asked him whether he was engaging anybody else? He said yes, there would be several juniors. He promised to send me an appointment for the next day, Friday, June 7. Not hearing from him I went to the offices, and there I met three other young men in the same position as myself. I have not seen the prisoner since, nor received any money or further instructions from him.
Cross-examined. I got no letter on Jane 20 asking me to call and receive my money.
CHARLES ALFRED PORT , 15, Selborne Road, Walthamstow, clerk. On June 5 I replied to advertisement in "Daily Telegraph" (produced), and the next day prisoner wrote that the advertisement ought to have stated there was a cash deposit of £15 as security required I replied, and met prisoner on June 14 at the Post Office Tube Station. We went into Lyons' restaurant. 'Prisoner said he was an architect. I said, "I take it 4, Waterloo Place, Kew, is your business address?" He said, "No, my office is a few doors from that." He then spoke of several prizes he had won by architectural work in France; and without asking a word as to what I could do said I was satisfactory; that my duty would be to receive cash payments for clients and pay them into the London and County Bank each night; that he had started the offices in Finsbury Pavement; they were nice, light rooms—a small private room for myself and a larger room for the juniors. Referring to the security, I asked if a guarantee would be sufficient. He said, "No. You see you pay cash and you then get an interest in the business." He said, "I once had a clerk who stole a sum of money of mine—not, of course, that I should say you would do such a thing." I said "Did you not give information to the police?" and he said, "No, it would have cost as much to have got it back." I said I could not pay the money then, and we settled to meet again on Monday at the Post Office Tube Station at 4 p.m. I communicated with the police and went there accompanied by Police-constables Marriott and Stewart, who stood some distance away. Prisoner asked me to go into Lyons' Restaurant. I said, "I prefer going straight to the office." He turned round King Edward Street and said, "What agreement can you come to? Can you pay me some
money?" I said, "Yes, I can give you £2," and he put it into his waistcoat pocket. Before I paid the money I said, "Have you a lot of business at Kew?" He said, "Oh, yes, I am very busy there now." The officers then came up and I gave him into custody.
Cross-examined. He gave me the agreement, which I read before I paid the £2. He said, "I suppose you can give me the £13 on Saturday." I said, "Yes, that will be all right." There was not much conversation. From the time we met until he was arrested was about five minutes.
RADUL DUCHON DORIS , assistant manager Societe Generale, 53, Old Broad Street. Bond (produced) is a share certificate of the Societe de Tramways of Versailles. That company was wound up in 1898. Its security has no market value, and could not be negotiated.
ELIZABETH BELSHAW , 4, Waterloo Place, Kew Bridge. Prisoner has occupied a bed-sitting room at my house at 7s. per week up to his arrest on June 17. He has been in arrear to the amount of £2 15s., but he now owes me only two weeks. He has employed no clerks there. No one came to see him on business. He had books, drawings, and correspondence about.
WILLIAM KINGHAM , manager to Theodore Green, architect and surveyor, 70, Finsbury Pavement, landlord of 66. Finsbury Pavement. On May 13, prisoner called with reference to taking rooms 16 and 17 at No. 66. On May 29 he paid £2 on account of the first month's rent to June 30, paying the balance, £3 11s. 3d., on May 31. The rooms were finished, and prisoner has not brought any furniture in. I have not seen any business carried on, nor have I seen the prisoner there. He did not receive the key until May 31.
WALTER BELAND , housekeeper, 66. Finsbury Pavement. I have seen prisoner about three times, once before he had the key. He did not move in any furniture or any books. As far as I know he carried on no business whatever.
Cross-examined. Prisoner twice told me furniture was coming in.
Detective Sergeant JOHN STEWARD, City Police. On June 17, at about four p.m., with Sergeant Marriott, I arrested prisoner in King Edward Street, in consequence of information from the witness Port. Port said, "I am going to give this man into custody for attempting to obtain £15 from me by false pretences." Prisoner said, "I deny it," and at the same time produced £2 in gold and said, "I do not want his money. I took the money from his hand. I took him to Snow Hill Police Station, and he was charged. He said, "I deny it." Inspector Lyon said, "Can we make any inquiries at Kew where you are supposed to be carrying on business?" He said, "I have no business there." Before the arrest I visited 66, Finsbury Pavement. There was a table and one or two chairs in each room, but no books, accounts, nor anyone there to do business.
Detective EDWARD MARRIOTT, City Police. On June 15 I visited prisoner's room at 4, Waterloo Place, Kew, and found on the table and in the drawers a quantity of correspondence that he had received
in reply to advertisements of situations; several plans and letters relating to land and buildings advertised; several forms of agreement like those produced; and book of newspaper cuttings relating to properties for sale.
Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, Nine months' imprisonment in second division.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL
(Thursday, July 25.)
WALLACE, Arthur (23, machinist) pleaded guilty , to breaking and entering the dwelling-house of William Newling and stealing therein a cup, two silver watches, a scarf pin and other articles, his property; breaking and entering the dwelling-house, situate at 45, Rushmore Road, with intent to steal therein; breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Ernest Storey and stealing therein a watch, a chain, and other articles, and the sum of £6 10s., his property and moneys, and three gold rings, the property of Charles John Mottingly. GORDON, Charles (22, French polisher) pleaded guilty , to one of the burglaries.
Several previous convictions were proved against Wallace, including one of three years' penal servitude at Middlesex Sessions for horse stealing. Gordon had previously borne a good character, and appeared to have been tempted to crime by the other prisoner. Wallace was sentenced to four years' penal servitude. Gordon's employer having expressed his willingness to take him back immediately if he was not sent to prison, he was released on his own recognisances in £10, and on those of his father in the same sum, to come up for judgment if called upon.
DONOGHUE, Thomas (39, labourer) ; attempting to carnally know Julia Donoghue, a girl above the age of 13 years and under the age of 16 years; assaulting Emily Collins, and thereby occasioning her actual bodily harm.
Prisoner pleaded guilty to assault.
Mr. Clarke Hall said that the first charge would not be proceeded with. The complaint had not been made until after prisoner had had a quarrel with the aunt, the subject of the second charge.
Prisoner, who had been six weeks in custody, was sentenced to One day's imprisonment.
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Forrest Fulton prosecuted; Mr. Symmons defended.
JAMES TURNER HERMIT , high bailiff, Windsor County Court. I produce the file in the bankruptcy proceedings of prisoner. The adjudication was on September 19. 1904, the preliminary examination September 13. In answer to the question, "What is your name?" prisoner said, "Henry Thomas James Jones, commonly known as H. Girling." The statement of affairs shows liabilities of £1,705 15s. 2d., assets £41 15a. 9d. I produce an acknowledgment signed by the debtor as to Section 31 of the Bankruptcy Act, regarding liabilities he was not to incur. I have an order to prosecute dated May 7 this year.
Cross-examined. The order to prosecute was made on the report of the official receiver that credit had been obtained over £20. The Judge at the County Court made the order on the application of two of the prosecutors.
JOSEPH FARQUHARSON , A.R.A., 2, Porchester Gardens. In 1905 I had correspondence with prisoner, whom I recognise. The correspondence I destroyed; his letters were signed "Girling" and a Christian name which I forget. He had previously called at my studio when I was out of town, and he wrote asking the price of the picture called "Green Leaves." I wanted £150; he offered £100, and I agreed to let him have it at £120. I saw defendant about a year later, in June or July, and he told me times were bad, asking for further time. At this time I sold him a small picture (£16), which he paid me for later on, and I then sold him the forest picture for £45. He has paid me nothing for that or the first one, £165 in value. I did not hear that he was an undischarged bankrupt till February or March this year, and never heard of hit son until I had taken proceedings against the father.
Cross-examined. I first made prisoner's acquaintance by correspondence. There is only one letter now in existence, which the Treasury has. The first picture I parted with before I had seen prisoner. The letters I received were all in the same handwriting. I do not know that it is the son's writing, but the son is mentioned in one of the letters. I do not find it necessary to keep letters. I have had no trouble with dealers before. The picture "Green Leaves" was painted ten years ago. It had been in my studio absolutely unsaleable, and I was glad to get rid of it. I might have sold it to the son as readily as the father. I got a letter afterwards from 88, Haver-stock Hill, and went there after returning to town, but the place was locked up. I did not know who was the late tenant, whether father or son.
Re-examined. The prisoner called on me about the forest picture. The receipt produced is mine.
FRANK MARKHAM SKIPWORTH , Manresa-Road, Chelsea. In April, 1906, defendant called on me, and again in May, and asked me to paint a picture for him, the price to be £20 ready money, when it was completed. I had a picture in my studio by another man, and prisoner said he would give £10 for it if I made some alterations in it
which would cost £5. There was also another picture which he agreed to buy on my making alterations which would cost £2, the total of the two pictures being £27. He had the pictures in June, and told me he could not pay for them, but gave me a bill for £40 it three months as security, saying he would redeem it long before that. (Bill produced. Drawn by H. Girling, accepted by G. Knight. Endorsed H. D. Girling.) It was presented through my bank and returned. During these transactions I did not know prisoner was an undischarged bankrupt. I heard that from my solicitors about March this year. He never said anything about acting for his son, nor of his son's position in the business.
Cross-examined. I did not know prisoner was connected with any business when I dealt with him. I had known prisoner for about 10 years. He used to call at my studio to see if he could buy anything. Prisoner gave me the address of 64, Fore Street, at first. Later on I knew of 88, Haverstock Hill. Prisoner never told me the son was the tenant of the latter place, nor did I know. I have not a note of the transaction; it was a verbal one. The total price was £27, not £17. About the same time prisoner bought two or three pictures for cash. I told prisoner the price was £27, also my solicitor later on. I have not forgotten it. My pictures have been going cheap for several years.
HENRY B. WIMBUSH , 32, Steele's Road, Hampstead. In January this year I went to a shop in Haverstock Hill and bought some paint, seeing the defendant; I think there was someone else there. Prisoner spoke to me, but I don't know whether he served me. He told me he had a large business in the City; this was only a small portion of it; that he sold a great many pictures; that he knew my work very well, and could sell a great deal of it. I gave him my address, and he came to my studio. He looked over a lot of small sketches and illustrations. Later on the son came to me and said his father would like to show some of my sketches to a customer. I selected 12 that I thought suitable and gave them to the son, with a letter addressed to H. T. Girling and Sons: "I have been thinking over our conversation of the other evening and I shall be willing to sell the 12 drawings for 32 guineas." I am not sure whether the foregoing was written on that occasion, or afterwards. I believe there was another letter. Prisoner came to me again and selected 24 other pictures of the same size and character, offering £70 for the whole 36, and I agreed. He said he would pay on February 20, and would write a note to that effect, but someone interrupted us, and he said he would send it on. He took the pictures away. Two or three days later I sent a servant for the pictures, and he brought back 10 of them. I have never seen the other 26 since, nor had any money at all. I got a letter on February 2, saying that some dealers might call on me, and that I was not to ask the same price as prisoner had bought them for; if so, he would not get any profit. On February 4 he wrote saying he was surprised that I had moved some of the pictures in his absence. He
enclosed a letter agreeing to pay something on account of the £70 on or about February 20. He wrote again later on saying that the dealers whom he had shown the pictures thought the price, £3 10s. each, too high. I did not see prisoner to speak to after February 4. Further correspondence has taken place between us. I had no idea he was an undischarged bankrupt. He never mentioned his sod to me; I know afterwards that it was the son who had called on me; but he never spoke about buying pictures.
Cross-examined. I cannot remember whether I spoke to the son when I went to Haverstock Hill for the paint. He did not start talking about pictures. When I addressed my picture to "H. T. Girling and Son" I thought it was the City Framing Company, whom I knew were a substantial firm in the City. I went to them, but they knew nothing about it. I was deceived about that. The phrase in my letter, "I have been thinking over our conversation of the other evening," does not refer to the son. Probably the son was the last to call before that letter was written. I had no conversation with the son about the purchase of pictures. I thought it most probable he was in the business; in the first instance I did not take him as being anybody at all. I said at the police court, "The son told me the defendant was his father," but the son did not introduce me to his father. It was when he came to my studio that he said that. I did not know he was the son when I went to the shop. Although I said I knew I was giving credit to H. Girling and Son, which I believed to be father and son, I thought the ton was a dupe of the father. It is true that "I knew I was giving credit to the City Framing Company, which I believed to be H. T. Girling and Son." The pictures referred to were sketches for books and picture postcards, published by Tuck.
Re-examined. The copyright of the pictures had been sold to Messrs. Tuck for three guineas each. When I saw the heading of his letter I thought H. T. Girling was the head of "The City Framing Company."
(Friday, July 26.)
ALEC MORTON , manager to the Tynecastle Company, 14, Rathbone-place. On January 31 last prisoner called upon me, wanting to see the Menpes series of Great Masters. He said he was Mr. Girling. He said he could sell hundreds of them, and gave me an order for 47. Twenty one were supplied from London, 26 from Edinburgh. The price was £52 10s. 6d. No arrangement for payment was made at the time. The letter produced of February I was sent by me with the pictures to 88, Haverstock Hill. About four days afterwards I went to that address, and saw the pictures there hanging up. On March 7 I wrote asking for cheque. A few days afterwards I saw him in the street, when he said he liked the pictures very much, and he would see what he could do with them. On March 19 we wrote again, saying we were surprised at not having had an answer
to our letter and enclosing account. In April I met him again in Regent Street. I asked him where the pictures were, and told him I had been to Haverstock Hill, and that I wanted payment. He said he was simply acting as agent for his son, and if I wanted payment I could go to him. Up to that time I had never heard of the son. He said some of the pictures might be at his son's house; some of them he thought were at a sale room near at hand. He knew nothing more about them. I never knew he was an undischarged bankrupt.
Cross-examined. I sold the pictures to the person who was carrying on business at 88, Haverstock Hill, whom I understood to be Mr. Girling. Prisoner did not give me a card when he called. I asked for references after the goods were supplied; it was not usual with me to do so. Three references were given. I asked them about "H. Girling." I did not know that was his son's name, nor did I know the son was the tenant of 88, Haverstock Hill. When I met prisoner in Regent Street I had put the matter with Scotland Yard; I told him so. At the police-court I said, "When I met him in Regent Street I had not threatened him with prosecution"; that was true. I did not go on to say that I threatened him then—I admit that I should have done so. I have not the order book here; if you ask for it I can get it. I have copies of the invoices. Prisoner told me his son was responsible before I spoke about proceedings.
Re-examined. When I asked prisoner in Regent Street to get the pictures back he said he dare not go near the shop, or there would be great trouble. I am not sure whether I actually mentioned Scotland Yard to prisoner. I said he was in very good hands now, meaning Scotland Yard. I have not seen the pictures since. I was at 88, Haverstock Hid on two occasions.
HENRY THOMAS JAMES JONES (prisoner, on oath). I have been trading as Girling for 28 years. After I was bankrupt I arranged with my son that he should start a business, as he was tired of painting. I said I would help him all I could. That was about two years ago. My son is generally known as Henry Girling. My step-father's name was Girling. My son came to stay at my house, and I went about buying various things, he and I selling them. When I got paid I handed over the money; it was his business. It was started at Ealing. About a year afterwards my son took 88, Havenstock Hill, and the business carried on was the Wholesale City Framing Company, fine art dealers and artists' colourmen. My son looked after the shop, attending to customers, and I went out buying goods for him. He was no good by himself; had had no experience. The letters from Mr. Farquharson have been mislaid. I think the dustman took them away from Haverstock Hill by mistake. The letters to him were headed 88, Haverstock Hill. My son wrote four or five to Farquharson at the beginning of the business signed "H. Girling"; mine were
signed "H.T. Girling." I bought the pictures from Mr. Farquharson for my son. I think I mentioned to the former that I was trading for my son, but I do not think he took much notice. In regard to each of the four people in this case I acted for my son. I gave Mr. Skipworth a bill as security. When Mr. Wimbush came to the shop my son saw him first; then I spoke to him. He asked if I would like to buy some pictures, and I said my son knew more about these; they were more in his line. I did not deal in these small pictures. My son went to see Mr. Wimbush and bought some pictures. In regard to Mr. Morton I called on him at Rathbone Place, giving him a card, "Wholesale fine art dealers and artists' colourmen," with my son's address. When I ordered the goods at 18s. each he asked me for references. I said, "Well, you are close at hand; if you call on Winsor and Newton, who supplied my son with £100 worth of goods"; so he went across, and they gave my son a reference. Then he sent the goods. There were some more references afterwards. I believe it was about the end of April when I met Mr. Morton in Regent Street. I met him in a 'bus, and when I got out he followed me. He said, "I want to see your son." "Well," I said, "you will find him at Haverstock Hill." He said he wanted his pictures back, or if he got the money he would not bother about the pictures. I told him if he went the proper way he would no doubt get them; and he made use of some abusive words. I told him if he wanted any information he could go to Haverstock Hill. I had no idea my son had left then. I had mentioned my son to Mr. Morton when I gave him the order, and told him he had taken 88, Haverstock Hill.
