Vol. CXLVIII.] [Part 878.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
HELD DECEMBER 10TH, 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.]
THE ARGUS PRINTING COMPANY, LIMITED,
CORNER OF TUDOR STREET AND TEMPLE AVENUE,
On the King's Commission of
OYER AND TERMINER AND GAOL DELIVERY
The City of London,
AND GAOL DELIVERY FOR THE
COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, AND THE PARTS OF THE COUNTIES OF ESSEX, KENT, AND SURREY WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,
Held on Tuesday, December 10th, 1907, and following days.
Before the Right Hon. Sir JOHN CHARLES BELL , Knight, Alderman, LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir WILLIAM GRANTHAM , Knight, and the Hon. Sir CHAS. JOHN DARLING , Knight, Justices of His Majesty's High Court; Sir JOHN WHITTAKER ELLIS, Bart., Sir MARCUS SAMUEL , Bart., Sir H. G. SMALLMAN, Sir WALTER H. WILKIN, K.C.M.G., FEEDE. PRATT ALLISTON, Esq., and Lieut.-Col. F. S. HANSON, 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 and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.
CHARLES CHEERS WAKEFIELD, Esq.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
BELL, MAYOR. SECOND SESSION.
LONDON AND MIDDLESEX CASES.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Tuesday, December 10.)
Twenty-two previous convictions were proved (including two terms of five years' penal servitude) for larceny, assault, etc.
Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.
LETTS, William George, on November 20, 1907 (p. 31), pleaded guilty of having been entrusted with certain property—to wit, the sum of £71 16s.—for and on account of the Rev. William Barker, did fraudulently convert the same to his own use and benefit, prisoner having been released on recognisances with a view to restitution. [pleaded guilty.]
Mr. Hawtin stated that prisoner had not yet been able to realize his reversionary interest, but that he hoped shortly to do so. Remanded to next Sessions in custody.
PENNELL, Charles (24, clerk), pleaded guilty of feloniously forging, altering, and uttering certain orders for the payment of money—to wit, on June 7, 1907, a banker's cheque for £6 9s.; on June 14, 1907, a banker's cheque for £6 14s.; on November 1,1907, a banker's cheque for £5; and on November 8, 1907, a banker's cheque for £5 19s., in each case with intent to defraud.
It was stated that prisoner had forged 46 different cheques, amounting to an aggregate of £1,099.
Sentence, 10 months' hard labour.
PAGE, George (45, labourer), pleaded guilty of attempting to obtain by false pretences from Headley May one piece of serge, with intent to defraud; obtaining by false pretences from Walter Austin 41 yards of serge; and obtaining by false pretences from Ernest Drake 42 1/2 yards of serge, in each case with intent to defraud; forging and uttering a certain order for the delivery of goods—to wit, one piece of serge, with intent to defraud; also of being convicted of felony at Clerkenwell on July 12, 1904.
Five previous convictions were proved dating from April, 1893, for housebreaking and larceny. The police stated that prisoner had been attempting to get a living and that he had been suffering from illness. Prisoner was told that a further appearance before a criminal court would undoubtedly be followed by a sentence of penal servitude. Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.
PYE, Arthur (39, porter), pleaded guilty of stealing a post letter containing the sum of 5s. and six penny postage stamps, the property of the Postmaster-General, he being employed under the Post Office.
It was stated that he had served eight years in the Army in India and that in 1899 he had been called up from the Reserve and served three years during the South African War, his discharges being marked "Exemplary." The Rev. Harry Stirling Woolcomb, of the Oxford University Settlement, gave prisoner a good character; and Joseph William Haydon, of Haydon and Sons, builders and contractors, also gave prisoner a good character and was willing to give him employment.
The Recorder said that, while giving the fullest effect to the recommendations, in view of prisoner's position in the Post Office it was impossible to act as he might have done otherwise. Sentence, Three months' imprisonment in the second division.
DOGGETT, Richard (25, groom), pleaded guilty of stealing a post letter, containing a postal order for 2s., the sum of 2s., four penny postage stamps, and other articles, the goods and moneys of the Postmaster-General, he being employed under the Post Office; stealing from a post packet the sum of 4s., the moneys of the Postmaster-General, he being employed under the Post Office.
Sentence, Six months' hard labour.
GRAHAM, John (35, tailor), pleaded guilty of breaking and entering the warehouse of Harriet Elizabeth Cooke and stealing therein 776 pairs of gloves, her goods; breaking and entering the warehouse of William Thomas Oakley, and stealing therein one coat, one vest, and other articles, his goods.
Four previous convictions were proved for larceny. Prisoner was warned that the next conviction would be followed by penal servitude.
Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.
LOXTON, Frederick William (35, clerk), pleaded guilty of obtaining by false pretences from divers persons certain property—to wit, two stamps of the value of 17s. 6d., from Arthur George Parr; one stamp of the value of 20s., from Alfred Ernest Kendrick; and two stamps of the value of £2 from George John Fairfoot, in each case with intent to defraud; forging and uttering a certain order for the delivery of goods—to wit, two engrossed stamps, value £2, with intent to defraud.
Prisoner was convicted on September 12, 1905, of forgery, receiving 18 months' hard labour, before Darling, J., when he was warned that he was on the border line of penal servitude. Sentence, Three years' penal servitude.
Sentence, Two years' hard labour.
Prisoner was married in 1897 to a German, shortly alter which the husband was sent to penal servitude. Prisoner stated that she had informed Locke that she had been married and that her husband had told her she was not legally married to him under German law.