Cross-examined. When I became bankrupt I was trading as the Southall Brick, Lime and Cement Company. Four of my customers went bankrupt before the time was due for payment I was in that business about a year, in conjunction with another firm. My son was not connected with me there. In 1904 I believe my son was at Chelsea in an oil and colour or provision business. My son suggested starting in the picture business; he was out of business at the time. I believe he had some money; I do not know how much. I was to look after the business till he got in the running; then I would leave him to it. About £80 was laid out on the shop; his money. He also stocked it; from Winsor and Newton among others. I had nothing to do with the stocking. The shop was opened last Christmas. Between September, 1904, and then I was helping Mr. W.W. Sampson in Air Street, Piccadilly. I was to be paid 25 per cent. of the profits of my son's business. There was no agreement in writing. I had been living since Christmas at 28, Chestnut Gardens, Acton. My son was living close to the shop. He kept books, and my commission account would be in them, but I do not know where they are. Probably I have been paid about £10 by my son since Christmas. I drew £25 from Mr. Sampson, and I have lived on that, with the help of my wife's income. She has about £200 a year when the property is all let. The pictures that were bought were sold in
the ordinary way, sometimes by my son when I was away. I have sold "Green Leaves," Mr. Farquharson's picture, to Mr. N. Mitchell, a dealer, in Copthall Avenue; I believe for £130, part pictures and part cash. I could not tell you exactly; it may have been £20 or £30 cash. That money was laid out in other pictures. The pictures from Mr. Mitchell we exchanged for others. It is a recognised thing in the fine art trade that we do not sell for cash. Another picture which I bought from Mr. Farquharson for £16 I sold to Mr. Mitchell for £30 cash. I gave £10 to my son, the rest I kept. That was my own picture, which I had paid for. The one I bought for £45, "The Forest of Glenquoich," I did a deal with Mr. Sampson; no cash, but all pictures. The £16 picture was bought in July, 1906. Between November, 1904, and January, 1905, I went to Mr. Sampson's, buying for him on commission. When Mr. Sampson had sufficient pictures I was done with him. I had only a certain number to buy. Then I went on my own and afterwards joined my son. With regard to the small picture I sold to Mr. Mitchell, he sent me to Mr. Farquharson to see if I could buy one, and gave me the £16. I do not know much about the bankruptcy law. I did not know the meaning of the word at that time about not getting credit. I had no idea of getting credit again. Two of the pictures from Mr. Skipworth we have got now. They were at 64, Fore Street up to a week or two ago, at Mr. George Knight's, whom I was partner with once. I do not know where the pictures are now. The ones you are asking about have been paid for. The ones not paid for were sold by me for £20 to Mr. Barnsley, of Sheffield. I used the money to buy pictures and fresh stock. Mr. Sampton could corroborate that. He is not here. I did not think it was necessary. I have paid Mr. Sampson over £30,000 in his time. I asked Mr. Knight to accent the bill for £40, as he was interested in the pictures. I cannot tell you the circumstances of it. It is a long time ago. My son had nothing to do with it; but he knew all about it. The reason the bill was not paid was because Mr. Skipworth agreed to do another picture, and then he would not do it, so Mr. Knight would not provide for the bill. Mr. Knight's premises are now on the top floor; they were then on the second floor. I did not know at the time of these transactions of "The City Frame Company." I found out afterwards "The City Framing Company and Fine Art Agency" was my son. If any big order came it would go to Mr. Knight's place, as he had a large staff of men. I have had letters addressed to Mr. Knight's place for the last ten years. I believe Mr. Knight will be a witness. I used to call on him every day pretty well. I did not ask him to come and say that the business was my son's and not mine. I do not remember Colonel Whipple, nor that I bought pictures from him without paying. I do not know the name of Wyman. The pictures I bought from Mr.—and Mr. Knowles were on sale or return. They can have those back. As to £3 15s. for moving goods, I know nothing about that; nor about £9 9s. 6d. for furniture. I know about Bowman Bros.' £9 17s. 3d. That is my son's matter for furniture. Mr.
Hooper's account, £10 for a picture, is not mine. He can have the picture back. It is at Mr. Barnsley's, at Sheffield. I send pictures down to the latter on sale or return. I deny that I told Mr. Morton some of his pictures were in a sale room "near by." I said some were at Haversock Hill. The shop there was closed in the March quarter, but there were people there in April. I do not know whether the pictures were there then.
Re-examined. I have bought and paid for pictures during the 28 years I have been in business to the extent of about £100,000. In regard to the lime and cement business, I put £600 of the wife's money into that, and the money was lost. The catalogue (produced) was printed by Winsor and Newton; they print the name of an approved customer on the bottom; this is "The City Framing and Fine Art Company, Haverstock Hill." I reported all my transactions, with the four people in question here, to my son.
EDGAR JOHN HUCKS . In November last I was with Mr. Peacey, auctioneer and estate agent, Haverstock Hill. I let 88, Haverstock Hill, to H. T. Girling, who, I understand, is prisoner's son. (Man identified in Court.)
Cross-examined. The rent was £70 per annum. The lease was seven, 14, or 21 years. It is now in the hands of the landlord; I do not know why; I left the business soon after. The shop is shut up.
ROBERT HENRY THOMAS GIRLING , Hurst Street, Horne Hill. I am After my father's (the prisoner's) bankruptcy in 1904, I proposed to him that I should go into business for myself, and that he should assist me with his advice as manager. I am an artist, but not a buyer. I started business first at my father's residence at Ealing. Later on I took 88, Haverstock Hill, and stocked it from Messrs. Winsor and Newton. My father simply advised me as to what I should do, and gave me his opinion as to buying the pictures. I wrote the letters to Mr. Farquharson. My father might have written one on my behalf. The two pictures, "Green Leaves" and "The Forest of Glenquoich, "came into my possession. In regard to Mr. Skipworth, there were several little pictures bought for cash. I went to Mr. Wimbush personally, bringing away 12 pictures, which came to my shop, and were for sale in my business. With regard to the pictures bought from Mr. Morton, they were for me. I have not disputed and do not dispute my debts to these people. The letter to Mr. Morton giving three references is signed by me. When I started the shop I had about £200. I have lost that and £150 besides.
Cross-examined. I have not yet paid any money to the four gentlemen from whom the pictures had been obtained; I have not been pressed or asked for it yet. I have not disposed of all these pictures; I cannot say how many, for a minute. Those I have left are at 11, Hurst Street, Horne Hill; some of them are Mr. Wimbush's. I could not say how many of these pictures altogether I have left. The books of the business were mislaid; left in the office at Haverstock Hill, and I do not know what became of them. The shop was closed because it did not pay. There was no
rent owing. I was allowed so much for doing the shop up, and that covered the cost of the rent while I was there. The people upstairs (my lodgers) knew my address when I left. They might be there still. The first picture bought from Mr. Farquharson was for £120; I did not sell it at the time. When it was sold I think part was taken in cash, and part went off an account that was owing. I think it was told to Mr. Sampson—Sampson or Mitchell. I think we got £80 for it; I forget now; there was a debt owing, which was covered by the balance. There was a debt due both to Mr. Sampson and to Mr. Mitchell. My father collected the money for me, and gave it me in cash—coin. There may have been two or three £5 notes. He gave it me at one time. I think there was another picture in it as well, of Mr. Farquharson's. The money was spent in buying other pictures and necessaries. I cannot remember now whether Mr. Farquharson's picture was sold for £30 and the balance in pictures. If my father said so, he might have done so. Before I was in this business I was an artist, and I was also in partnership in an oil and colour business in Chelsea. I got £75 for that business; my father got half. That was five years ago. The £200 which I had when I started this last business I got by my painting. I owed Mr. Skipworth £17. I did not pay him, because he was to paint another picture and did not. I gave him a bill for £40, which my father got from Mr. Knight. I do not know who drew the bill, and do not remember what my father had to do with it, bar giving it to Mr. Skipworth. My father showed me the bill, and said he had asked Knight for it. The writing on the bill (produced) is similar to my fathers. The signature is "H. T. Girling." I have not taken any steps to see that the bill was paid I told Mr. Skipworth I would pay him as soon as I could. The pictures of Mr. Skipworth that were not returned were sold; I think at the same price as they were bought for, £17. I do not remember to whom. I left it to my father to sell them; and he gave me the balance. Some of Mr. Wimbush's pictures were sold. I got some of the money and spent it. I did not pay him because he made a muddle over the transaction. The agreement was that part payment was to be made. I bought 18 old masters from Mr. Morton. I could not sell any of them, and I have some of them at home. I swear that Mr. Morton's pictures are there; also some of Mr. Wimbush's; none of Mr. Farquharson's, nor Mr. Skipworth's. Some of Mr. Morton's pictures did go into a sale £a broker's sale, to pay the taxes at Haverstock Hill. They went at about 1s. 6d. each. I do not know what sale room they were in. I sold a few of them myself, but I do not remember how many, nor for how much. I should object to a police officer going to my house and taking the pictures.
Re-examined. The result of all these transactions has not been at all profitable. My father would know most of the details of the buying and selling. I left it mostly to him.
Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, Four months' imprisonment, second division.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE DARLING.
(Friday, July 26.)
LESLIE, Marie Josephine (39) ; obtaining by false pretences from Annie Blount divers sums of money, amounting to £8,500, and from Maria Stokes divers sums of money, amounting to £4,500, in each case with intent to defraud.
Mr. Muir and Mr. Arthur Gill prosecuted; Mr. Foote, K.C., and Mr. Lambert defended. Mr. Darwin held a watching brief for prisoner's husband.
JOHN PIERPONT MORGAN , 13, Princes Gate. I am head of the firm of J. Pierpont Morgan and Co., of New York and London. I do not know prisoner and have never seen her to my knowledge till I saw her at the police court. There is no truth in the statement that I have had charge of her financial interests and have obtained for her 12 per cent. per annum on her investments or that I wrote to her in September last, or at any other time, inviting her to join a syndicate in which I was interested and offering her £25,000 for every £1,000 invested, or that I sent her post-dated cheques representing her interest in investments controlled by me.
Mr. Foote said he had no questions to ask Mr. Pierpont Morgan. The learned counsel went on to mention that an unsuccessful application was made to the Recorder for the postponement of the case until the September or the October Sessions on the ground that certain inquiries were necessary to be made in America. He was not in a position to place any affirmative case before the Jury and he had no instructions for cross-examination of the witnesses. He, therefore, merely proposed to watch the case on the prisoner's behalf, and, if necessary, to address the Court later on. The prisoner had made a statement not with reference to Mr. Pierpont Morgan but with reference to other persons in America, which made it very desirable that inquiries should be made in America.
Mr. Justice Darling, having read the affidavit which prisoner made in support of the application for the postponement of the trial, said there was no kind of reason for granting the application.
ANNIE BLOUNT , 12, Belmont Terrace, Dublin. I live with my two sisters, our parents being dead. We had some private fortune. In of August, 1906, I was staying at Taplow as a paying guest at the house of Mrs. Torkington. Defendant came there as kennel maid about the end of August of beginning of September. I discovered she was a lady and became friendly with her. She told me she was a married woman, and told me about her married life. She called herself "Miss. West." She said her husband's name was Leslie and that she had £10,000 a year, which she inherited from her mother, and that Mr. Pierpont Morgan looked after her investments and gave her 12 per cent. for all her money, and that she had known him all her life. She seemed to be a very rich woman. She said on one occasion, holding a
letter in her hand, that it was from Mr. Pierpont Morgan, and read from it, "You are a wealthy woman, and I intend to make you wealthier." After leaving Taplow I visited her at her hotel. In March, 1907, when we were driving together in a cab, she spoke to me about a syndicate which she said Mr. Pierpont Morgan was getting up with some of the wealthiest men in America, and I could go into it if I would pay £1,000, and should get £25,000 for my £1,000 and 12 per cent. for my money. I said I would go and see if I could raise the £1,000 at my bankers. She said she had £60,000 in the syndicate. I was not to mention it to anybody—it was to be a dead secret, as Mr. Pierpont Morgan would be very much annoyed if anything were known about it. I went to my bank on March 5. Defendant said I should have to give her the money at once, because it would have to be completed out in America. I then gave her this cheque for £1,000, and I invested further moneys through her in the same way on similar statements. On March 5 I got from her this receipt for £1,000, for which in return I got this cheque for £25,000, dated June 10, 1907. The receipt states, "This cheque in case of my death, dated June 10, is to be honoured at once." She always spelt my name "Blunt." I do not know why. I endorsed the cheque and paid it into the London and South-Western Bank, Limited, Western Branch. Defendant said the cheque was to be dated June 10 because she had a cheque from Mr. Pierpont Morgan which she had to send out to America, and it had to come back and be lodged in her bank before I could have my cheque. I believed her statement. On April 15 I gave defendant a further cheque for £2,000, which was to be invested, she said, in another syndicate of Mr. Pierpont Morgan's. On April 17 I got this receipt, "Received of Miss Annie Blount the sum of £4,500, for which I enclose my cheque for £200,000, dated April 10, 1908." £100 interest per month was to be paid me in the meantime. That receipt includes the further cheque for £2,500. Altogether I got £430 interest from defendant in bank notes. On May 10 I paid her a further sum of £1,950 in one cheque and £870 by another cheque; those cheques represented £3,000, less deductions of £180 for interest, which formed part of the £430. I paid myself out of my own money. I paid the first cheque for £25,000 into my bank. It was dishonoured. I was not allowed to give details to my banker on account of Mr. Pierpont Morgan. I have managed my affairs for about eight years. A few days before the first cheque was due defendant told me I could not cash it on the date it was due (June 10) as she had forgotten to send her cheque to America to Mr. Pierpont Morgan. I said it was very annoying, as I wished to pay the bank what I owed them. She said I must go and explain it to the manager—that was only a delay for a few days until the American mail came in. I saw him, and he wrote to me saying I must settle on the 14th. I gave the letter to defendant to read. I had borrowed money on my securities. She said she would write to America and get her securities to the amount of £30,000 and hand them over to
me. I never saw them. I spoke to defendant again about it, and she showed me contract notes for £10,000 worth of stock, which she said she had agreed to buy. I was to show them to my bank manager. Of course he said they were no use to me. I afterwards had an interview with defendant's father, Mr. Eastwick, at which Mrs. Stokes was present, but not defendant. I then had this letter from her, "I was sorry to get your letter last night, because one always hates to find a friend is not a friend," etc. She had told me if she drew sufficient to pay me she would lose a fortune of £2,000,000. I eventually saw my solicitors on the matter, and they communicated with the police.