Sentence, One day's imprisonment.
HINDLE, Walter (54, clerk) , embezzling the several sums of £9 2s. 3d., £9 18s. 3d., and £33 16s. 6d. received by him for and on account of William Johnson Goddard, his master; forging certain acquittances and receipts for money—to wit, for the sums of £9 18s. 3d., and £33 16s. 6d., with intent to defraud the said William Johnson Goddard, his master; altering and falsifying certain accounts belonging to the said William Johnson Goddard, his matter, with intent to defraud.
Prisoner pleaded guilty of embezzlement, but not guilty of forging and altering. It was stated that he had stolen upwards of £700.
Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.
Prisoner admitted having been convicted at North London Sessions on November 27, 1904, for burglary, receiving six months' hard labour. He was stated to have since been in the Army and discharged with a very bad character, having there been sentenced to 98 days imprisonment.
Sentence, Three years' penal servitude.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Tuesday, December 10.)
SOLOMONS, Lewie, who at the October Sessions was released on an undertaking not to repeat the publishing of a false and defamatory libel of and concerning Stephen Pagden Child, came before the Court in pursuance of the application made at the previous Session p. 32), on account of there having been a breach of the undertaking given on his behalf by his Counsel. The breach complained of was contained in a letter written on November 6 to Mr. Child stating that judgment would fall upon him from another quarter, and this was held to be a persevering in the defamatory statements made.
Mr. S. T. Evans, K.C., M.P., and Mr. Muir appeared for the prosecution. Prisoner was undefended.
Mr. Solomons described the affair as a storm in a tea-cup, and, leaving himself unreservedly in the hands of the Court, declared that he had no intention of acting in a way that might be considered disrespectful and apologised for having written the letter complained of.
The Common Serjeant recorded his decision in writing as follows:
"The defendant expressing his regret that he has, in the letter of November 6, 1907, used expressions which the Court thinks are inconsistent with the undertaking given by his Counsel with his authority, the Court makes no order."
CONNELL, Stephen (31, barber), and GRANT, George (36, porter), both pleaded guilty of uttering counterfeit coin, well knowing the same, to be counterfeit; also having possession of 42 counterfeit florins; and previous convictions for coining. There were numerous convictions for various offences against both prisoners. Sentences: Connell, Five years' penal servitude; Grant, four pears' penal servitude.
Mr. Sands prosecuted.
ETHEL STEVENS . I help my uncle, who is a baker, at 20, The Pavement, Clapham Common. On Monday, November 18, I was in the front shop about 12 o'clock, when prisoner came in and asked for three meat pies of the value of 2d. each. He tendered in payment the counterfeit five-shilling piece produced. After I had had it in my hand I found my thumb was black. I said to him, "I do not think this coin is good," and he said, "Is not it" I said I would go and see. I showed it to my uncle, who was in the kitchen at the back of the shop. Prisoner was left alone in the shop not more than two minutes. When my uncle returned with me he said to prisoner, "Where did you get this from?" and he replied, "What is that to you? Mind your own business, or you will hear more about it. I can whistle a few more in to you." Uncle then sent for a policeman. There is a policeman on the beat within about five minutes' walk of the shop.
SAMUEL FRANCIS STEVENS , baker, 20, The Pavement, Clapham Common. I remember my niece bringing me a coin on Monday, November 18. After looking at it I went through the shop and asked prisoner where he got it. He replied, "What is that to do with you? Mind your own business or you will know more about it. I can soon whistle two or three more in." I sent for a constable.
duty, about 250 yards away. Stevens produced the counterfeit coin and said prisoner had tried to pass it in payment for some meet pies. I asked prisoner where he got it, and he said he got it over the water on Saturday night in part change for half a sovereign he had been saving up. On searching him I found a charm, a Hanoverian coin and 1 1/2 d. in bronze. In answer to the charge he said, "I did not change that coin knowingly. I thought it was all right." I asked him for his address, and he gave me one in Heman Street, Wandsworth. At the station he gave another address at 17, Vauxhall Walk.
Mr. Sands said he was afraid he could not carry the case any further.
The Common Serjeant pointed out to the Jury that there was no evidence that prisoner knew the coin to be bad and directed a verdict of Not guilty.
The Jury returned a verdict accordingly.
WHITELEY, Alfred; MCCARTHY, John; KIDD, Robert; WALSH, Michael; CLARKE, Walter Alfred (39, printer), and BOKENHAM, Philip Fleming (82, printer) ; all conspiring and agreeing together and with divers other persons to print and cause to be printed for sale divers sheets of music in which there was then subsisting copyright, without the consent of the proprietors thereof, and unlawfully conspiring to sell and having in their possession for sale the said music without such consent, and conspiring together to defraud and injure the said proprietors and to deprive them of the profits arising from their property in the said copyright McCarthy, Kidd, and Walsh were also indicted for larceny.
Mr. R. D. Muir and Mr. Houston appeared for the prosecution; Mr. H. Black and Mr. A. C. Fox Davies defended Kidd, McCarthy, and Walsh.
(THE CASE AGAINST KIDD AND WALSH FOR LARCENY.)
Mr. Muir submitted for the prosecution that the sailing or conversion of the various pieces of music by Kidd and Walsh amounted to larceny at common law. The Musical Copyright Act of 1906 was passed because the Act of 1902 had been found ineffectual, and it bad been found necessary to prosecute persons acting in combination in the disposal of pirated music, for conspiracy. The offences could only be proved where a number of persons were found acting together in a criminal combination. The method of prosecution had been upheld, both before the learned judge presiding in this Court and before Mr. Justice Walton at the Leeds Assises. The system of fines provided for by the Act of 1906 not having proved effectual recourse was now had to the provisions of the Act of 1842, 5 and 6 Victoria, cap. 45. By virtue of that Act it was contended that a person dealing with pirated copies, though the ownership was never vested in the true owners of the copyright, committed a trespass, of which remedy was open by action, and the person committing such a trespass, if he converted the property to his own use by selling it, committed a felonious trespass and a larceny at common law. If, for example, a person accidentally borrowed an umbrella on a wet day from a club stand and took it away, that would not be larceny, but trespass, but if the person converted it to his own use by
selling it to a necessitous friend that would be larceny. That proposition was illustrated in the case of Regina v. Charles Riley (Dearsley's Crown Cases, p. 149), where the defendant having inadvertently driven away from a field with a flock of his own black-faced lambs a white-faced lamb, which he afterwards sold, though he knew he had no right to it, was held to have committed larceny, though he had not done so at the time of committing the trespass.
The common Serjeant. Where do you make out any trespass? I do not quite understand your contention.
Mr. Muir. The trespass is in dealing with these goods at all, which the moment they are created become the property of the owners of the copyright.
The Common Serjeant. They never were in their possession. I do not at present see any larceny in it. If you think it worth while we will hear some of the evidence.
Mr. Muir. I regard it as of great importance to establish this if it can be established.
The Common Serjeant. Perhaps it will be best to hear the facts.
WALTER STEPHEN LINFORD , 44, Nelson Street, Commercial Road. I have in the past dealt in pirated music. I was instructed by Mr. Arthur Preston, of the Music Publishers' Association, to make some purchases of pirated music, and on July 3 I went to Chapel Street, Liverpool Road, for that purpose. In Chapel Place I saw Kidd and Walsh, and asked them if they had any music. Finally, I bought some stuff and took it to Mr. Preston at Queen's Hall. On August 14 I went to the same place and bought another parcel of music, which I also took to Mr. Preston. On that occasion Walsh wrote the following address on a piece of card: "Bob, 50, Liverpool Road, Islington." I had previously told him that I was going into the country and asked him for an address to which I could send to get some "stuff" (pirated music). On September 13 I saw Kid and Walsh, together with McCarthy. I saw also a man named Watford, whom I know as a dealer in both pirated and copyright music. I bought some pirated music that day of Kidd. Walsh gave me the "stuff," which I took to Mr. Preston at Queen's Hall. Watford also got a parcel of music. It was brought to him at the same time that I got mine. Kidd wrote out Watford's order at the side of the urinal. I heard some of it. It contained the names of a number of songs. Kidd also wrote out an order for me. Walsh was not present when the lists were written. Kidd went away with the orders and Walsh, in about half an hour, brought the music ordered, done up in parcels and contained in a sack. Watford went away with his parcel on his machine (bicycle) and was caught by two of the association's men named Mabel and Briebach. On several subsequent occasions I bought parcels of music from Kidd, which were delivered to me by Walsh. In each case I gave up the parcel to Mr. Preston.
ARTHUR PRESTON . I am employed by the Music Publishers' Association, Queens Hall, Langham Place. In accordance with instructions I gave Linford in July, he from time to time handed me parcels of music. A parcel he handed me on July 31 contained 46 pieces of pirated music. The card with "Bob, 50, Liverpool Road," was handed to me on August 14. I gave a note of it to Mabe, one of
my assistants. On September 13 Linford handed me a parcel containing 50 pieces of pirated music. He subsequently handed me other parcels, all of which contained pirated music. I myself did some watching in the neighbourhood of Chapel Street. On August 1 I was watching there. I saw walsh in White Lion Street, coming from the direction of Chapel Street. Chapel Place runs out of Chapel Street. Walsh crossed Liverpool Road into Pentonville Road. He was carrying a sack, with parcels in it, and went into Myers' receiving office, Pentonvile Road. When he came out the sack was empty, rolled up underneath his arm. I followed him to Chapel Place, where he was met by Kidd, with whom he had conversation. On September 6 I was in Pentonville Road, at half past two, and saw Walsh coming along with a sack full of parcels from the direction of chapel Street. He went to Myers' receiving office in Pentonville Road and came out with the sack empty. He afterwards met Kidd at the corner of Liverpool Road. On September 11 I saw Kidd and walsh together at the corner of st. John's Street, outside the bank. On September 13 I went to the coffee shop, 50, Liverpool Road, about 10.50 a.m. Kidd came in about 11 o'clock and was followed by Walsh. They had conversation together and kidd handed some papers to walsh, who then left. I waited at the corner of Chapel Street, and about 11.30 a.m. I saw walsh coming along Liverpool Road, carring a sack about half-full which he conveyed to Chapel Street. I then went to the coffee shop Kidd came out about 11.50 and went to Chapel Street, where he joined Walsh and McCarthy, and they had conversation together. On September 24 I was in Chapel Street about 10 in the morning keeping observation on Mo.12 is kept by a wardrobs-keeper, and he came out of a door partly covered over with dresses, as shown in the photograph produced. The sack appeared to be fairly full. He went with it to Myers' receiving office and afterwards returned with it empty to Chapel Street. I went back to Chapel Street to keep observation on No. 12. At 12.40 Wakes want into No.12 and came out at 12.55 with a sack with a parcel inside. I followed him as far as Penton Street, where I saw Brieback, and left him to follow.