MARIA STOKES (widow). I was staving in September last at Mrs. Torkington's house at Taplow, where I made the acquaintance of prisoner, who was there in the capacity of kennel maid. She said she had £10,000 a year. One day, when we were in London together, she told me Mr. Pierpont Morgan managed her affairs and he had known her all her life, that she had had a letter from him, and he was going to make a great deal of money for her. She attended to eight or 10 toy or fancy dogs. I believed her. She said she was not on good terms with her husband and had been through a good deal of trouble, and that she had taken that position to distract her mind, otherwise she should have gone mad, she thought, and that she was very fond of dogs. When she spoke of Mr. Pierpont Morgan acting for her I said, "I wish I had such a chance as that." She said Mr. Pierpont Morgan would not like me to mention his name to anyone. Next day she asked me if she should put me into this thing—how much could I put in? I said I could put in £500, and that was to be put in in her name, so that Mr. Pierpont Morgan might not know. On September 15 I drew this cheque for £500 and gave it to her, for which she gave me this receipt: "Received of Mrs. Stokes £500 for investment by Mr. J. Pierpont Morgan, of New York; £1,000 to be returned to her on December 1, 1906." I believed I should be entitled to the £1,000. I had, of course, heard of Mr. Pierpont Morgan for many years, which, I think, influenced me because he is such a very successful financier. On October 20 I advanced a further £1,000 for the same purpose, for which defendant gave me this receipt. "Received from Mrs. Stokes the sum of £1,000, to be invested by Messrs. J. Pierpont Morgan and Co., the sum of £4,000 to be returned to her," etc. I had some money lying idle waiting for a good investment, and I borrowed the rest from my bankers on some of my securities. On December 4 defendant said to me, in respect of the £1,000 due on December 1, "Will you leave that £1,000 in for another deal? If you can get £1,500 more I will lend you £2,500, and then you will receive £20,000 in March." I agreed and drew this cheque of December 4 for £1,500, which I gave her in exchange for this receipt: "Received of Mrs. Stokes the sum of £2,500, to be invested by Messrs. J. Pierpont Morgan, the sum of £17,500 to be returned, "etc. She deducted the £2,500 she was to lend me. I left in my £1,000 and borrowed from the bank £1,500, she lending me the £2,500
to make up £5,000, and I was to have £20,000 returned to me in March. She was to pay me 3 per cent, every three months—12 per cent. per annum. The following January she proposed that I should put in another £500, which she was going to do. I agreed and gave her a cheque for that amount, and she gave me this receipt: "Received of Mrs. Stokes the sum of £500, to be invested with Messrs. J. Pierpont Morgan and Co. in bonds, the sum of £3,000 to be returned on March 15, 1907." I received £60 and £85 from her. In March she made a further proposition to me to put in £1,000, and she would lend me £1,500 so as to make up £2,500, and I was to have returned to me in June £25,000. I agreed and sold some securities to get the money. I gave her this cheque, dated March 14, for £1,000. That is the last sum I paid her. On March 27 she gave me bank notes for £500 and £100 for interest on the money I was to receive in 1908. She said Mr. Pierpont Morgan always gave her post-dated cheques, so that she should be sure of her money in case anything happened to him. Defendant said at one time she invested £60,000, and that Mr. Pierpont Morgan had made £600,000 for her. In April I was called upon by my bankers to repay what I had received. I told her, "My bankers are pressing me for money I owe them. If I do not repay them they will sell my securities. I must have some money." In April she gave me £2,100. She was to have given me a cheque for £2,400, I giving her £400. She gave me a cheque for £2,500. I said, "You have made a mistake." She said, "So I have but, never mind, take it." That was drawn against Miss Blount's last cheque for £2,500. I knew Miss Blount very well, but defendant bound me not to tell her anything, and did the same with Miss Blount, so we never talked it over. I paid her in all £4,500, and I think I received back £2,671 7s. 6d.
HENRY LENN , manager, Barclay and Co.'s Bank, Brompton Branch. Defendant had an account at our branch, of which I produce a copy showing the payments in and drawings. It was opened on September 19 by a cheque for £500 drawn by Mrs. Stokes. The next credit is October 24, £1,000 cheque drawn by Mrs. Stokes, and payable to defendant. The next is December 7, £1,500, also drawn by Mrs. Stokes in favour of defendant; December 30, cheque on the Bank of Geneva for £99 2s. 7d.; December 18, £94 3s. 7d. I can only tell you that that was a cheque on the London and South-Western Bank, and there was one on December 31 on the National Provincial Bank; January 29, a cheque for £500 drawn by Mrs. Stokes in favour of defendant; March 5, cheque for £1,000 drawn by Miss Blount. I saw defendant on that date, when she told me she had £10,000 a year. Before that cheque was paid in I told her I did not like the transactions, and that she was very unwise to indulge in these gambling and betting transactions. The cheque was paid in I believe to replace one for £1,000 returned. There were various cheques payable to bookmakers and speculative stockbrokers—March 15 cheque for £1,000 on the London and County Bank, not drawn by Mrs. Stokes;
March 26, cheque on National and Provincial Bank, Piccadilly, drawn by Maurice, and returned unpaid. I believe he is a bookmaker; April 15, £2,000 cheque on London and South-Western Bank, drawn by Miss Blount, payable to defendant; April 19, another cheque of Miss Blount's for £2,500, drawn on the Royal Bank of Ireland; April 30. £2,500, payable to Mrs. Stokes. That left a credit to defendant of £207 10s. 7d. The account was closed on May 9, by a cheque for that amount, drawn by defendant. On April 22 I wrote to defendant asking her to come and see me in reference to her account. I had decided to close it. She did not come, so I wrote that I wished her to close the account. She called on me on May 9, and I handed her the balance in notes and gold. Without Miss Blount's last cheque for £2,500 there would have been no money to pay Mrs. Stokes the £2,500.
EDWARD EVANS , manager to Mr. Daniel Gant, turf accountant, of 25, Conduit Street. Defendant had dealings with us. This is a summary of her account, which shows she lost £4,471 in betting transactions in 12 months. There is a cheque for £1,950 credited to the account on May 13, drawn by Miss Blount.
Mr. Justice Darling. Was it this, that she made bets with you, and she paid them if she lost and you paid them if she won?—A. Yes. Q. It was not that she simply told you to put money on something, but she really betted with you or your principal?—A. Yes. Q. This went on at 25, Conduit Street?—A. Yes.
Mr. Justice Darling. That may be very awkward for your principal.
Police-sergeant GEORGE BURNIE, H Division. I found defendant at Newmarket Police Station in custody. I told her I was about to convey her to London, where she would be charged with obtaining £8,500 from Miss Blount by false pretences. She said, "If Miss Blount had waited she would have got some of her money back, now she won't get a cent." On the way to London she said, "I was expecting to get £4,000 as alimony from my husband, and I had authorised my solicitors to pay that over to Miss Blount. I could give an account of every penny I have had from her, but I should have had to bring in the name of a gentleman I do not wish to bring into the case. I have burnt every scrap of paper that will tell you anything. I cannot part with any of the money now. It will be safe till I come out." (Of prison I understood her to mean.) "I suppose I shall get a long term for this. My father came and told me a warrant was out for me and had advised me to hide; but I knew it was no good to do that, as it was better to get it over. I have had a good time." I made a search at her lodgings, No. 2, Rouse Road, where she was arrested by the Newmarket police, who took possession of certain property on her, which was handed over to Inspector Fuller.
Inspector FULLER, F Division. On July 4 I received prisoner from Sergeant Burnie. I went to the police station with her and read the warrant to her. She said, "Miss Blount is a fool to take these steps.
She will never get a penny if I get imprisonment for life for it. I was just sending my last £200. I wish it had gone. I will not tell you where the bulk of the money is gone." I found on her two letters, each containing a £100 note. I did not find any cheque or pass book, or anything relating to stocks or shares, or anything to show that she had ever been in communication with Mr. Pierpont Morgan or his firm. I found a number of paid bills, dated between June and December, 1906, paid after Mrs. Stokes's cheque was obtained in September, amounting to £609, relating to pictures, gowns, etc. (Items read.) I also found some bills from a private detective named Chevasse. They showed a total expenditure within 12 months of £7,292.
Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate. "I am absolutely not guilty of obtaining any money under false pretences."
Mr. Muir said that prisoner was convicted at this Court six years ago on her own confession of attempting to obtain £13,000 from a stockbroker by virtue of a forged instrument. She was sentenced to six months' imprisonment in the second division. She had then been organising coaching tours in England and on the Continent. She had in her possession a certificate of £100 of Canadian Pacific Railway stock. She scratched out the £100 and got a printer to print £20,000 instead. She deposited the altered certificate with a stockbroker as security for an investment in steel shares which were then coming on the market. The stockbroker then made inquiries and the alteration on the bond was immediately discovered.
Mr. Foote said he was instructed that at the prisoner's trial on that occasion a number of medical certificates were put in showing that in 1900 she was sent to a sanatorium in America for nervous diseases, and was found to be on the verge of insanity. She was suffering from hysteria and mania, and, although she was not insane in the sense that she could have been compulsorily shut up, she was of a highly neurotic temperament and at times on the verge of insanity. At the time her mind appeared to turn on the Stock Exchange. She talked about large Stock Exchange transactions, and she thought she had given an order for the purchase of a large amount of Consols, and that a heavy loss had accrued. That was her state of mind for some years.
Mr. Justice Darling. I have suspected it for some hours.
Mr. Foote, continuing, said that Miss Blount and Mrs. Stokes had said that on some occasions the prisoner was in such a nervous state that she could not speak to them. The prisoner strenuously alleged that she was the dupe of a person in America, whose name she was prevented from disclosing. It was impossible for him (Mr. Foote) to say if there was any foundation for that, but she alleged that there was a man in the United States—a financier—who had large sums of money of hers in his keeping. She married last year, and her husband had left her. No one had ever made any imputation against her
moral character. There was a suit pending in which she was applying for a judicial separation on the ground of desertion, and he was informed she had got the decree. That increased the unhealthy and neurotic condition of her mind.
Mr. Justice Darling, in sentencing the prisoner, said that her conduct had been a puzzle to him ever since he listened to the case. On the one hand extraordinary acuteness was shown in sounding these two people and making up her mind as to the kind of bait that would be likely to attract them. On the other hand, the whole proceeding showed that she bad a disordered mind. It was absolutely bound to result in her detection and conviction. She took no means of getting out of the way; she did the whole thing in the crudest possible manner. She paid the whole amount into her bank and drew cheques on it. A criminal in the possession of his faculties did not commit fraud in that way. He had a large number of certificates before him which showed that in America some years ago she was suffering from nervous disorder and distinctive signs of mania, and from delusions which were characteristic of the insane, and she threatened to make an attempt on her life. She was taken to a sanatorium and remained until her brother took her out. In these circumstances he thought he should make a mistake if he were to treat her as though he believed her to be a really sane person, because he did not. He was going to treat her as a person who in his belief was not thoroughly sane. The sentence he was going to pass, although it might appear severe, was not so intended. He thought she required to be looked after for some considerable time. He considered that the state of her mind was not such as anyone could determine in a few days or months. If she was, as he thought she was, a person of disordered intellect, she would be put in a place proper for such a case. She would be treated just as long as it was necessary that she should be kept there, but no longer. He should, therefore, leave the question of how long she was to stay there, and whether she was to go to a place where mental disorders were treated, to be determined by the Home Secretary, who had means at his disposal which the Court had not. In order that the Home Secretary might have a full opportunity of considering her case and what was the best thing to be done with her, and in order, if he was advised that she was really properly sane, he might give her the same punishment which a sane person would receive, or if she was not sane that she might be treated differently, the sentence he passed on her, for the reasons he had given, and from no vindictive spirit whatever, was that she be kept in penal servitude for five years.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Friday, July 26.)
WRIGHT, William Henry (43, accountant), and STONE, Alex. Frederick ; both conspiring and agreeing together and unlawfully obtaining by false pretences from the Junior Army and Navy Stores,Limited, the sum of £5 6s. 3d., and unlawfully attempting to obtain the sum of £1 14s. 2d., with intent to defraud.
Stone pleaded guilty.
Mr. Bodkin prosecuted; Mr. David White and Mr. Malcolm Carter defended Wright; Mr. Wilfrid Price appeared for Stone.
ELLEN COE , wife of Mr. John Coe, 113, Robert Street, Regent's Park—a confectioner's shop. We have a card in the window, "Letters may be addressed." Towards the end of February this year a young man came to our premises—the prisoner Stone. He wished to have some letters addressed in the name of J. E. Dent; either J. E. or E. J. A day or two later two letters came, which he called for; alto two circulars, which he did not call for. The circulars had "The Army and Navy Stores" on them. I did not see Stone again till at the police court.
Cross-examined. I had not seen Wright until at the police court. Dent came alone for the letters.
ADA MARY PARKER , 23, Great Marlborough Street. I keep a refreshment house at Great Marlborough Street and have a card in the window as to letters being Addressed. At the end of May last the prisoner Stone called and arranged for letters to be taken in, in the name of Herbert Hector Cameron. Two or three letters came, which he received.
Cross-examined. I have not seen Wright except at the police court. Stone came alone.
COLIN ALLEN BRODIE , telegraphist and counter-clerk, Post Office, Vere Street, Oxford Street, produced five postal orders for 20s., cashed at 294, Regent Street, on March 9 last, and signed "E. J. Dent."
ALEXANDER FREDERICK STONE . I live with my mother at 95, Great Tichfield Street. I am 19, and I left school at 14 and went into the Stores. I worked my way up to junior ledger clerk. On an Average my wages were 17s. a week. When we worked late we had our tea in. In February this year we were in financial difficulties at home. For a time I was on somewhat intimate terms with Wright. We have walked together on our way home. One of the books I looked after was the "under book"—the book under the deposit ledger. I had access to the ledger, and used to look at it in the, course of my duty. I had a conversation with Wright at the end of February about a certain ticket number. That took place in my department. He wanted to know about the ticket and asked me if there were any dormant accounts which had not been drawn on for several years. I told him there were several; the ledger I was on had most of the dormant accounts in it; and I showed him one in the name of E. J. Dent. He asked if they had had a pass-book lately—the Stores issue a pass-book showing how much is on deposit, the same as a bank. I turned up the previous ledger and could find no trace. That would go back four or five years. He said how easy
it would be to draw the money out. He told me to write a letter, and he would send up a changed address. He suggested one of the shops where they had letters addressed. He said, "You know how customers usually write for their money; you mike application, and I will send the changed address, and the slip asking Mr. Smith (the head of our office) to make out a repayment." I went to Mrs. Coe, in Robert Street, and arranged for letters to be addressed. I wrote a letter to the Stores and got an answer enclosing a cheque (produced) £5 6s. 3d. I endorsed it "E. J. Dent," and sent it back with the request that they should forward postal orders, which they did, less poundage. The orders (produced) were signed by me and cashed in Regent Street Post Office on Saturday. After business on the same day I met Wright in Eagle Place, Piccadilly. He asked me if I had the money. I said "Yes," and he said, "We will split it," so I gave him £3 and kept the balance, of which I gave £2 to my mother, saying I had earned it through overtime. A month or two later Wright said we could easily do another one like the last. I turned up the name of Herbert Hector Cameron, the amount to credit being £1 14s. I went to 23, Great Marlborough Street and arranged for letters to be addressed. I wrote the letter produced from there to the Stores, receiving a reply that the ticket No. 9,987 was registered as Hector Cameron, to which I wrote saying, "My full and correct name is Herbert Hector Cameron, and usual signature below, which please note in your books, and if you will be good enough to forward I shall be obliged. Regretting any discrepancy," etc. A day or two later I wrote asking them to send what cash there was to credit. I then received a cheque, £1 14s. 2d., in favour of H. Cameron, which I endorsed and sent back asking for postal orders in exchange. To that I received a letter asking me to call and see them about the matter, which, of course, I never did. I remember Wright being dismissed; I think it was on May 3. After that I saw him in Wimpole Street, when he asked me how things were getting on and whether I had received the money. I said I expected to do so in a day or so. I did not see him again till he was arrested. When I was arrested on June 3 I made a statement to Sergeant Duggan.
Cross-examined. Sergeant Duggan did not tell me that if I helped them it would be the better for me. He asked me whom I had with me and asked me to confess. The sergeant wrote the statement, which I signed. Wright had been in the stores three years; I had been two years longer. I walked home with Wright during a whole week when he first came there, and have done so once or twice since. I should think there are over 30 clerks in the office where I was. I am not sure whether Wright came to me at exactly two. He used to come to my office in connection with queries and ticket numbers. He might come two or three times one morning, and not come at all another day. I have seen him there 100 times perhaps. I saw Wright the day after he was dismissed; I think it was about midday. I go to my lunch from 12.15 to 1.15. I do not think it was on
a Saturday that I saw him. On Saturdays I sometimes have 20 minutes for lunch. It was on Monday morning that I heard that Wright was dismissed, and I saw him on the Tuesday following. I mention no particular day in my confession. Sometimes the signature of people writing for the money would be queried; I know one case where it was. The applications for money came through Wright's office; I used to see the applications. I Was accused first of all of trying to get Cameron's money and made a confession to Mr. Self. I said I was the only one connected with it, or something to that effect.
(Saturday, July 27.)
Cross-examination resumed. I am member of a Volunteer corps and of an athletic club. It is not the fact that I represented to my associates that I had a private income. On my dismissal I received one week's wages in lieu of notice. Out of the 30 clerks employed in the office there would at two o'clock be only half that number present. I have never been out with Wright in the evenings.
Re-examined. Wright knew that we were in financial difficulties at home when he spoke to me about this business. I should think he knew my age, or I should have told him. My Volunteer membership costs me nothing, neither does the athletic club. In my first confession, to Mr. Self, I did not mention Wright; I took the whole blame on myself. When I was arrested I decided to make a clean breast of the whole matter.
CHARLES GEORGE SELF , Secretary of the Stores. Stone came to the Stores first as an office boy, and was afterwards a journal clerk. Up to the time of his dismissal we had a high opinion of him. In his ordinary duty he would have access to the deposit ledgers; those contain entries of the ticket-holders having deposit accounts. It is a frequent practice that those who are shareholders have their dividends added to their deposit accounts, and it is not uncommon that small residue deposits are left unclaimed; these appear in the ledgers. Wright was a transfer clerk. The Dent account had been dormant since Mr. Dent's death in 1899; in March last the account had a credit of £5 6s. 3d. In case of a deposit customer notifying a change of address, it would be the duty of Wright or his assistant to make out a change of address form, which would be circulated round the different offices. [Witness proved that the request for the £5 6s. 3d. (Dent), the endorsement on that cheque, the request for postal orders, and the receipts on the orders were in Stone's handwriting; that the request for £1 14s. 2d. (Cameron), the letter as to the Christian names of Cameron, and the request for postal orders were in Stone's handwriting. My suspicions were aroused by the request for postal orders in the Cameron case, and I wrote back asking the writer to call. That was the last I heard of that case. On May 3 Wright was dismissed. I made further inquiries and sent for Stone. I taxed him with having called for letters at Mrs. Parker's shop. He at first
denied it, but eventually admitted it. I showed him the Cameron cheque for £1 14s. 2d., (and he admitted that the endorsement was in his writing. He declared that he had never done anything of the kind before. I said, "Is anyone else concerned in it?" He said, "No." I said, "Are you sure? This looks a very ingenious fraud." He said, "No, I can assure you no one else is concerned in it." He repeated that several times. After consulting the managing director, I told him that, in view of his youth and the fact that, he was living with his widowed mother, we should not give him into custody, but that he would be dismissed forthwith. After he had left further inquiries were made, and we discovered the Dent business. Stone and Wright were then arrested.
Cross-examined. Wright had been with us three years. The registrar's office in which he was employed was a small space with a counter round; in one corner there was a small window at which callers made inquiries. A clerk named Renaut was in attendance at this window; he has also been dismissed. All letters are first opened in the Secretary's office; letters relating to dividends going to deposit accounts would be sent to the registrar's office. After Wright left we found in his room a large number of change of address lists—about 100 or 150; I think all these were in order, except in the Dent and Cameron interests and one other. It was within Wright's power to have destroyed all these before he left. In Wright's book there is the proper name of "Hector Cameron"; he could have told Stone that the proper name was Hector Cameron. When we got the letter saying, "My full and correct name is 'Herbert Hector Cameron' we did not get into communication with Mr. Cameron to verify that. We have no means of verifying the signatures of persons applying to withdraw; our only safeguard is that we make the cheques payable to the person named and cross them, "Not negotiable, account payee"; to send postal orders is quite exceptional. I do not know what time Renaut used to go out for his dinner. I have never seen Wright and Stone together. I first suspected Wright on May 1. A Miss Palmer called, or wrote, for her dividend. Wright brought me the dividend warrant for 1906 and the dividend book for me to sign the warrant; on looking at the book I noticed certain erasures; I asked him who had made the erasures; he said, "Some fool with a knife." It is untrue that Wright pointed out to me that the lady was entitled to three or four years' dividends, although she only applied for that of 1906, and that I replied, "She has only claimed one year and we will only send her one." I remember when it was discovered that a Mrs. Fall's dividend warrant for £23 15s. had been stolen and cashed. Prisoner did not come to me and suggest that we ought to make some attempt to find out who was committing these frauds. Prior to Stone's confession we looked upon Wright as an honest man.
Re-examined. After the Cameron incident a very close investigation has been made of the books and accounts in Wright's department, and about 90 instances of erasures and alterations in the books
have been discovered, with instances of double payments, in respect of which the Stores have lost a total of about £180. After the dividend warrants have been paid the document are filed and kept in a cabinet; to this Wright had access; in all the cases of double payments the warrants have disappeared from the cabinet.
ROBERT CHARLES RENAUT . I was for six years in the employ of the Stores; my engagement terminated on April 18 last. I was junior clerk to Wright. On February 25 I wrote the change of address, form in the Dent case. I am unable now to say where I got the address, 113, Robert Street, Regent's Park; I should get addresses from numbers of people in the place; I am unable to name any person in particular from whom I got change of address forms. The usual instructions in the office I got from Wright and the secretary. I cannot mention any other person who would give me directions to make out these slips except Wright.
Cross-examined. When I was dismissed no particular reason was given, but I heard afterwards that it was on account of a flirtation I had carried on there. Anybody coming to my window would give me instructions about these slips; I had hundreds of them. I as well as Wright had access to the warrants and the dividend books, and there were four temporary clerks employed on them. I used to go out to lunch about two o'clock; I think I should always be out at The office would never be unoccupied; either Wright or I would be there. I have had several evenings out with Wright. I never heard him speak about Stone. Stone was never inside our office; he might have come down to the window occasionally to get something checked. I never saw him speak to Wright; I never saw them speaking together, either inside or outside the Stores. The cabinet containing the warrants was not kept looked; the temporary clerks or anyone working late could have got at it.
REBECCA LUCY STONE . My son, A.T. Stone, has always lived with me. He was always a good son to me in every way. He used to give me 13s. a week out of his wages. On one occasion he gave me £2, which he said was overtime. In February and March last I was not in good circumstances; I was rather short.
Detective-Sergeant DUGGAN, C. Division. On June 3, I went with Inspector Bower to 95, Great Titchfield Street, and saw Stone. I told him who we were, and cautioned him. He made certain statements to me; then I took him to the station. I told him that Bowerwas of opinion that there was somebody else concerned with him in this business, and that I agreed with Bower. I said, "I will give you pencil and paper in your cell, and if you like you can put it down there." I gave him the paper, and he afterwards handed me a written statement. After that I took a longer statement from him, which was read over to him, and he signed it. While he was making the statement I repeatedly impressed on him the necessity of speaking the truth as it affected another man. On June 3 Wright was arrested, the charge being conspiracy with Stone. On hearing the warrant read
Wright said, "I know nothing at all about it." On being told that Alexander Stone was in custody, he said, "I do not think I ever knew him." Bower said he was a clerk employed at the Stores; Wright said, "How old is he?" Bower said 19 years. Wright said, "Oh, the boy; does he say I did it?" Bower said, "Stone says you first suggested it to him, that you had £3 of the money sent to Mr. E. Dent, and that you sent in the change of address slip." Wright replied, "I know nothing at all; I do not know of any transfer by Dent," and he asked to see the slip. Bower said he could not see it then, as it was at the police-court, but it had a red-letter heading. He said, "That's just what I wanted to know; in that case, I received the information through the window." At the station, in reply to the charge, Wright said, "I understand." Stone said, "Yes." Stone's statement was read over to Wright; he said, "Stone, did you sign that statement"; Stone replied, "I did"; Wright said, "May God forgive you."
[Stone's statement was read; its contents appear sufficiently in the evidence reported.]
Cross-examined. It is not the fact that when Stone made the statement I held out any inducement to him.
Inspector BOWER. I have been in the force nearly 22 years. I was engaged with Duggan in the arrest of both prisoners. No promise or inducement was held out to Stone; he made the statement as far as I know quite voluntarily. It is absolutely false that he was threatened into making a confession; on the contrary, he was implored when making the statements affecting Wright to tell the truth.
WILLIAM HENRY WRIGHT (prisoner on oath). Before going to the Junior Army and Navy Stores, I had occupied the position of general manager at the Civil Service Supply Association at Edinburgh for two years. In consequence of my wife's health I had to leave the north country, and I came up here and took a position with the Junior Army and Navy Stores. Mr. Bathurst, the assistant manager, said to me, "You will only make a convenience of us; a man of your ability will never keep this place." I said I would rather have a small position in a big house than be a big servant in a small house, and I promised that I would not leave them without giving good notice. When I took up the work of the department it was in a great muddle. I first knew Stone three years ago, as a boy, a junior in the secretary's office; I told Mr. Self I must have some assistance, and Stone was appointed. When we left the premises at night at the same time we should go out at the back door together; otherwise I always used the front door and he the back door. It is untrue that I used to walk home with him, or to associate with him at all. I never went into the office where he was at two in the afternoon. I never discussed with him his financial position. I never had a discussion with him as to
the Stores dormant accounts. I never had access to or understood the account books. I never met Stone outside our place at any time. With regard to Sergeant Duggan's evidence, it is accurate as far as it goes; but I want to add this: After I said to Stone, "May god forgive you," Bower said to me, "Why do you say that?" I said, "Because it is a lie." He said, "Who it to believe that?" I said, "He knows it is a lie. "He said, "How does he know it; it looks very much like the truth, and others will believe it." I said I would not argue the matter, and then went into the cell. As a fact, I never conspired with Stone to get any of these amounts. It was not my duty to make out any dividend warrants; I simply had to keep the share ledgers. With regard to the Miss Palmer incident, when her application came I thought it curious (on referring to the books) that she should have applied for only one year's dividend when there were three preceding years' dividends due. I said the whole matter before the secretary, pointing out that the lady had not had her dividends for four years, yet she only claimed for one year. Mr. Self looked at the book and said, "There seems to have been some scratching out here." I said, "Yes, there's been some genius with a knife." He said, "I do not like the look of that; you had better leave the book with me." On the last day of my servile at the Stores a letter was sent through to me; it wm from Mrs. Falls, inquiring why her dividend had not been credited to her deposit account. I looked the matter up. According to the dividend book it had apparently rot been "paid"; instead there was a scratching out. To make certain I went to the office and ascertained that the amount had not been credited to the lady's deposit account. I thereupon informed Mr. Self that there was another erasure such as he had been investigating the night before, and left the matter with him. As to these warrants returned to the stores, they were put in a bundle on a shelf in my little office or enclosure; there was no place to lock them up; anybody who took the warrants and forged the signatures could cash them.
Cross-examined. I have been acquainted with books and business accounts all my business life, say 25 years. I knew stone as a ft fellow clerk, but was never in the least intimate with him; I never had any dispute or quarrel with him. I cannot explain why he should give the detailed story he does against me. I was not at the end of last year and the beginning of this in want of money; I could always pay my way. I did not indulge in any luxury or extravagance; I had to be rather careful. I have done a little betting. I do not know how much I lost. I know nothing against Stone and nothing for him; I know nothing about him. Until the investigation made after Mrs. Ball's letter I had no idea there were these erasures and alterations in the books. I certainly never made the erasures. I deny absolutely the conversation Stone says I had with him. As to the address, 113, Robert Street, someone must have brought that address to our office and had it registered; hence my making out that slip.
Re-examined. I know two Stones; that accounts for my asking the police, when they told me they had got Stone, which Stone it was. It is a long time since I did any betting. I have always paid up. With regard to the books in which alterations appear, many persons had access to those books. One of the temporary clerks employed was named Boon; he was dismissed because he had been in prison for forgery. I have done all I could to help the Stones to find out the authors of the false accounts.
HERBERT THEOBALD . I was one of Mr. Self's confidential clerks for three or four years and was at the stores while Wright and Stone were there. I never saw them together; Wright may have been in Stone's office once or twice, that is all. I never saw them out together. I left the Stores 10 weeks ago. Anybody could get at the cabinet, which was not locked. The day I left I was called in to see Inspector Bower and Inspector Duggan, and was asked to spy upon Wright. Bower told me that by giving evidence against Wright I might be restored to my former position in the Stores.
Cross-examined. Bower asked me if I knew Wright; I said I did not know much about him really. I signed a statement admitting that I had been betting with Wright and that he was using my name with a man at Brentford named Hamilton for betting purposes, and that I lent him money from time to time. He owes Hamilton now I think about £48. Within a month of his being discharged Wright paid me back 30s.; he has now paid it all off.
----DEGARVEL. I was one of four temporary clerks employed on dividend warrant work; there were altogether 12 or 15 clerks at the work. The warrants were made out and put into envelopes, but anyone could have taken them before they were posted; there was no check. I have never seen Stone and Wright in company together.
Cross-examined. I was employed at the top of the house, not in Stone's room or Wright's.
---REED, jeweller, Notting Hill. I have known Wright 18 years, have always found him absolutely perfectly honest. He was a chorister with me at St. Mark's Church, Notting Hill. He has always borne an excellent character.
Stone was released on his own recognisances in £5 to come up for judgment if called upon; Wright was sentenced to six months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Saturday, July 27.)
Mr. G.L. Hardy prosecuted; Mr. Watt defended.
ERNEST CALDWELL 3 and 4, Russia Row, silk: agent. On June 1, it 10.30 a.m., in consequence of a statement made by Ward, I went to 5, Westmoreland Buildings, and thence to the police station, and described goods stolen to the value of £45.
GEORGE WARD , 57, Lambourne Road, Camberwell, errand boy to Ernest Caldwell. On June 1 at 10.30 a.m., I was delivering three bundles of seven rolls each of silk to Peek and Roskello, 7, Westmoreland Buildings, Aldersgate-Street. Prisoner came up and asked me if I knew the name of Smith. I said no. He then went to the book of the court and attended to a large black curly retriever dog which was with him. He spoke to the porter, Rockelly, and, speaking of the dog, said, "He is a fighter." I then took the three bundles up to the first floor and took one of the bundles up to the second floor. As I was coming down I met the prisoner, and he said, "It is tot up there—it is all right." I then took the second bundle up to the second floor, and when I returned to the first floor the third bundle was gone. I went to snow Hill Police Station and gave information. On June 22 prisoner was put up for identification amongst a number of other men, and I identified him. There was no one else on the stairs.
Cross-examined. The dog was' downstairs when I was taking the silk up to the first floor. The dog followed the prisoner as a dog does his master. By "It is not up there" he meant the name of Smith. If I said at the police court he said, "It is up here," that is right. I had never seen prisoner before. It was a fine day. Prisoner wore an overcoat and brown boots. I did not notice that he had a remarkable impediment in his speech. He spoke to me twice, and I heard him talking to the porter. He seemed to talk quite easily. I identified him on June 22 without hesitation. I did not say, "I think that is the man"—I went up and touched him. I was two or three minutes before I picked him out; there was another man dressed similarly and like the prisoner, but I became certain prisoner was the man.
THOMAS ROSKELLY , Oxford Road, East Dulwich, packer to Peek and Roskello. On Saturday, June 1, at 10-30 a.m., I saw prisoner talking to the last witness at the doorway of 7, Westmoreland Buildings. Ward was about to take the last of three bundles of silk upstairs. Prisoner had a black retriever dog with him, and he commented to me on its fighting abilities. He had no bundle with him. I then went down into the basement. Two or three minutes afterwards Ward made a communication to me and I went to the police
station. Prisoner was speaking to me about a minute. There was no one else there. Prisoner had an impediment in his speech—a kind of stutter.
Cross-examined. I had never seen the man before. I saw him again three weeks afterwards at Bow Street at the identification, and I was not quite certain about his face—his face was somewhat contracted. He had only a slight stammer.
Re-examined. I am quite certain prisoner is the man who spoke to me in the doorway.
FRANCIS JAMES TIPP , porter at 3, Albion Buildings, Bartholomew Close. On June 1, between 10 and 11 a.m., I was standing outside 3, Albion Buildings, when I saw prisoner, three other men, and a black dog outside the Goldsmith's Arms in Albion Buildings. He had no parcel. Prisoner turned into Westmoreland Buildings, followed by the dog, and about 10 minutes after came round the corner with a parcel on his shoulder and the dog behind him. I went to school with prisoner 10 years ago and have met him occasionally ever since. I am certain he was there.
Cross-examined. I am 22; I left the school at 14, where prisoner was, and have nodded to prisoner perhaps once a year since. I did not speak to him on this occasion. I know he has a very considerable impediment in his speech—it is impossible to talk to him without noticing it. When he carried the parcel I could not see his face, and at that time I was not quite sure it was the prisoner. I saw him coming out of Westmoreland Buildings and round the corner from Bartholomew Close.
GEORGE JOHN BROWN , warehouseman to Farmer and Co., 34, Bartholomew Close. On June 1, at about 10.30 a.m., I saw a man running along Bartholomew Close with seven rolls of silk on his shoulder. He was coming from the direction of Westmoreland Buildings, was about 50 yards away, and was followed by a large black retriever dog. His face was hidden by the parcel on his shoulder, so that I did not see his face. Ha was a man of the same size as prisoner.
Cross-examined. I only saw the back of him. Being in the silk trade I knew the nature of the goods. I do not identify him.
Detective CHARLES SMITH, City Police. On June 22 prisoner was put up amongst nine or ten other men and identified by Ward. Ward made no remark whatever when he picked him out. Brown failed to identify. On June 29 prisoner was again put up for identification by Roskell, who said, "I am not sure that is the man, but he is about the stature." Prisoner when charged said, "I am perfectly innocent."
Cross-examined. Inspector Reed had charge of the identification, but I was present as the officer in charge of the case. Ward looked up and down the men for about a minute, and then placed his hand on the prisoner.