(Wednesday, December 11.)
The Common Serjeant said he had let the case go on in order to see whether there was ny evidence of possession at any stage by the owners of the copyright (Messrs. Chappell) or anybody on their behalf.
Mr. Muir. I submit that is not essential.
The common Serjeant. I do not see how you can support this larceny.
Mr. Muir said the possession in this case was not, of course physical possession, nor need it be the posssession of an agent.
The Common Serjeant. It must be some sort of possession.
Mr. Muir said or course possession was a difficult term in law, and Mr. Justice Stephen laid it down that it was full of contradiction. The way Mr. Justice Stephen put it was this ("Digest of the Criminal Law." Article 306, p. 243, edition 1894); "An immovable thing is said to be in the possession of a person when he is so situated
with respect to it that he has power to deal with it as owner to the exclusion of other persons, and when the circumstances are such that he may be presumed to intend to do so in case of need."
The common Serjeant. That may be right enough as a general rule, but would not cover this case.
Mr. Muir. My lord, I submit it does so.
The Common Serjeant. There is neither power to deal with this nor the intention.
Mr. Muir submitted that in this case the owner was peculiar; he was the creature of the statute, created upon a certain state of things coming into existence—namely, the making of pirated copies by some person without the knowledge of the owner of the copyright, who of course, know nothing about it at the moment.
The Common Serjeant. And therefore has no intention about the particular chattel.
Mr. Muir pointed out that the possession mentioned by Mr. Justice Stephen was that the owner had power to deal with property as "Owner to the exclusion of all other persons and when the circumstances are such that he may be presumed to intend to do so in case of need." In the case of pirated music the owner of the copyright would be entitled to call for its possession as soon as he should become aware of its extistence, and if it was not delivered to him he would be entitled to see for it. Therefore he had all the rights over that property which an ordinary person would have property of which he had had possession and of which he had been deprived.
The Common Serjeant. He has never been deprived; that is the point.
Mr. Muir. No, he never has in fact been deprived of possession, but the statute creates in him at the moment of coming into existence of the pirated copies all the rights of property which a person would have had if he had been deprived of possession and so was entitled to recover. In the case of "Cartwright v. Green" (8 Ves: Junior 405) an executor became entitled to a bureau in which there was a secret drawer which contained money. The executor did not know of the existence of the money at all.
The common Serjeant. He did not know it was in his possession, but it was.
Mr. Muir said the money was never in the physical possession of the executor at all. At the moment the pirated copies came into extence the owner of the copyright was clothed with all the rights of property which a person would have towards a chattel of which he had possession and of the possession of which he had been deprived. Owing to the manner in which the chatiel comes into existence the owner of the copyright never can have physical possession of it, and therefore his rights towards that property for the purposes of the criminal law were, as they would be towards a chattel of which he had been deprived. The true test of whether a person had been guilty of larceny or not was that or the rightful or wrong possession of the chattel stolen. If it was rightful, as in the case of a bailee, he could not be guilty of larceny of it; if it was wrongful at common law the trespasser might be found guilty of larceny as soon as he was guilty of the intention of depriving the true owner of the property as in the case "Regina v. Charles Riley" (Dearsley, p. 149). That was the principle which must govern the dealings of a person with property not his own, and the mere fact that this property being created by statute under the peculiar circumstances existing here where the true owner was kept from knowledge of its existence did not prevent the person who was dealing dishonestly with it from being guilty of the crime larceny. The doctrine of possession was a highly artificial doctrine, and it had been repeatedly held that physical possession was not necessary and that constructive possession was sufficient, as in the case, for example, of larceny by finding. Past possession could have no bearing upon the question of constructive possession. It was the right of possession, the general property in the thing, which created that class of possession in the owner of the chattel which entitled him to proceed for larceny against anybody who interfered with it. Larceny by finding was a good example of constructive possession. If a person found property under circumstances which showed that he did not at that time intend to appropriate it to his own use no subsequent intention to convert it to his own use would make that felony, but if at the time
the property came into the physical custody of the person who found it he intended to appropriate it to own use then that was wrongful possession and he would he guilty of larceny if he appropriated it knowing or believing that he could find the true owner. The question was of very great importance, and should go to the jury to order that there might be a decision upon it by the Court of Crown Cases Reserved, because otherwise the property vested in the owners of the copyright was limited to a way of which the statute gave no indications at all. The statute limited the rights of the owner in one respect, and in one respect only. Before he could was for the recovery of the property he must have demanded it in writing. With an ordinary owner it would be sufficient if he made the demand verbally. If the Act had merely stopped at vesting the property in the owner of the copyright then he could here demanded it verbally and sued for it at once and there would have been no limitation at all. The owner, he submitted, was entitled to all the rights which wan owner of chattels is entitled to, one of them, being that he, having the general ownership of the property, could proceed against any person for larceny who dishonestly dealt with it.