EDWARD TURNER (prisoner, on oath). (Prisoner spoke with a very marked stutter). I live at 50, Galway Street, St. Luke's. My mother lives at z, Lizard Street, St. Luke's. On Saturday June 1, I was at Redhill. I left London on Wednesday night, taking the tram from Blackfriars to Purley, got to Redhill by dinner time, and walked on to Brighton on Friday. I left Brighton on Friday night and walked to Redhill, spent the Saturday there, and left on Sunday dinner time, walked to Purley, and got a tram to London, reaching my mother's house on Sunday, June 2. It started raining on Friday night and never stopped till Saturday night I was smothered with mud and dirt when I got back. When I left London my mother gave me a little breast of lamb and 1s. 4d. I also saw Elizabeth Manooch. I brought back a piece of a tree which I had used for a walking stick and gave to my mother for a copper stick. I did not know where Westmoreland Buildings were—I knew the place but not the name. I never stole this silk. Tipp was at school with me about 10 1/2 years ago. I have never spoken to him since I left school that I know of. I have never had a dog. I saw my mother and Manooch frequently.
Cross-examined. I went alone to Redhill for a walk. In my statement I said, "I was waiting outside the Tube Station at the corner of Broad Street on Saturday for my friend Putney to come from London Bridge, and when he came we went for a stroll at nine o'clock. I told him I was going to start to-night and tramp to Brighton. He said, 'If you are will you meet me at Redhill, outside the Boys' Home, at 12 o'clock?' I told him I did not expect any more odd work that week, and that I was going to try it. I left him at nine o'clock. The next time I saw him was Sunday, June 2. I met Putney at Redhill. I have asked for him to come. I have known him for a long time, but have only been friends with him for about six months. I have written to my sister with his address for her to go to him. I have been in Brixton Prison for seven weeks and have seen the notice that witnesses will be obtained for a prisoner. I have not asked any official to get Putney here as I was quite capable of writing to my own people to do that. I have written twice and told my sister when she visited me. Putney lives just round the corner from my house. I have been granted legal aid. My solicitor did not see me until Monday afternoon. I gave him the names and addresses of my witnesses. On the Friday night I slept in the open by myself, and also on Saturday night. On Saturday morning it poured with rain, and I was in a coffee house at Redhill for about five hours—I do not know the name of the coffee house. I had two 1 1/2 d. worths of tea and two separate pennyworths of cake. A girl served me. There were three girls there and a lot of country fellows. I never heard of Westmoreland Buildings before this case. The witnesses are entirely mistaken about seeing me there. (To the Judge.) I did not sleep in a house on any one of the nights I was away.
stood in front of the prisoner, and after a little time, said, "I think that is the man."
Cross-examined. I have been convicted, but not yet sentenced, for a confidence trick. Before being put up for identification I, White, and the prisoner were in one cell, and we were talking together. I understood what he said. After the identification prisoner said something about the Ascot Gold Cup.
Re-examined. After the boy said, "I think that is the man," prisoner said, "I think you stole the Ascot Gold Cup"
ROBERT WHITE , bricklayer. I was in the row when prisoner was identified by Ward. Ward walked up and down the row once or twice, stood in front of the prisoner, and seemed to consider. The sergeant said, "Now put your hand on the man you identify." Ward said, "I think this is the man."
Cross-examined. I am in custody, have been convicted for obtaining £100 on false pretences, and am awaiting sentence. I am a subcontractor bricklayer. Ward also stood in front of Parker. When Ward said, "I think this is the man," prisoner said, "I may as well say I think you stole the Ascot Cup," or, "I think you know something about the Ascot Cup," or something like that—referring to the boy "thinking." This was after the line was broken up, as we were being put in the cell.
ESTHER MARY TURNER , 2, Lizard Street, St. Luke's, mother of the prisoner, widow. On Wednesday, May 29, between nine and ten, prisoner came to me and said, "Mother, I am going to take a tramp to Brighton." I said, "You silly fellow, what for?" He said, "I have not got much to do." I said, "Have you got any money?" He said he had 2s. 8d., and I gave him 1s. 4d. On Sunday, June 2, he returned covered with dust and gave me stick (produced) for a copper stick. I often see him. He has no dog, no one belonging to him has a dog. I have never seen him with a dog. Manooch lives in my house, and came into the parlour and asked how he enjoyed himself. He said, "All right, but I am jolly tired." I know Putney. I have had various letters from prisoner asking me to try and find him. Putney has gone away and left no address.
Cross-examined. I have had several letters from my son since his arrest, and my daughter brought one to me. I have not brought the letters. I wrote prisoner that I could not find Putney.
ELIZABETH MANOOCH , 2, Lizard Street, St. Luke's, wife of William Manooch, bricklayer's labourer. On May 29 prisoner said he was going for a walk. On Sunday, June 2, I saw him in his mother's parlour covered with dust. I asked him how he had enjoyed himself. He said, "I am very tired; I am going home to bed." I see prisoner very often. I have never seen him with a dog in my life.
(Evidence in Rebuttal.)
Sub-Divisional Inspector ALFRED REED, V Division. On June 22 prisoner was put up for identification among nine others. Ward walked direct down the fine, touched the prisoner, and then returned.
Cross-examined. There was no hesitation as far as I could see. He walked to the end of the line, touched the man, and came back. He did not speak at all.
Verdict, Guilty. On a further indictment for stealing a bicycle, Mr. Hardy did not offer evidence. Prisoner bad been charged with stealing a coat but acquitted. He was said to have been employed cleaning windows at 3, Albion Buildings, where there had been a quantity of goods stolen. Stated to be an associate of warehouse thieves.
Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.
Mr. Condy prosecuted.
WILLIAM NORTH TEARLE , assistant to Stanley Caney, 44, Cheapside, jeweller. On May 14, 1907, at 1 to 1.30 p.m., a man, whom I identify as the prisoner, came into my shop. I showed him some diamond rings on a tray; he selected a five-stone half-hoop lady's ring at £22. He looked at it several times and said he would like to know the weight of the stones in it, that he would come back again in an hour, as he had not sufficient money, and was going to the bank. I put the ring aside, be returned, and I again handed it to him. He took it to the door and then asked me if I would let him know the weight of the stones. I said I would refer, and went to to the end of the shop to turn up the stockbook. I heard a sound, looked up hurriedly, and found the shop empty, and that the prisoner had gone with the ring. Mr. Caney, who was attending to something else in the shop, ran out after him. I remained in the shop. On June 11 prisoner was put up with other people and I identified him at once. I have not the slightest doubt be is the man.
Cross-examined. Caney was about a yard or two away from prisoner. He did not attend to him. I gave a written description of the thief—I do not remember the words. I do not believe I have made a mistake.
Re-examined. I had all the conversation with the man who came into the shop. He was there about five minutes on each of the two occasions.
Detective-sergeant CHARLES CHAPMAN, City Police. On May 14, at about four p.m., I received a telephonic message, went to Caney's shop, and took down a description in writing from Tearle, which I produce.
Cross-examined. I have been 14 1/2 years in the force. The description answers to the prisoner very well (at the suggestion of the jury the description was read as follows): "Age 30, height 5 ft. 8 in., hair fair, pale face, long nose, dressed in fawn-coloured jacket suit, collar and tie, black hard felt hat."
Police-constable FRANK POWELL, 600, City. On May 14, at about two p.m., I was on duty near Caney's shop, when I saw the prisoner
running eastward from Bow Church at a very fast pace. I identified him among several other persons at Cloak Lane Police Station. I took the information from Caney.
Cross-examined. Prisoner was running very fast; I could not say how many miles an hour. I looked round because I thought he had done something wrong, but as he was not followed I did not stop him. I am certain I nave made no mistake, although I only saw him as he ran. I noticed his features. He was a stranger.
Detective-sergeant CHARLES GOGGAN, W Division. On June 11 I went with Detective Brogden to 31, Lambeth Road, Kennington, where I found the prisoner in bed reading a newspaper. I said, "We are police officers and I am going to arrest you on suspicion of being a man who is wanted for stealing a ring from Cheapside on May 14. "He said, "Surely there must be some mistake." I conveyed him to Kennington Road Police Station and read over the description from our printed informations. He said, "Surely there is something about being cautioned." I then cautioned him in the usual way. He was taken to Cloak Lane Police Station, put up amongst seven others, and identified by Powell, Henson, and Tearle. I afterwards saw the prisoner in the cell and said, "I am going to Lambeth Road. Do you wish me to go and see anybody for you." He said, "No, I know nothing about the robbery. I was not in London on that day" I had not told him what day it was. (To the Judge.) I had told him the date of the robbery. I said before the magistrate that he said, "I was not in London on the 14th." To the best of my recollection he said, "I was not in London on that date."
Cross-examined. Prisoner did not say, "I was not in town." He did not try to run away. I had another officer with me. I did not take hold of him—it was not necessary.
THOMAS HENSON , Summoning Officer, Mansion House, Justice Room. On May 14, at about two p.m., I saw prisoner running eastward as I was going westward. He passed me and turned down Lawrence Lane. My attention was attracted to him by his very fast pace. I have no doubt prisoner was the man. On June 11 I identified him without difficulty from among several other people.
Cross-examined. It is impossible for me to have made a mistake. I should call yours dark hair. You were running at about six or eight miles per hour. You were the only one I saw running, and as you passed me I turned round and watched you. I saw you for a few seconds as you ran between Milk Street and Lawrence Lane. You wore lighter clothes than you are wearing now. I recognised your features. I cannot say that your clothes helped me to identify you.
Cross-examined. Prisoner was wearing a Navy blue suit, white straw hat, with a black band.
Detective-Inspector ROBERT LYON, City Police. On June 11 I put prisoner up for identification. Sergeant Goggin, Sergeant Chapman, and Inspector Weldon were in charge of the matter. Tearle, Powell and Henson identified him. There were seven other men put up with prisoner as far as we could get them of similar appearance. Prisoner was charged; he said he did not know anything about the ring—he was not the man. He was searched. The ring was not found.
Cross-examined. At the police court I said it was a difficult matter to get a number of men of the prisoner's stature and build.
JAMES WHITTAKER (prisoner, on oath). On May 13 at midnight I left Plymouth and arrived at London at 6 a.m. on the 14th. I had breakfast, afterwards walked into the Strand and met a friend named Jerrold; that would be between 4 and 5 p.m. I told him I had come up to London and was searching for rooms. He said he was also in search of rooms, being out of an engagement, and we agreed to join, went into Kennington, and at about 8 to 8.30 p.m. took rooms at 31, Lambeth Road. On June 11 I was arrested.
Cross-examined. I have no parents and am just out of my articles as a law student. I was articled near Plymouth. I did not tell the police, because they treated me in such a vicious way; they were so certain and said, "We know all about you. What have you done with it?" I came up from Manchester to Plymouth on the Friday. I came to London to read with Mr. Gibson, and have done no for nine weeks. I went to Kennington because Jerrold suggested it—he is in the theatrical profession. He is not here, as he left London on the Saturday before my arrest. I met him in the Strand at I was going eastward, between 4 and 5 p.m. I breakfasted at the Great Western Hotel, Paddington, remained there till 11 to 12, lunched at the Cecil Cafe at about half-past one, strolled about for some time, and and Jerrold at the Golden Cross Hotel between four and five. We may have had a drink—I do not remember exactly. I was in Jerrold's company three hours. I think we went into Romano's. I think I met a well-known solicitor, whose name I will write down. (To the jury.) In saying I was not in London on the 14th I was mistaken—I had left Plymouth on the 13th.
Verdict, Not guilty.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Monday, July 29.)
Mr. G.L. Hardy prosecuted; Mr. J.R. Randolph defended.
me and told me that his master had decided to buy a new Daimler car with a landaulette body, and wished to sell his 28-36 Limocin Daimler car. I went to his stables that afternoon and saw the car. I asked prisoner what his master wanted for it; he said he would find cut. Next morning he called and said that Mr. Rose would accept £205. I said I would like to try the car. Prisoner then brought it round, and after trying it I told him I was prepared to give £205, but I said I should like a letter from his master authorising him to sell it. In the evening he brought me the letter produced: "Dear Sir, I have given Mr. Garrad, my driver, authority to sell the Daimler car; you can take it away on payment to him of £205; yours truly, B.L. Rose." I noticed that the figure had been originally £85, and that the word "Daimler" had been inserted. I questioned prisoner and he said "Oh, my master was thinking of an Argyll car that we had to sell." I then paid a deposit of £10 and he gave me a receipt. Next day I called at Mr. Rose's house and saw the butler, who made a statement which I thought satisfactory. On June 8 I paid prisoner a further £90 on account. He said I might leave the car at his master's garage until I could make room at my own place. Later on I called at the garage and saw prisoner; he said he could not deliver the car then; having two cars of the same power, the spare parts were all mixed up on the other car, and he required time to separate them; he arranged to deliver at 3 o'clock that day. Meanwhile I received a telegram from prisoner saying that Mr. Rose had decided not to sell his Limocin, and if I would cancel the contract he would give me £20 for the trouble I had had. On June 10 I saw prisoner and asked him the meaning of this. He said that Mr. Rose thought it would be foolish of him to sell his car until he had got delivery of a new one he had ordered. I telephoned to Mr. Rose, and then again went to the garage, where I saw Mr. Rose with the prisoner. I asked prisoner what he meant by selling me this car; he said "I am sorry, Mr. Brown"; he was crying. I asked him what he had done with the £100; he said "I have paid Mr. Rose £85, and I have some of it upstairs." When I parted with the £100 it was in the belief that prisoner had authority to sell the car.
Cross-examined. On May 3 I bought the lamps out of this car for £4 10s., giving prisoner a tip of 10s. The lamps when new would be worth £18. I know a thousand guinea Daimler car when I see one. This car was worth nothing like that. I certainly say that I believed prisoner had a genuine authority to sell this car for £205. I went and questioned the butler, because I wanted to be satisfied that the letter was in Mr. Rose's writing. I just asked the butler that question, showing him the letter, and he said yes, and I walked away. He called me back and said, "I did not know that Mr. Rose was selling his Daimler." Having the letter, which I thought genuine, I was quite satisfied. It is not the fact that I suggested to prisoner that the numbers on the car should be blacked out. Mr. Dean is my father-in-law. Prisoner did not tell me that he did
not want Mr. Rose to know who bought the car; I do not know that I said, "There is no reason why he should, I will give my father-in-law's name"; I may have said something about Mr. Dean. I did not tell Mr. Rose that I had had no previous transaction with prisoner. Mr. Rose did not say to prisoner, "Where the devil are my head lumps?" prisoner did not reply that he had sold them to a dealer.
BATEMAN LANCASTER ROSE , 1, Cromwell Road, S.W., stockbroker. Prisoner was my chauffeur. I never at any time authorised him to sell a Daimler car for me. On June 5 I authorised him to sell my Argyll car for £85. A Mr. Grant had bid that amount, and I gave prisoner a letter addressed to Mr. Grant. The letter is the one produced; the name "Grant" has been struck out, and the word 'Argyll" altered to "Daimler," and the amount "£85" to "£205." The alterations are not in my writing. I never authorised anyone to make them. In June 7 prisoner told me that Mr. Grant had paid for the Argyll car, and handed me £80 15s.; he did not mention the Daimler as having been bold. I gave £1,080 for the Daimler; it would fetch in an auction room £700 or £800.
Cross-examined. When Brown came to me at the garage I said to him, "What other transactions have you had with my chauffeur?" he said, "I never knew him before; I never had any transactions." I asked Garrad where my head lamps were; he said that he had sold them to a man, he did not know his name. Then I thought if Brown had bought my Daimler car he probably had my lamps; and I found that was correct. The lamps were worth £16 or £17. I have had experience of motors for three years. It is absolutely impossible that anybody could have thought that my servant had authority to sell that car for 200 guineas.
Detective-sergeant JOHN REED, P Division. I arrested prisoner on June 14. On my reading the warrant to him he replied, "Quite right. I gave my master, Mr. Rose, £85 of the money; he gave me back £4 5s. commission; but he thought I was paying him for his Argyll car, which I sold last March for £30. I have £8 of the money upstairs," which he gave me.
Prisoner pleaded guilty to indictments for stealing a motorcar and two head lamps, the property of Mr. Rose, his employer. [Mr. Geo. Elliott prosecuted on these indictments. An indictment for feloniously altering the authority referred to was not proceeded with.
MR. BROWN was recalled by the Judge and warned to be more cautious in the future in dealings of this kind. Prosecutor explained that owing to the improvements made in motor construction, this Daimler car was now out of pattern, and would fetch nothing like the figure put upon it by Mr. Rose; the same applied to the lamps.