The Common Serjeant was clear that the indictment for lergery could not be supported. Quire apart from the fact that the statute imposed the necessity of making a demand in writing before the owner of the copyright could enforce his civil right, there could be no larceny because the chattel or obattale were never taken away from the owner; there was no taking or carrying away from the owner no depriving him of the chattel. What he was in some sense deprived of, and what the intention was to deprive him of, was the benefit of his intangible right of copyright. In this case the actual pieces of music were never in any sense in the owner's possession actively at constructively nor were they over taken away from him, neither was there that dealing with or depriving him of the chattels which was the essence of larcany. The case of receiving stolen goods was a very good illustration, where the thief stole somebody's goods and the receiver, it might be with guilty knowledge, or with felonious or fraudulent intention, was not guilty of larceny because he did not take the chattel from the possession of the owner. In this case it might he assumed that there was a fraudulent intent to deprive the owner of the copyright of what prisoner could deprive him of the benefit of that which the statute gave him as property, the intangible right to the benefit of these musical compansitions; but there being no possession in any sense, no taking away from the owner, no depriving of any articles which are the subject of laresay, this was not a larceny under the statute, and it was quite different from larceny under the common law.
The jury accordingly returned a verdict of Not guilty on the indictments against Kidd and Watson, and against Kidd and McCarthy, for larceny.
(THE GENERAL CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY.)
ARTHUR PRESTON , chief agent of the Music publishers' Association Queen's Hall, Langham Place. I gave instructions to Alfred Linford on July 31, and as a result of those instructions he brought back 12 pirated copies of "The Merry Widow Walts," and a parcel containing pirated copies of various songs. There is no publisher's name on any of them. They are faceimiles produced by a photographic process. On August 14, I gave Linford some further instruction, and as the result he brought back a parcel containing 74 pirated caries of songs, a list with names of the songs contained in the parcel, and a portion of a cigarette box on which was written, "Bob, 50, Liverpool Road, Islington." On Septemper 11 I gave Linford further instructions, as the result of which he brought back 25 pirated copies of "Thora." On September 12 I gave him further
instructions, but he brought me no parcels that day. On September 13, in consequance of instructions, he brought back a parcel of 50 songs. On September 18 he brought back a parcel of 78 pirated copies of songs. On September 24, in consequence of instruction, he brought me a parcel of 79 pirated copies; on September 26, 25 "Merry Widow Walter." On August 1, 1907, I was keeping observation on 1A, Pentonville Road, Myers' receiving office for parcels. I saw Walsh come from the direction of Chapel Street, across White Lion Street, into Pentonville Road, carrying a canvas sack with parcels in it. He went into Myers' receiving office and came out with the sack empty rolled up under his arm. From there he went to the corner of Market Place, Chapel Street, and there met Kidd. On September 24 I went to 12, Chapel Street. About 12 o'clock Walsh came out of that house with a sack containing parcels. He made his way to Myers' receiving office by various routes, came out with the sack empty, and returned to Chapel Street by way of High Street, Islington. Between 12 and one he went into No. 12, Chapel Street and came out shortly afterwards with a small canvas bag containing parcels. He went up Chapel Street to Penton Street. I there met Briebach, another agent, and left him to follow. On September 13 I saw Walsh coming down Liverpool Road. He was carrying a half-empty sack and went on to Chapel Street with it. I did not follow him as other agents were keeping observation upon him. The same day I saw kidd about 11 o'clock. He went into the coffee shop, 50, Liverpool Road, and was followed by Walsh, and I there saw Kidd hand Walsh some papers. Kidd then went to the back of the shop and I waited at the corner of Chapel Street. About 11.30 I saw Walsh coming along Liverpool Road carrying a sack with something in it. He went towards Chapel Place and I returned to the coffee shop. At 11.50 Kidd came in and went up Chapel Street, where he joined Walsh and McCarthy, and I left them in conversation. On the same day, about 9.45 in the morning, I had seen Linford speaking to McCarthy outside the hotel at the corner of Chapel Street. On August 12 I gave evidence against a man named Chard before the magistrates at Yermouth. 160 pirated copies (Exhibit 16) of songs were the subject of the charge, 67 of which were found at his lodgings. I proved the copyright of them all. On August 21 I attended at Bristol the hearing of a case against Smith, alias Blythe, who was brought up for having in his possession 220 copies of pirated music. I produce there copies and also a further parcel of 200 copies (Exhibits 17 and 18). While in Bristol I went to 39, Newfoundland Street. A parcel of 78 copies of pirated music sent to that address was called for by a man named Kemp, who was subsequently arrested, and that parcel, together with 233 pirated pieces, was handed to me by order of the magistrates (Exhibits 19 and 20). In the parcel Exhibit 19 was the following note, "Sorry we cannot let you have all you ordered, but things are hot up here in London just now and stuff is not so easy to obtain at present. But this is the very best we can do for you this time.—Yours truly, Chicago Bill." On September
27 I went to 12, Chapel Street with Inspector Martin No. 12 is a clothier's shop. The cellar we found to be fixed up with orange boxes, with boards laid across so as to form tables, and 6,632 copies of pirated music, representing 71 different sorts arranged alphabetically on a table near the window. We also found a quantity of blotting paper and what appeared to the some burnt notes in the fire place, also a quantity of labels similar to those on the parcels I have mentioned. There were also some sacks. Afterwards we went to 2, Chapel Place, where prisoner, Robert Kidd, lives. We found eight genuine songs. Looking at a copy of "My Ain Folk." I notice the peculiarity that the copposer's signature has been torn off. Ten pirated copies of that song were found amongst the 6,632 copies found at 12, Chapel Street. another genuine song found at 2, Chapel Place was, It's Different Girl Again," of which 237 pirated copies were found at 12, Chapel Street. Of another genuine song, "By the Side of the Zuyder Zee." 246 pirated copies were found at 12, Chapel Street No pirated copies of the other genuine songs found in Chapel Place were found at No. 12, Chapel Street. The genuine songs "It's a different girl Again" and "By the Side of the Zuyder Zee" show marks as of drawing pins in the corners, which suggests that tracing paper has been put over the originals with a view to taking copies from them. The pirated copies of the three genuine songs are all lithographed. The method of reproduction is to place specially prepared transfer paper over the original copy, pin it down and by means of specially prepared ink, make a tracing of the print, and then transfer the tracing to a stone or a photo-zinco block.
Cross-examined by Mr. Black. I have not seen the process described. I do not suggest the litho reproduction was done at the house. Linford was supplied with funds by the Musical copyright Association. I agree that the labels found are of the commends kind, but they correspond with the labels found on the parcels.
WALTER STEPHEN LINFORD . I formerly dealt in pirated music. On July 31 I was instructed by Mr. Preston to go and buy some. I went to Chapel Street and saw Kidd and asked him if he had any music. He said, "Wait a minute; I will see 'Mike' and let you know." "Mike" (Walsh) came up and wrote out for me a list of music. I got from Walsh a parcel of music. I cannot now remember how much I paid him. The prices of the music ranged from 4s. to 12s. per 100. Exhibit No. 2 is the parcel I got from Walsh on July 31, which I took to Mr. Preston at Queen's Hall. On the same day I saw McCarthy. He was standing just by the corner of Chapel Place. I asked him if he had any "Merry Widow Walts." I had been told he had by a person whom I knew as Jones in Wellington Road. McCarthy said "Yes." I did not get any from him tha day, but next morning he gave me 12 copies of the "Merry Widow" waltz, and I took them to Mr. Preston at Queen's Hall. I do not remember dates, but on the same days that I bought parcels I handed
them over to Mr. Preston. I bought (August 14) a parcel containing 74 pirated copies of music and received the piece of cigarette box with the address, "Bob, 50, Liverpool Road, Islington." I did not see Kidd that day. I paid 5s. for the parcel. As to how I came by the address, I said I was going into the country and I wanted to know where I could get some stuff. Walsh then wrote the address, and I handed that, with the parcel of music, over to Preston. I subsequently received from McCarthy the parcel of 25 pirated copies of "Thora" (September 11). I saw him sitting on a barrow at the corner of Chapel Place. I paid half a crown for them. With regard to the parcel handed over when (September 13) Watford was there, that day I gave my order to Kidd. Kidd wrote it out by the side of the urinal and Walsh gave me the parcel. I paid 3s. for it. Watford was there before me; he was buying some "staff." Kidd wrote the order on a piece of paper which I tore out of my book (produced). The book remained in my possession up till the time that Kidd was arrested, when I handed it over to the police. I returned with the parcel to Mr. Preston at Queen's Hall. I met Briebach, who opened the parcel and took the note out of it. That was just by the "Angel," Islington. Watford was stopped and arrested. The order given Watford was written out by Kidd at the back of the urinal, close by where he wrote mine. I saw Kidd write Watford's order and saw Watford get his parcel, which was handed to him by Walsh in Chapel Place, at the entrance to the urinal. I got mine in the same place. Watford left me at the bottom of Chapel Street, riding his bicycle, and I saw him arrested by Mabe, another agent of the association, and Briebach. With regard to the order said by Preston to have been handed over to him on September 18, I got that from Walsh. Kidd was present when I gave the order, and said, "I will write it out for you." Kidd said to me, "Did you see Watford get his 'stuff' on the Friday morning?"(September 13.) I said, "No." Kidd asked me if I had had some "stuff" the same day, and I said, "Yes." Kidd then spoke about Watford getting caught, and said he could not make out one of us getting caught and not the other. He said, "You both went away together," and I said, "No, I left him at the bottom of Chapel Street. That is how it was I did not get caught." When I asked Kidd, on September 18, if he had got some "stuff" he said, "Yes; all right, you see Mike." I did see Walsh, who wrote the order out and also handed me the "stuff." I paid Walsh for the parcel and took it back to Mr. Preston at Queen's Hall With regard to the parcel said by Preston to have been handed over by me on September 24, I bought it of Walsh. I saw Kidd on that occasion, but not to speak to. I paid Walsh for it and took it to Mr. Preston at Queen's Hall. The parcel containing 25 pirated copies of the "Merry Widow Waltz," stated by Mr. Preston to have been handed over by me on September 26, I received from McCarthy. He got the parcel from No. 12, Chapel Place. I know the house very well, but I could not be sure it is No. 12. It is a
wooden house, a private house, and McCarthy lives there. Kidd's house, No. 2, is almost exactly opposite McCarthy's. I paid McCarthy 2s. 6d. for the parcel. That is the last of my purchases. Kidd, Walsh, and McCarthy were generally together when I went to buy "stuff." I recollect that when I obtained the 25 pirated copies of "Thora" I asked for more "stuff" and McCarthy said they bad not any in then. He asked me to come up the next day, and said there was somebody watching. He said, "They are not going to have me to make the number up." McCarthy got the copies from No. 12, Chapel Place, the wooden house. He did not tell me where he was going to get them from. He said he was going to shift his "stuff" from where he had it. Next morning I saw McCarthy, and asked him if he had any "stuff" and he said, "Yes." I said, "I will come up another morning for your lot. I want some off of Bob this morning." He replied, "Bob ain't about now?" I did not get my "stuff" at once, but had to wait. McCarthy told me to wait down at the bottom of Chapel Street while he went to get the "stuff" he had ordered. I saw him go to the wooden house. On one occasion something was said to me by McCarthy about keys. I cannot remember the date, but it was on a day I wanted some "stuff" off "Bob" (Kidd). He said he could not get the keys off "Bob," as he was going to do the country orders up himself that morning.