Prisoner was sentenced to six months' hard labour.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Monday, July 29.)
WEISFELD, Hermann (73, agent), BELLOT, Antoine (38 dealer), and DACOURT, Renee (33, no occupation) ; all feloniously receiving 33 gold rings and other articles, well knowing the same to have been stolen out of the United Kingdom, to wit, in the Republic of France; Wersfeld and Bellot, stealing 8 yd. of glace silk, 10 yd. of satin, and other articles, the property of Leonard Lyons, and feloniously receiving same; Dacourt, feloniously receiving 8 yd. of glace silk, 10 yd. of satin, and other articles, the property of Leonard Lyons, well knowing the same to have been stolen.
Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Symmons, and Mr. R. F. Graham-Campbell prosecuted; Mr. W.H. Thorne defended Weisfeld; Mr. George Elliott and Mr. Eustace Fulton defended Bellot and Dacourt.
EMMA LEMONIER , 162 and 163, Palais Royal, Paris, jeweller. My shop is on the ground floor, and I have been in business there 31 years. Someone whom I have heard since was called Smith occupied a very small shop next door and had a stock of about 15 francs worth of toys. On May 19 I left Paris for a day or two. No one slept on the premises on Sunday. On Whit Monday, May 20, I received a telegram, returned to Paris, found a hole had been made in the wall, and that the whole of my stock had disappeared to the value of 82,640 francs—about £3,300. There were a number of rings, brooches, bracelets, chains, pins, sleeve links, and small articles of jewellery, of which I have given a full list to the police. In June I received from London some photographs of jewellery, all of which I recognised, and on July 9 I came to London and identified the articles now produced to me, of the value of about 6,000 francs, as being some of those I lost. Two enamelled watches produced are two of three which were stolen. The third has been returned to me. I had had them 9 or 10 years. Watch marked D has had the bow removed. I have had it eight or nine years. Watch marked F is about 30 years old and is my property. Pearl necklace produced is worth about 500 francs and is my property. The sapphire and brilliant earrings produced I have had more than 30 years; they came from a lady who was there before me; they have my priced label upon them.
Cross-examined by Mr. Thorn. There are many jewellers in the Palais Royal—these are special articles of jewellery made to my order, not like those commonly sold. Some of the rings of small value—20 to 25 francs—are made in large quantities. I know the watches, having had them eight or nine years. This one (F) I have had 20 years—it has been out of fashion for some considerable time. Watch D is worth 60 or 65 francs—it was marked 75 or 80 francs; F is worth about 115 francs.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. The sale price of the carrings produced is 100 francs—value 90 francs. I bought the turquoises and diamonds and had them mounted, and the earrings made to order Brooch produced cost 280 francs; it was marked 350 francs.
Re-examined. I attend every day at my shop. The stock is constantly being cleaned and the window rearranged. I have always done so for the last 30 years. Pearl necklace produced has been especially threaded for me. There has been a failure, and one of the threads is out of place and I recognise it; I have had it three years. I can pledge my oath that the articles referred to are my property. All these brooches were mounted under my directions to a special design and are undoubtedly my property.
JOHN ANDERSON , 14, St. Ann's Road, Fulham, clerk to Charles J. Davis and Co., Limited, George Street, silk mercers. On March 2, 1907, at 4.30 p.m., I left the premises securely fattened. The next day I got a telegram from the police, found that a glass panel was smashed in the inner door, a quantity of silk goods lying about, and that various goods of ours were misting.
Police-constable THOMAS FLOWERS, 278 C. On March 2, 1907, at 10.15 p.m., I was on duty in George Street, and on trying Davis and Co.'s premises both doors flew open. I found a large number of silk parcels lying within, also brown paper and string. On going within I found the glass panel of the inner door broken, so that a man could get through. I remained on the premises till the last witness arrived.
RICHARD SKILTON , assistant manager to C.J. Davit and Co. Limited. On Monday, March 4, I examined the stock and made lists produced of goods stolen—Amounting to 6,000 yd. of silk of the total value of £1,260. On June 7, at Marlborough Street Police station, I was shown a quantity of our silk, value £135, which I identified (produced). This piece is yellow brocade, blue true lovers' knot brocade, this basket—all speciakky made to our design knot, 200 yd. of mousseline fin, white mousseline fin, pink brochet pink eolienne—a mixture of silk, grey eolienne, black eolienne (produced) as our property. Dress produced is made up of our material.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. The dress is made from a material specially manufactured for us; it is a satin face paille mousseline which is made for no one else; we had it made specially with that satin face. There is about 12 yd. of basket pattern silk made to a special design for our firm about two years ago. We have always run a design similar to that. I do not think we have sold any of it—at any rate not as much as 12 yards. I have looked it up in the stock book and the remainder of the piece is in stock. With the stolen quantity it is the exact length which was in stock a week before the robbery. We had from the manufacturers 40 to 50 metres. There might have been from 40 to 50 metres stolen.
Re-examined. I identify the basket flower pattern by its appearance. I have been in business 18 years and I am prepared to swear positlively this is the stuff which left our establishment on March 2. The artist makes the design to our pattern and the manufacturers make it exclusively for us. The skirt produced would take about 12 yards; the piece of similar stuff produced is about 9 yards; according to the stock book we have lost about 23 yards; about two yards have been cut up for patterns for the travellers. I recognise 15 other pieces produced as our property which have been stolen on March 2.
CHARLES WILLIAM LIVERMORE , 6, Parkstone Road, Peckham Ryr. In May last I was employed by Lyons and Co., Wood Street, to go out with a tricycle and deliver goods. On May 22 I had eleven parcels to deliver in the West End. Reynolds also took goods on a similar tricycle. He went out with me on May 22, and at about 11 a.m. we went into Lockhart's coffee shop in Chapel Street, Oxford Street, leaving the tricycles outside. We remained in Lockhart's half an hour, and when we came out the tricycles wore gone. After searching the streets around I laid information. At 6.30 p.m. I had a message to go to Albany Street Police Station, and on the road found one of the machines by Portland Road Railway Station. The other was at Albany Street Police Station. The goods had been removed from both.
WILLIAM E.K. SMITH , manager to Lyons and Co., Wood Street, Cheapside, silk merchants. On May 22, 1907, Livermore and Reynolds were sent to deliver parcels in the West End including a parcel to Mme. Hartland, 176, High Street, Notting Hill, and another to Mme. Thomas, 5, Baker Street,. I identify the two brown paper wrappers produced as the wrappers directed to those two ladies. They both bear the directions and are marked "10.30 a.m. delivery." List produced is prepared by me showing the articles sent out by the two lads and stolen, amounting to £70 in value. I identify goods produced, value £55, as part of those sent out on May 22—lace trimmings, muslin, satin net, embroidered muslin, black dress material. Label produced bears our trade mark and was on goods stolen. The remainder of the goods have been handed back for use in our business, and such of them as are still in our possession can be brought here.
Police-constable JOSEPH HENDERSON, 714 S. On May 22, at about 1.40 p.m., I found a tricycle belonging to Lyons and Co. in Euston Square, where I was on point duty. There was a suspicious locking man there. The tricycle was locked. I took it to the station at 2.40 p.m., just as I found it.
Cross-examined. I do not see the suspicious looking man in court.
LEONARD LYONS , partner in Lyons and Co. I recognise label produced as a ticket attached to goods which were stolen from us on May 22. I went with Sergeant Draper to 35, King Street, Covent Garden, and saw several trunks, among them a yellow trunk
which had been opened and which contained practically all the goods stolen from our tricycles; also a lot of other goods which did not belong to me. I have brought here goods which we received from the police, and which I identify as stolen. There is a piece of black serge, white linings, black alpaca, some whalebone, point net, black eolienne, black serge, batiste, cotton muslin, another piece of eolienne, a piece of black trimming, another piece of black trimming, some more net, silk taffeta, some velvet. There are other goods in front of me which are not mine and which I believe belong to Messrs. Davis. I have received other goods from the police which have been sold. I also found at 35, King Street, in the trunk, a piece of brown paper wrapper produced, with our name on, and addressed to Mme, Thomas. Behind the trunk I found another piece of brown paper wrapper (produced) addressed to Mme. Hartland.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. The ticket produced bears no date. It has been attached to our goods—to the card on which the stuff is rolled. We have no summer sales at our premises. There would generally be three tickets altogether attached to the goods. The ticket produced being attached to the goods would not necessarily lead anyone who brought them to suspect they were stolen. Ladies buy large quantities of goods sometimes from us for making up into dresses—goods of all kinds and it very considerable aquantities.
ALFRED WILLIAM COPE , Supervisor, Inland Revenue Department, Somerset House. From May, 1906, I was keeping observation on the prisoner Bellot in connection with Excise matters in reference to spirit. I have repeatedly been him enter and leave 40, Rathbone Place—every day I watched, two or three times a week. I have seen him enter and leave. I have seen Weisfeld with Bellot outside 40, Rathbone Place, and walking about together. I have also seen Weisfeld at Bellot's address, 10, Selwood Terrace, Kensington. That is where I first saw him. I commenced watching 10, Selwood Terrace in June, 1906. I first saw Weisfeld there two or three weeks after I commenced and several times since. I have seen Dacourt leave 10, Selwood Terrace daily, alone as a rule; sometimes Bellot would come out with her and she would go to the West End. I have never seen the three together. I have seen Bellot with Dacourt and Bellot with Weisfeld. I stopped keeping observation for a while and resumed in April, 1907, when Bellot and Dacourt removed to 36, King Street, Covent Garden. The ground floor of 35, King Street is a bank, with flats above, to which there is a separate entrance. I have seen Bellot and Dacourt go in and out, but have not seen Weisfeld there. Bellot generally went out at 11 a.m. with a large black leather bag; he would go to Berwick Street market, buy vegetables and provisions for household purposes, and return to the flat. On May 31 I arrested him outside 35, King Street. I said, "Are you Mr. Antoine?" He said, "Yes." I told him I was an Excise officer and I had to arrest him. He said, "What for?" I said, "Come upstairs and I will tell you." Susanne Cordolier opened the door; we went
up; Dacourt was in the bedroom. I searched the place for spirits and found a number of bottles, and also saw some large travelling trunks, which I demanded to search and which Bellot opened with keys from his trouser pocket. He said they belonged to Madame. I saw a quantity of laces and silks, some of which I recognise in court and of which I informed the police. Bellot said they belonged to Madame. Bellot said, "I do not live here. I live at 40 Upper Rathbone Place. I came here a few minutes ago to see Madame, she is my friend." I told him I had been there waiting for him early in the morning and that that was not so. Before I took him away he wanted to give Madame some money. I asked him what for and he said she would have to pay the rent, so I allowed him to give her £13. He said he had £150 on him. He was then taken to the station, and I mentioned the boxes to the police.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. I spoke to Bellot in English. Dacourt would not understand it if she does not speak English, but Bellot spoke in French to her after my speaking to him. I do not speak French. She was living with Bellot at Selwood Terrace. He opened the boxes with keys on a bunch.
SUSANNE CORDELIER . I have lodged at 10, Argyll Street, King's Cross, with a police-sergeant since the arrest of Bellot on June 5. I have known Dacourt eight months, and entered her service as domestic at 35, King Street. I once went to 10, Selwood Terrace, and saw there Madame and Mr. Dacourt and a maid. Mr. Dacourt is Bellot. On May 8 I met Bellot in Dean Street, Soho, and he asked me if I would be his servant, and I went to 35, King Street, on that day and remained till June 5. Bellot and Dacourt lived there, occupying the same bedroom. I had a bedroom. There were two bed-rooms, dining-room, and kitchen. Dacourt had no occupation—she do no dressmaking. She used to go out in the day time and in the evening to the theatre. She returned sometimes alone and sometimes with a companion, on which occasions Bellot slept in my bedrooms and I slept in the dining-room. I have seen Weisfeld at 35, King Street four or five times before Bellot was arrested, and every day since. He came about 12 and stayed half an hour or an hour, Bellot paid my wages. On Wednesday, May 22, at 8 p.m. Herman (Weisfeld) came to the flat in a cab. I opened the door. He had three brown paper parcels, two of which he carried upstairs, and I carried the other; they were put in my room. Weisfeld remained an hour with Bellot, and they opened the parcels, the contents of which I afterwards saw. I identify whalebone, sequin, silk, and other articles which are here. The silk skirt I saw before. The articles were afterwards put by Bellot, while Dacourt was out, in two trunks which were at the flat when I went there. I identify white silk, basket of flowers silk, grey silk, black figured silk produced as being at the flat before the parcels were brought by Weisfeld. Bellot brought them in parcels. They were opened in my presence and put in the trunk by Bellot. On May 31, when Cope came, Dacourt,
Bellot, and myself were there. Bellot gave Dacourt a parcel of jewellery which he took from his pocket. I afterwards saw in Dacourt's bedroom several gold and diamond brooches, 29 diamond and ruby rings, eight earrings, and eight watches. After Bellot was arrested Weisfeld asked Dacourt if she had the jewellery; she said, "Yes." I afterwards went with Dacourt to Harrod's Stores, where the jewellery was put in a safe, and Dacourt paid 10s. 6d. for the life for one year and 2s. 6d. for the key. On June 4 the police officers came. Weisfeld was there. Dacourt said she was going to see Bellot to tell him the police had come to look at the things, and she wanted to know what she was to do with the jewellery. After that Dacourt and I went to Harrod's Stores, and we put them in a safe, giving the address as 10, Selwood Terrace, Kensington. Mme. Morsley made five skirts for Dacourt from stuffs similar to those produced. On the day cope came a quantity of silks were put in a box and taken to Charing cross cloak room on Weisfeld's suggestion. The box contained the goods produced.
Cross-examined by Mr. Thorne. I have not a good memory for dates. I said before the magistrate that the parcels were brought by Weisfeld eight days before Bellot was arrested—not eight days before the arrest of Dacourt. I cannot swear to the date. I said at the police court it was the Wednesday before the arrest. I was at the police first three weeks before Dacourt was arrested. I had been out of a place eight days. Before that I was chambermaid to a prostitute, receiving 10s. a week. Since June 5 I have had an allowance of 30s. a week from the Treasury and been staying with the widow of a police officer. I did not say before the magistrate that the goods were put it the Charing Cross cloak room. On June 4, when the police came, I knew the silks were being inquired about. I did not then say that Weisfeld had brought them. I swear that he brought them. Dacourt usually came home at 12.30 p.m. I never went to bed before she came in.
(Wednesday, July 31.) SUSANNE CORDELIER recalled, cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. Bellot asked me to enter Madame Dacourt's service. I had known her for two months before. I have not known her to follow any business except what has been described. M. Bellot paid my wages. He always did the shopping and took entire control of the business. Some days after I went there I saw some silk. I remember a lady and gentleman coming to the flat, and me serving them with wine. A gentleman gave me a threepenny bit—Mr. Hermann. The lady came after Mr. Hermann.
Re-examined. I remember Mr. Draper coming to the flat on June 5 and writing down what I said—in cipher—and which he afterwards read over. When we came back with Madame the police were in the flat. Mr. Currie and Mr. Draper asked me to be a witness. I said, flat. Mr. Currie and Mr. Draper asked me to be a witness. They said, "I do not know anything; I cannot say anything." They said.
"You must be a witness, otherwise we will shut you up just the same as Madame." Then I made the statement. I was only for five months servant to a prostitute. My first place in London was at Hall Gardens, Kensington; a very respectable place. I went from there to Croydon, also a respectable house, being there about 10 months. I have never seen anybody at King Street giving the name of Monsieur or Madame Bertin. It was Currie who told me I must be a witness or I should be shut up as well as the others.
MARCELLE BRINES , 27, Greek Street, Soho, dressmaker. I know Bellot and Dacourt when they lived at 10, Selwood Terrace. I remember Bellot coming and showing me some samples of silk. (Same produced.) He told me they were not his, but belonged to a gentleman from Lyons, and he had undertaken to sell them. He did not say how much he had to offer. The prices were mentioned, but I did not buy anything. This was towards the end of March. I saw him again on April 29, when he brought some white silk to make a lady's dress, which I did—a dressing-gown (same produced); Bellot giving me £1. I took the measurements from Mme. Dacourt at Charing Cross Mansions. I also made six underskirts—one of each colour. Mr. Bellot paid me for them. I also finished the under skirt which Mme. Dacourt had started (produced). The first time I saw a police officer in the case was several days after Mme, had been arrested. Mr. Currie asked me whether I had seen some white and black underskirts. I had seen Madame several times; it may have been before the measuring.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. I knew Dacourt was a woman of the town.
ALEXANDRINE PHILEMON , 50, Rawlings Street, Chelses, dressmaker. I knew Bellot and Dacourt at Selwood Terrace; afterwards at King Street. I saw Weisfeld three or four times at Selwood Terrace and at King Street; I knew him as Hermann. On June 4, after hearing Bellot had been arrested, I went to 35, King Street, as there was an account to be settled. I saw Dacourt there, and Hermann came while I was there. Madame was very afflicted and did not want me to come in, as the detectives were there. I said I was not afraid of detectives, "and you neither." She replied, "Yes, I am very much afraid because all the silks are here." I was very surprised, as I did not know that. Weisfeld came in after this; then Madame said, 14 You stop here, because he has got to speak with me," and Weisfeld went away with Madame for a short time. When he came back he seemed surprised that the silks were still there. Madame said, "What do you want me to do?" He said, "You ought to have had these goods put somewhere in the station"—Charing Cross, I suppose—in the cloak room. We moved the silks from one trunk to another, so as to have one free for Madame. She put them in the trunk; I and Susanne handed her the silks. I think Hermann was there then; I am not sure. After that was done Madame was very nervous, and did not want to stop in the flat. She asked me to go into the street
and see if there was anyone watching. I did so, but did not return to tell her there was nobody, as the door got looked behind me. I waited in the street for Madame, and she came to my house.
Cross-examined by Mr. Thorne. When Madame told me there were all those silks I understood; before that I did not think they were stolen. I did not know they were stolen when I saw them. I understand English a little. Weisfeld spoke a little French and a little English to me. Chiefly in French, as Madame did not know English. It is possible I may have mistaken what he said. He may have said, "You should get the silks taken to a cloakroom." I don't know whether he mentioned a station at all; I, know there was a question about Charing Cross.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. It may have been about five to six when I called at the flat on June 4. Madame did not want to stay in the flat alone, and the servant wanted to leave. I do not recollect whether Madame brought any luggage with her to my house.
BLANCHE LEWIS , 40, Upper Rathbone Place. Weisfeld has lodged in my house for 12 or 14 years, paying 5s. 6d. a week rent. Bellot was brought to my house by Weisfeld, and as I had an empty room he rented it at 3s. 6d. a week. He was with me for about six weeks before his arrest. I have seen him come to my house to see Mr. Weisfeld during the last 18 months or two years. On June 6, when Weisfeld was arrested, he gave me two watches in front of the detectives, Currie and Draper. The watches produced seem like them. He also gave me his key, saying, "Will you mind my key and also those two packages." I held them out and said, "Do you mean these?" He said, "Yes." He meant those watches. He also said, "Have you ever seen me come here in a cab?" I said "No." I handed the property to the police.
Cross-examined by Mr. Thorne. When Weisfeld gave me the watches he spoke quite out without any secrecy. Weisfeld has always said he has been a long time in England; I think 14 or 15 years. I always understood he was an honourable and respectable man.
Re-examined. Weisfeld has always paid his rent. He dealt in jewellery and all kinds of things. I do not think I have seen him with dresses—sometimes fancy little things, silver for instance.
Sergeant ALBERT DRAPER, D Division. I saw Bellot being taken to the station by Currie. On June 4 I went with Currie to 35, King Street, and saw Dacourt, telling her that we had come to make inquiries respecting Bellot. I said that was his flat. She said, "It is my flat." She said he came there sometimes; that she was a dressmaker; that a gentleman gave her so much a week. I asked her to whom some ties and collars that were on the tables belonged; she said they were Antoine's, and were the only things he had there; but that I could look if I wished. I went into the hall and saw three trunks and a portmanteau. I asked her to open them. I found a quantity of silks, etc.; they were about half full. She said, "Some of them are mine; I bought them about three weeks ago from a man at
the door"; She did not know his name. I kept on asking her, "Surely, you must know something about him." She then said his name was Louis Bertin, and that she gave £50 for them. She did not know where he lived; but he had gone to Lyons a fortnight before, and she had bought some other things before he went. She had no receipts. She said he was a man who came to the flat door and sold things. She pointed out some of the stuff which she had bought—one piece. While I was speaking to Madame, Currie took a little ticket from a piece of lace, which was the ticket identified by Mr. Lyons. Weisfeld came to the flat while we were there. I said that I knew him as a friend of Bellot, and he said he had been asked by Bellot to go there and do what he could for Madame, and take her to the prison. Currie asked him if he knew who Bertin was, or Anything about the silks; and he said he knew nothing at all about them. Next day Mr. Lyons and I went to the flat, which was locked up, and after knocking and waiting some little time, I had the door opened. One of the trunks in the hall was locked—the full one—the others were empty. I had the yellow one opened, and Mr. Lyons identified some of the contents; there were other articles found, including some silk which has been identified by Mr. Skelton. There was a white robe in the wardrobe. While there, Cordelier and Da-court came in; the latter remaining downstairs. I fetched her up, and Currie came in at that time and took up the conversation. After Dacourt had been sent to the station, Cordelier made a statement to Currie, which I took down in shorthand, then transcribed it at the station. This was not read over to the girl till she had made a further statement. In consequence of what Cordelier said, Currie and I went to 10, Upper Rathbone Place, where we saw Weisfeld, who was taken to the station. In answer to the charge he said he knew nothing about it. On June 7, Bellot was brought to the station; he had been previously remanded on the Excise charge. Bellot said in answer to the charge: "I know the property. About two weeks ago a lady and gentleman called and asked me if I could let them have a room or lodgings. I told them I could. They had some parcels with them which they asked if they could leave. The yellow trunk was there, and I told them they could put the parcels into it. They unwrapped the parcels and put the silk in the box. They stayed about an hour; but I did not buy the goods." Mr. Skelton was sent for and identified the goods. On June 14 I charged Bellot and Dacourt with stealing and receiving the property of Messrs. Davis. Bellot said the goods were brought to the flat about three weeks before he was arrested, by Louis Bertin, who sold them to Madame for £50. He said the goods were brought in a bag, and the other stuff in wrappers. While Bellot and Dacourt were waiting to be brought before the magistrate they were kept in the corridor; Currie with Dacourt and I with Bellot. While there Currie called to me, saying, in both English and French, "Dacourt now says it was Weisfeld who brought the things to the flat, brought the parcel to the flat." Bellot then said, "Oh no, it was not Weisfeld, it was Bertin who brought it." Then Dacourt
said, "It was not the old man, it was Bertin." On June 19 I took a flower-pattern petticoat from Dacourt which she had been wearing. When Bellot was searched I found a padlock key that fitted the lock of the room at 40, Upper Rathbone Place, a cheque book on the Charing Cross Bank (produced). One counterfoil is dated March 3, "self £100"; another one May 23, "self £180," with the word "gold" across it. There was also a list of rings on him, corresponding to those found at Harrods Stores, and the jewellery identified by Madame Lemonier; also a list of jewellery with prices in pencil; with the letters "Herm." Immediately underneath that is "two watches, one ladies' and one gents'." There was also found on him some lists of silk, a pearl necklet, some rings, and a pin, and some receipts referring to Chancery Lane Safe Deposit. I went there and found various articles, including a lady's gold purse bag, and some Russian bonds—£500 or £600 worth. After Weisfeld's arrest I went back to Upper Rathbone Place and received from Mrs. Lewis the two watches produced. In Bellot's room I found on the mantelpiece a revolver, also goldsmith's scales. There was a bed in the room, but it did not look as if it was occupied. There were also various letters of Mme. Dacourt's, and other articles. A list of the Jewellery found was sent to the French police, and afterwards the articles were photographed and photos sent over, and on July 9 Mme. Lemonier came to London and identified her property. On July 10 the three prisoners were charged with being in possession of this jewellery stolen in Paris. Bellot said he bought the jewellery from George Roland at the Debenham auction rooms, for £130, about May 23; he said Madame knew nothing about it; that when she visited him in prison he told her it was not safe to keep it in the rooms, and that she was to put it in a sale at Harrod's. He said he gave the two watches to Weisfeld to sell on commission. "There was no name on the jewellery, and I could not say that it was stolen." The other two said they knew nothing about it being stolen. I have got no information of Mr. Roland.
Cross-examined by Mr. Thorne. After inquiries there is nothing found against Weisfeld. He told me he had been a number of years in England; I think it was 15 or 18. I remember at the police court you wanted to call Weisfeld, but the magistrate suggested not doing to. I did not see Weisfeld give the two watches to Mrs. Lewis; I knew he handed the key. My view of the two of them was rather obstructed. I did not hear him say, "Will you take care of these Packages for me." I could not say when the statements of Cordelier were read over to her; some days after. I had a communication from Bellot asking that Weisfeld should go to see him in prison. I speak French moderately well.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. When I went to the flat on June 4 I spoke to Dacourt in French; she understood me. I did not tell her at that time that the property had been stolen. The safe at Harrod's was taken in the name of Dacourt, but with a different Christian name.
Re-examined. Susanne said the parcels had been brought to King Street the previous Wednesday week; that would be May 22. On our first visit to the hat we only remained about quarter of an hour. Observation was kept on the place between June 4 and 5.
Sergeant JOHN CURRIE. I went with Draper to 35, King Street, on June 4. I took the ticket from one of the pieces of silk. On the 5th I was also at the flat. I told Dacourt in French that she would be arrested for stealing silks from Messrs. Lyons. (Witness corroborated Sergeant Draper as to Dacourt's answer and as to the statement of Cordelier.) I went with Draper to 40, Upper Rathbone Place, where we saw Weisfeld. Cordelier's statement was read to him. He replied, "Me steal silks; do you think I would? Look at my place." It was a very poor place. I said, "Bellot has a room in this house and you engaged it for him." Weisfeld admitted that. I afterwards saw Mrs. Lewis; but did not see anything pass between her and Weisfeld. The latter was taken to the station. When Cordelier's statement was told to Dacourt she said, "I know nothing about it; Weisfeld did not bring the silk to the flat; it was Bertin." Weisfeld had £19 10s. upon him; he said that was what he dealt with. On June 14, before prisoners were brought into court, I was in the passage with Dacourt, Draper being with Bellot, when Dacourt said, "I have stolen nothing." I said, "You hear what Cordelier said; it was Weisfeld brought the silks into the flat, and you were there. "She then said, "Yes, Weisfeld brought the parcels to the flat and gave them to Antoine; I didn't see what they were, and had nothing to do with it." I called Draper and told him what she said. Bellot put up his hand, and shook it, and said, "That is not true; Weisfeld was not there; it was Bertin." I made a note a day or two afterwards; I have a copy of it here. (Mr. Thorne and Mr. Fulton objected to the note being read.) I made a note at the time of what Dacourt said; not what I said, nor what Bellot said. On June 19 Dacourt said to me, "I am in this affair for nothing." I told her there would probably be a more serious charge. She replied, "What for? The jewellery you found in the safe; that is not mine. When Antoine was arrested he gave it to me and told me to take care of it, as he did not want it to be found on him; and when I went to him at Brixton he told me to rent a safe at Harrod's, and put it there in my name."
Cross-examined by Mr. Thorne. I have made inquiries about Weisfeld, which were favourable. He told me he had been about 30 years in England. He has said the two watches were given him to Bellot to sell on commission of 5 per cent. I thoroughly understand French. It is possible, but not very probable, that a French person might misunderstand me; it would all depend on the person. I did not confront two of the prisoners in this case. It was not my intention that they should be brought together in the corridor of the court; I believe Bellot moved closer to Dacourt. I am certain that in that conversation in the corridor the word "Weisfeld" was used
by Dacourt, not "le vieux" nor "un vieux." When I repeated to her Cordelier's statement it was not with the object of getting an admission; she was continually wishing to discuss the point. I repeated to Draper what she had said, so that he might confirm my evidence; and I expected she would repeat her statement; but she did not; she denied it. When I saw Cordelier on the arrest of Dacourt I asked her what her position was in the flat. She said she was a servant there. I told her I should want to know something more, and asked her to give me all she knew about it. She said, "Are you going to arrest me?" First she said she knew nothing about the things being stolen. I told her I should want a statement, and took her into the bedroom, where she made the statement. She seemed very much afraid she was going to be arrested, and I told her she would not be. I admit it is an improper thing to hold out any idea of reward to a witness or to threaten one. In some circumstances I do not know that it is so very improper. I deny that I told Cordelier she must be a witness or we would shut her up the same as Madame. I have had several conversations with Cordelier since the case came on here; not particularly about the case. I do not remember discussing her evidence at the police court.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. It was on my second visit to the flat, on June 5, that I told Dacourt the silks had been stolen. The observations of Dacourt in the corridor were not in answer to a question of mine.
Inspector JOSEPH SIMMONS, D Division. I received the key of the safe at Harrod's from Currie, and went to that place, finding, a quantity of jewellery, 29 rings, five brooches, five pairs of earrings, five gold watches, and five pendants, the same as produced here and spoken to by Mme. Lemonier. It was packed in tissue paper and a handkerchief, with the mark M., on it, 568 in black ink. I found another key which fitted a safe at Chancery Lane. There I went and found a quantity of Russian bonds, a gold sovereign purse, and other things. These things had nothing to do with this case.
Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. The jewellery was valued at about £300.
Cross-examined. It is quite possible he may have been sleeping there without my knowing it. I do not let furnished rooms. He might have slept there every night without my knowing it. He always behaved himself properly.
After I was married I went to the goldfields and lost my money. This is my first appearance in a criminal court. I carried on the business of selling jewellery on commission. My name is as good as the Bank of England in Hatton Garden. Very often I bought goods to sell again. I have known Bellot for nine or 10 years. He brought these watches (produced) to me and said, "Hermann, can you sell them?" He wanted 45s. for this one. I said they would not fetch it; I would take it for £2 on commission; and he said I should. This other one is not one that I had; it is similar. I would not have taken the watches in my hand if I had known they were stolen. The watch D produced is not worth more than 30s. I had the watches four or five days, and was just going to give them back to Bellot when this affair happened. I never brought the silk to 35, King Street. I have never had anything like it. It is a conspiracy with those women, or they may be mistaken. I do not know Bertin.
Cross-examined. I got the two watches on the Saturday before I was arrested; I would not be sure. It was four or five days before I was arrested. The watchmaker had them for a day. I had no other jewellery from Bellot. I had some wirings many, many months ago. (Witness perused a list of jewellery.) The watches here, £2 and £1, I have not had. I know a great many people in the trade in Hatton Garden. I never keep any account of the goods I sell because I am a bad writer. I did not ask Bellot where he got the watches from; it would not be fair; I had known him so long. I knew Bellot as a dealer in jewellery. There are plenty of people in Hatton Garden who get other people to sell their goods on commission. I never saw any other jewellery that Bellot had. He gave me an address at Charing Cross Mansions; I went there once and he was gone. The next time he came to me he said he had moved to 35, King Street. During May I was calling there; to ask if he had anything to sell; same as he called on me. One day he told me my landlady had a room empty, and asked me to inquire if it was to let. I did so; there were two rooms to let, and he took one. It would have been impudence for me to ask him what he used it for. I believe I was only in his room once. I have never taken a lady to his flat. If I had been able to speak in the police court, I should not be standing here. I never gave 3d. to the girl Cordelier. I have had wine myself at the flat, but not with a lady. I do not believe I have spoken to Cordelier. Sergeants Currie and Draper never showed me a paper; never read anything to me. On May 22 I did not go to 35, King Street. On that day, at 11 or 12, I went to Hatton Garden—I generally stop there till 5 or 5.30; from there I walked home. I went to the Scala Theatre. The ticket was found on me at Brixton Prison. I do not know where I was on the 23rd. I do not think I went to Bellots flat. I have seen Mme. Philemon only once I believe; I do not know whether it was in King Street or Selwood Terrace. She may have seen me once or twice; that is the most. I have never had a wrong word with her. I only talk a few words of French. I never
said, "How is it that the silks are still here." I was at the flat in the morning, when the place was closed; also in the evening about 5.30; it still was closed. When I came from my supper the door was shut; I pulled the bell, no answer. I waited about quarter of an hoar, and it was about eight o'clock when Mme. Dacourt came along, behind her the servant; then behind came Mme. Philemon. I asked them where they had been all day. I have never seen any silk taken out of the trunk. I am as innocent in the business as a child.