To Mr. Black. I cannot think of all the dates, but my memory as to times and places is accurate.
EDWARD THOMAS BRIEMACH , agent employed by the Music Publishers' Association. I have known Kidd about four years. On September 3 of this year I had some conversation with him. We were speaking of pirated music and piracy generally, and he said that he had given it up and was selling fruit in the market in Chapel Street instead. He then said he did not think much of the Musical Copyright Act of 1906, and it he was single he would risk a month and do it easily if they caught him. He then referred to the conviction of Willetts at the Old Bailey in 1906, and said that, considering the money he had made, nine months was nothing. Also, he said that he did not think the sale of pirated music would ever be stepped with the penalties now in force, as a month to a pirate did not mean much, and if caught a second time he could always give a false name and address and avoid the heavier penalty for a second conviction. The penalty is £5 or one month for a first conviction, and two months for a second conviction, without the option of a fine. So far as I know. Kidd did not know that I was in the service of the association. On September 6 I saw Walsh with a sack filled with parcels in Pentonville Road, about 3.15 p.m. He took the parcels into Myers' receiving office and came out with the sack empty. He then went to the corner of Upper Street and Liverpool Bond and joined Kidd, who was having his boots cleaned. On September 13 I saw McCarthy in Chapel Street. Linford came along and spoke to him, and then returned to the corner of Chapel Street and Liver-pool
Road. At quarter past ten I saw McCarthy talking to Kidd by Chapel Place. Linford came along again and spoke to Kidd. Kidd then left Linford, and McCarthy walked across Chapel Place. Kidd then spoke to a hawker named Watford, took a piece of paper from his pocket, placed the paper against the urinal, and wrote on it something that Watford dictated to him. Kidd then turned away and spoke to Linford again. Linford picked up a piece of paper from the road and gave it to Kidd, who wrote on it as Linford told him. Kidd then went to the coffee shop, 50, Liverpool Road. Shortly afterwards Walsh came out and Mr. Preston followed him. I went back to Chapel Street and saw Linford, Watford, and McCarthy talking at the corner of Chapel Place. At half-past 11, at the corner of Chapel Street and Chapel Place, Walsh gave Linford and Watford a parcel each. I waited about five minutes, and then Watford came along Chapel Street, riding a bicycle and carrying a parcel under one arm. He went in the direction of the City Road. I joined Mabe, and at the corner of the City Road we stopped Watford and gave him into custody. The parcel he was carrying (Exhibit 35) was opened at the King's Cross Police Station and found to contain 210 copies of pirated music, also the list (Exhibit 27) written out by Kidd for Watford; being, in fact the contents of the parcel. The pirated music was handed over to the owners of the copyright. On September 18, about 10 minutes past 12, I saw Linford coin Kidd at the comer of Chapel Street and Chapel Place, Kidd then crossed the street, and shortly afterwards Walsh came across to the corner of Chapel Place and spoke to Linford, who gave Walsh a piece of paper from a book. About half-past one I saw Walsh carrying a sack. He went into Chapel Place and joined Linford. Both men want into the urinal, and when Linford came out he was carrying a parcel. On September 24, at half-past 12, I saw Linford at the corner of Chapel Place. He spoke to Walsh and gave him a piece of paper, upon which he wrote. Walsh went with the paper to the side door of No. 12, Chapel Street, and in about a quarter of an hour came back with a canvas bag containing a parcel. I followed him through Chapel Street into Penton Street to a house in Cloudesley Place. Liverpool Road. He then went back to Chapel Street and met linford. Walsh and Linford went into the urinal, and when Linford came out he was carrying a parcel and Walsh had the bag empty. I took the parcel from Linford and opened it. It contained pirated music and a list (Exhibit 26) on paper which corresponds with the paper in Linford's memorandum book. I kept the list and handed the parcel back to Linford. I kept observation on 15. Wellington Road Stoke Newington. On October 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, 19, 21, and 22. On those days, or most of them, Clarke and Bokenham were frequenting the premises.
To Mr. Black. I made the notes from which I have been reading at the time or shortly afterwards—I should say, always within two
hours. Before I joined the Music Publishers' Association I was connected with the Musical Copyright Association. I had left that association 18 months when I bad the conversation with Kidd that I have related. That association closed up in 1905, and I was afterwards in the employ of Francis, Day, and Hunter. I am positive that Kidd knew I had been in the employ of the Musical Copyright Association and that I had been associated with people whose duty it was to suppress this piracy. Notwithstanding that, he opened his heart to me about this new Act.