ANTOINE BELLOT (prisoner, on oath). I have been in this country 14 years. For 10 years I have been a dealer in jewellery in Hatton Garden and the auction rooms. I buy sometimes £200 or £300 worth a month. I have not been in trouble before this, except being fined in connection with spirits. I made Dacourt's acquaintance about 18 months ago, meeting her in the Alhambra. She afterwards became my mistress. I was at that time living with my brother in South Kensington. Madame was living at Charing Cross—Gloucester Mansions. We took a house in Selwood Terrace, Madame coming to live with me. I paid the rent and all expenses. We remained about a year; then Madame went to Charing Cross Mansions, and I took a little room in Upper Rathbone Place. Madame had a flat at 35, King Street, and I continued to support her, giving her £3 or £4 a week, and she used to do dressmaking sometimes. In regard to the first lot of silk, Mr. Bertin was a traveller, whom Madame knew, and she bought of him sometimes; he came to Selwood Terrace first, and showed some blouses and samples of silk, and asked me if I could sell some. I said I did not know anybody, but if he gave me the samples I would show it to somebody. He gave me the samples and the list. I took a copy of it with the samples and went to Mme. Marcelle in Greek Street. She did not buy it. I told her it was not mine. I had seen Bertin in Gloucester Mansions and two or three times in Selwood Terrace. I know he has been living in Long Acre. He said he got his silk from Lyons. He came to King Street and showed Madame the samples, saying he had over 300 metres, and she could have it for £50. so she bought it. She asked me for £20, which I gave her, and she paid him £32 cash. She had more money, but did not want to pay that; so he said it did not matter, he was not afraid about being paid. Madame wanted a petticoat and tea gown made; this was done by Marcelle. In regard to the second lot of silk, about May 24 or 25, Bertin came with his wife, about six or seven in the evening. The servant answered the door, and she brought up a parcel, Bertin and his wife also bringing one up. He said he had sold his furniture in Long Acre, and wanted a room. I said the room was occupied by the servant, and Madame would not let him have it. He said he would leave the parcels there, so he unpacked them, and asked me if Madame wanted anything. I said no. He asked if I had a box to put it in, and I told him there was an empty one. His wife and I helped him to put the things in the box, after which he had a glass of wine with me and his wife. He
said he would fetch the stuff back as soon as he had got a flat. Cordelier brought the wine; I do not know if anything was given her. The silk remained there till the police came. Referring to the jewellery, I met a man in the auction named George Roland, another dealer, whom I have known a few years—he does all the auction rooms. I arranged to buy jewellery from him for £130; five brooches, 39 rings, seven watches, and a necklace set with pearls. That jewellery was put in the sewing machine. When Madame came to see me at Brixton I told her she had better put the jewellery into a safe. I told her that before the servant. On May 23 I drew out £180 to pay for this jewellery. I bought a stone ring also, for £50, which made £180; and as the man wanted gold I went to the bank at once and got it; but afterwards he would not let me have the ring, saying it was £55. I paid him £100 in gold and £30 in notes, and had £80 on me when arrested in connection with the spirits. Madame had nothing to do with obtaining the jewellery. I gave two watches to Weisfeld five or six days before my arrest. I have known him about 10 years, and had dealings with him very often. I gave him the watches for £3 10s. on commission. What he has said about them is true. I did not know that the silk or jewellery had been stolen. When I bought the latter I looked at the lists, and no description was given of the missing articles. When I buy things from a dealer I always look at the lists.
Cross-examined. In 1901 I took a place at 64, Gower Street; I was there four years. I was fined £20 in connection with that, but I was away at the seaside. (Mr. Fulton objected to questions relating to character being put.) Weisfeld has visited me at Gower Street. When Mme. Bertin came with her husband, I had not seen her before; she was not a friend of Mme. Dacourt. The wrappers of the jewellery were put in the box with it. The parcels were undone in the flat. I did not look to see if there was any address on the parcel. I did not take any notice about Bertin unpacking the goods, and did not look in the paper. He brought them there because he wanted the room. His address was in Long Acre; I do not know the number. I did not see any money given to the servant Cordelier. I do not know what the second lot of silk was; I know there was some lace in it. I told Draper and Currie to inquire about Berlin's address. At the end of March I showed Marcelle Brines some samples—but not the goods—and asked her if she would buy the stuff, as I knew somebody who had it, that was Bertin. He had come to us to show the samples. At the end of April I took 14 yards of the white silk to Mme. Brines; that was not out of the 300 yards. I cannot say what Roland's address is. He is middle sired, dark, and about 35; a Dutchman. I did not ask him where he got the jewellery; I have seen him with several hundred pounds sometimes. I found no marks on the jewellery before I bought it. The list produced has my writing on it. "Herm" is Hermann. The earrings mentioned refer to a long time
ago. I am sure the jewellery does not correspond with the articles in this list. I had three articles in April. I did not hand the jewellery to Dacourt. I did not keep the numbers of the notes I gave to Roland; I got them in Hatton garden. The pawnbroker's list I had from a friend, who keeps a shop, the same day as I bought the jewellery. I looked at the lists for the whole month of May, not one only. If I do not find the articles in the gazette, I am justified is buying them.
(Thursday, August 1.)
Verdict: Weisfeld, not guilty; Bellot and Dacourt, guilty.
Detective-sergeant DRAPER, recalled, deposed that on January 9, 1901, Bellot was convicted of keeping a brothel and fined £20 and £5 5s. costs; there was a similar conviction in 1904. On November 19 last he was arrested in this country for extradition on a charge of stealing bonds within the jurisdiction of the French Republic, but the magistrate thought there was not sufficient evidence against him, and refused to extradite him, and he was discharged. He was sentenced in France in his absence to 20 years' imprisonment for alleged frauds. He is suspected of being a receiver of property stolen in England and abroad, and he is a close associate of foreign criminals. Not only is he a receiver of stolen property, but he has been engaged in the "White slave" traffic. With regard to the prisoner Dacourt, her real name is Levite . She is a native of Boulogne; she has lived with other men besides Bellot, and has been convicted at Marlborough Street as a disorderly prostitute, but there has been so far no allegatice of dishonesty against her.
Mr. Thorne (speaking as amicus curia, having taken his Degree of Law in the University of Paris) informed the Court that, according to the French law, in the case of an accused person convicted par Contumace, the conviction was annulled immediately on the accused surrendering to the jurisdiction, no matter what the crime was, and he was then retried.
Sentence: Bellot, five years' penal servitude; as to Dacourt, judgment respited to next sessions. On two further indictments for receiving property knowing it to have been stolen, no evidence was offered against Wesisfeld, and a verdict of not guilty was returned.
Judge Rentoul had brought before him the conduct of Detective sergeants Draper and Currie; he said that he was convinced that no shadow of complaint had been proved against either of these officers, and they had both noted extremely well throughout the case.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Tuesday, July 23.)
Mr. Sydney Williams prosecuted.
Detective-sergeant Marshall stated that prisoner was for 16 years in the Metropolitan Police Force, but was discharged for insobriety, without a pension, and had since followed the occupation of a scarf folder. He was married, and had a son aged 34, who had been blind from birth, and a daughter 26 or 27 years of age. Prisoner's statement was to the effect that he broke the window because he was out of work. None of the jewellery was touched.
The Recorder directed that prisoner should be bound over in the sum of £10 to be of good behaviour.
Mr. Ramsey prosecuted; Mr. Leycester defended.
Prisoner married in 1885 and lived with his wife until 1905, when she went off with somebody else. The second marriage took place on June 3 of this year. He informed the woman Wride that there was a doubt about his wife being dead, but she, nevertheless, consented to go through the form of marriage. He described himself in the certificate as a widower. He was arrested on his own confession. He had served in the Navy and had satisfactory discharges.
Prisoner was released on his own recognisances in £25 to come up for judgment when called upon. The Recorder said he would approach the authorities with an expression of opinion that this was a case in which prisoner's pension should not be forfeited.
SMITH, John (20, labourer) pleaded guilty , to breaking and entering the shop of Albert James Garwood at 19, High Street, Stratford, and stealing therein a watch and a cycle frame, his property, and confessed to a previous conviction.
Sentence, Three months' imprisonment.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE DARLING. (Wednesday, July 24.)
Sir Charles Mathews and Mr. Arthur Gill prosecuted. Mr. W. S. M. Knight defended.
Prisoner pleaded guilty to manslaughter. That plea was accepted by the Crown, and a verdict of Not Guilty on the charge of murder was returned.
Edward Riley Deveson was the prisoner's father. On the night in question prisoner came home under the influence of drink, and insisted upon playing the piano. As it was past midnight his father and mother asked him to desist, but he declined, and ultimately in a
scuffle struck his father on the side of the face. His father went to fetch a policeman, and on returning with an officer he fell dead. He had suffered from an advanced stage of heart disease, and his death was due to shock. Some years ago the prisoner was sentenced to two months' imprisonment for assaulting his father, and on another occasion he was bound over in his own recognisances in the sum of £5 for another assault upon him. There were several other convictions against him. It was stated that if his father had been in good health no serious effects would have resulted from the blow. Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Wednesday, July 24.)
Mr. Ramsey prosecuted.
WILLIAM IRVINE , Upton Park-Road. On June 25 my little sister, aged 11 years, came and told me that father (prisoner) was knocking mother about. On the way to father's house I met mother. She was crying and holding her head. I asked her what was the matter and afterwards went to father's house and found him sitting behind the kitchen door. He had been' drinking. I asked him what he meant by knocking mother about, and he asked me what it had to do with me. I told him I would serve him the same as he had served mother. He took up a table knife, and in the scuffle I got a cut across the back of the left wrist. When I found I was cut I ran downstairs. I was bleeding very much. I had no power in that hand, which seemed to drop. Mother came along with me. A policeman stopped me in the street noticing I was bleeding. I was not inclined to tell him at the first on set, but when he came towards the house I told him what had happened. He took me to the doctor, and the doctor tied the hand up. My father does drink. I did not.
To Prisoner. When I came in, I struck you on the jaw and knocked you clean over. It is not true that when I came in you had a table-knife in your hand, and that in striking you I ran up against it.
AGNES IRVINE , 57, Walford Road, Upton Park. On June 25 my husband (prisoner) came home drunk about half-past eleven, and in a very bid temper. He commenced to quarrel with me and to pitch things about, and my little girl went for my son. When he commenced to throw things about I asked him to get to bed, but he got wilder and attempted to strike me. When my son came be went upstairs, and I saw him struggling with my husband. My husband
had a knife, and I tried to get it from him. I saw my son bleeding and took him downstairs. I got a blow in the struggle. I was stabbed in the breast and my son in the hand. A neighbour downstairs picked up the knife and went out into the street and got a doctor for my son, and he went to hospital.
To Prisoner. You stabbed me in the struggle in trying to get the knife from you.
To the Recorder. No one but prisoner had a knife.
MARIA KLAPPENECKER , 57, Walford Road. I reside in the flat below that occupied by prisoner and his wife. I remember June 25. The first intimation I had of any trouble going on was that Mrs. Irvine called me upstairs. I saw Mr. Irvine using a knife. He stabbed his son. I also saw him stab his wife in the chest when she was trying to get the knife away from him. When the knife was taken away I picked it up and ran downstairs. Prisoner was drunk; he was often drunk.
FRANCIS WILLIAM FALCONER , house surgeon at West Ham Hospital. The witness, William Irvine, when brought in had an incised wound at the back of the left wrist which severed the tendons of the four fingers. No arteries of any size were injured, but one large vein was injured and several smaller ones. He had lost a considerable amount of blood. We hope he will be able to use his hand again, but I cannot say definitely that he will. An operation was performed the same day. It was six weeks before he was able to get about again. To cause the injuries would require a straight cut with a long knife with considerable force, especially with the knife produced.
Detective-sergeant JAMES EDWARDS. I arrested prisoner on June 28 and charged him with feloniously wounding his son. The wife was a separate charge. Prisoner said, "My wife and I were quarrelling. She sent for my son, who came to my house and asked me what I was doing. He struck me a blow on he nose and knocked me down. He then took a knife off the table and threw it at me, saying, 'There, take that; it is what you are more used use. 'He took out his pocket knife and tried to open it with his teeth." At the station when charged he made no reply. He was wearing a cardigan jacket which was greatly stained with blood. There was a great deal of blood about. The place was like a slaughter-house. Prisoner's nose was bruised, and there was a quantity of blood in his nostrils. Prisoner accounted for his injuries by stating that his son had struck him in the face. Prisoner had been drinking.
Mr. Ramsey said he proposed to prove that prisoners injuries were caused subsequently at the place where he was employed.
EDWARD COX said he was employed at the same works as prisoner, who was engaged as a caulker in the Rotherhithe Tunnel. He saw prisoner on June 27, about quarter past six, and there were no marks on his face at that time. A man struck Irvine in the face because he thought Irvine had been speaking about him. That blow left a cut across the cheek.
Verdict, Guilty of unlawfully wounding William Irvine. The other indictment was not proceeded with, but remains on the file of the Court.
Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Monday, July 29.)
Mr. Bodkin prosecuted.
Detective Sergeant ALBERT CHATT, Richmond. On June 20. 1904, prisoner was convicted at this court of perjury and sentenced four years' penal servitude.
Sergeant WILLIAM POOLNY, 41 V. On May 18 last prisoner came to me at Richmond Police Station and notified her change of address to 10, Hermitage Road. On June 17 I was on duty at the station between 6 am. and 9 a.m.; prisoner did not call between those hours.
HARRY BARNARD , Convict Supervision Office, Scotland Yard. Prisoner was released on April 19. I saw her on that day and made her to thoroughly understand her duties at to reporting herself. The last report on the records is the one she made on May 29, a change from No. 10 to No. 13, Hermitage Road. There is no report on or after June 17. On July 11 I was at the Home Office and saw prisoner, who was making some inquiries there. I recognised her and took her to the station, when the was charged with failing to report. She elected to be sent for trial.
To prisoner. At the station you said, "This is a trumped up charge to hinder me from being at the Law Courts to-morrow, where I have a civil action."
Mrs. WILEELMINA HART, 13, Hermitage Road, Richmond. Prisoner came to lodge with me on May 29. On the morning of the 17th she left, leaving her latchkey in her room.
Sergeant JAMES NEWLOVE, 80 V, said that he was on duty at Richmond Police Station on June 17, from 9 a.m. to 1.30 p.m., and from 6 p.m to 9 p.m.; prisoner did not call during those hours.
Sergeant WILLIAM BEETLES, 102 V, gave similar evidence covering the time from 1.30 p.m. to 6 p.m.; and Inspector WHITE gave evidence covering 9 p.m. to 1.30 a.m. on June 18.
Police-constable ALBERT COOK, 6 V. On May 29 I was at the station when prisoner called and notified her removal from No. 10
to No. 13, Hermitage Road; I directed her that she must report any further change. I was present when prisoner called on June 15 and saw the inspector; she said, "I have come to make a complaint about one of the female officers from the Convict Supervision Office stopping me in the street and shaking hands with me; she also called at my address three times in one week, and I am about to bring an action against the Commissioner of Police for detaining some of my letters."
To prisoner. On June 15 I did not hear you tell the inspector of a change of address. I was not present all the time you were talking to him; he is not here to-day.
Prisoner's statement before the magistrate: "I wrote to Wontners that I was leaving for a short time; they represent the Commissioner of Police, against whom I was proceeding in an action for swearing a false affidavit. The clerk said he would notify Scotland Yard. I petitioned and my family petitioned for my license to be taken off. I was informed that it had been taken off. I went to the Home Office respecting the matter, as my case was to come on next morning in the Appeal Court. I was to appear in the police court next morning. Mr. Loveland had commented very strongly on the matter, and a month was taken off that he gave. He said the prisoner had earned her liberty by good conduct and industry."
Prisoner called Major Clayton, secretary to the Prison Commissioners; he was not in attendance.
EDGAR BRINE , clerk to the Prison Commissioners (to the prisoner). On July 11 you called at the Home Office and saw the messenger; I do not know whether you asked to sec Major Clayton; you were sent on to me. You requested an order to go to Aylesbury Prison to see a convict there. I asked you your name, and you said, "I am Mrs. Paget, of the Carlton Hotel."
Prisoner said she had no other witnesses; those she wanted had been kept back; she particularly complained of the absence of Major Clayton. The Recorder said she might have secured his attendance, but she had not done so.
Prisoner then addressed the jury (not on oath). She declared that this was "a regular daylight fraud" to prevent civil proceedings. She had been robbed of the letters which were the foundation of her action for breach of promise against Major-General Fitzhugh, and was bringing an action against the Commissioner of Police to recover the letters. When she went to the Home Office on July 11 they knew that there were proceedings coming on the following day, before the Judge in Chambers, and that was why they had her arrested on this charge. The change of abode merely consisted in this: her landlady at No. 13, Hermitage Road, had taken the lock off her door, and she then went back to No. 10, only three doors away; that was the change that she had failed to notify.
Verdict Guilty. Judgment respited till next Session.