FRANK MABE . for three years an agent of the Music Publishers' Association. On October 1, 2, and 3 I saw Bokenham and Clarke come out of the premises, 15, Wellington Road. On October 3 Bokenham brought out a parcel of the shape and site of 500 copies of music. On October 4 Bokenham brought out two parcels. Clarke was also in and out. On October 7 and 8 they were there again, and on the latter date Bokenham brought out a parcel. On October 9 and 11 the same thing occurred. On October 11 Bokenham had another large parcel. I then went to Moorgate Street Station, and shortly afterwards Clarke and Bokenham entered it. Bokenham was carrying the parcel, which he took to the parcel office. From there he went to the passenger booking office and took, two tickets, and he and Clarke walked down the steps to the platform. I wasted about an hour and three-quarters, and then I saw a man whom I knew to be associated with dealers in pirated music come up from the platform, go to the parcel office, band in a ticket, and obtain the parcel which Bokenhsm had left. This he put into a sack, end went down to the platform by the same steps that Clarke and Bokenham had gone own. On October 16 and 17 I again saw Clarke and Bokenham at 15, Wellington Road. On the latter date Bokenham took a parcel of about 500 copies to a receiving office in Stoke Newington Road. He came out without the parcel, went across the road, and waited. In about five minutes Carter Patterson's van drove up to the receiving office, the parcel was brought out, and put in it, and Bokenham walked away past Wellington Road in the direction of the North London Police Court On October 19 I saw Bokenham only at the premises. On October 21 and 22 they ware both there. On the latter date I saw Inspector Martin meet Bokenham. On August 7 I was watching Myers' receiving office and saw Walsh go in and carrying the sack produced about half full and come out with it empty. Walsh afterwards met Kidd and McCarthy in Chapel Street. On August 8 I was again watching Myers' office and saw Walsh coming from the same direction with parcels in a sack, which he left at the receiving office. He afterwards walked to Chapel Place. where he met McCarthy and then went into Kidd's house, No. 2, Chapel Place. On August 19 I went to Brighton, and there wrote the following letter, which I registered, to "Bob, 50, Liverpool Road. Islington," enclosing a postal order for 5s.:" I am down hear as I told Mike I was coining it is all right down here I am sending you a
postal order for 5s. worth more and please let me have it not later than Wednesday morning Walter Linford, to be called for, Parcel Office, Brighton Station. Send me a good mixed lot and as many of these as you can" (giving list). I adopted as far as possible Linford's style of writing and spelling, including the small "I," with no capital letters. I subsequently received the parcel (Exhibit 34). It had on it a label similar to those which have been produced. I brought the parcel up to London and produced it before the magistrate on August 27. It contained 84 copies of 49 different pieces. On the same day, at 3.20 p.m., I saw Walsh take parcels to Myers' receiving office in a sack and subsequently meet Kidd. The same thing occurred on August 30. On September 13 I saw Kidd and McCarthy at 10.15 a.m. at the corner of Chapel Place, when they were spoken to by Linford. Kidd left them, walked up Chapel Place, and spoke to Watford, and afterwards took a piece of paper from his jacket pocket and wrote on it against the urinal. Kidd afterwards spoke to Linford and wrote at his dictation in the same place. Kidd then left and went into Liverpool Road. At 11.30 Walsh walked down Chapel Street carrying a sack, which he opened at the corner of Chapel Place, and handed a parcel to Watford and one to Linford, receiving money in return from both men. I followed Watford and gave him into custody. On September 18 I saw Walsh in Chapel Street carrying a sack. I followed him and saw him meet Linford in Chapel Place. They went into the urinal together and Linford came out carrying a parcel and walked towards Liverpool Road, while Walsh crossed over to Kidd's house and entered it with the empty sack. On September 20 I saw Kidd enter No. 12, Chapel Street by the private door. Walsh went in later, and at 2.15 came out carrying a sack. On September 24 I saw Walsh come out of No. 12, Chapel Place, carrying parcels in a sack, and proceed in a round about way to Myers' office. Later in the day I saw him come out of No. 12 with a carpet bag and walk into Penton Street I did not follow him any further.
HENRY ORCHARD , clerk at Movers' receiving office, 1a. Pentonville Road, and also employed at 343, Grays Inn Road, spoke to having parcels of music like those produced brought to the offices from time to time by Walsh and McCarthy, the majority by Walsh. McCarthy brought the parcels during the Ascot week. On August 8 a parcel was brought in addressed to Chard, of Yarmouth; on August 12 and 13 parcels addressed to Smont. Wolverhampton: on August 14 parcel addressed to Whiteley, of Bradford, and one to Blythe, Bristol. The labels on them were similar to those produced. On August 16 a parcel was received addressed to Whiteley, Bradford, and one to Kemp, Bristol; on August 20 a cancel to Linford Brighton, and one to Kemp, Bristol. The parcels were always addressed in the same handwriting, whether handed in by Walsh or McCarthy. The number varied from one or two a day up to a dozen and they were brought in in a sack like that produced.
Detective constable WILLIAM PARKER , Great Yarmouth Police. On August 9 I arrested Chard in Bridge Road, Yarmouth, with the parcel produced under his arm, containing 160 copies of pirated music with no publisher's name on then. He was then lodging at 46, Howard Street North, at which address his landlord handed me a parcel containing copies of music without any publisher's name. Chard was before the justices on August 12 and the parcels of pirated music were directed to be handed over to Mr. Preston. At the station I found on Chard the certificate of registration of a letter addressed, "Mr. B. Kidd, 50, Liverpool Road, Islington." I also found on him a portion of a stamped envelope, unused, on which were the words, "Mr. B., Road, Islington, London."
Detective-inspector JOHN TANNER , Bristol City Police, On August 15 I went to the Great Western Railway station at Bristol and waited. A man called for a parcel (Exhibit 17). I arrested him and he gave the name of Herbert Smith. The parcel was addressed, "Mr. H. Blythe, G.W.R. Station, Parcel Office, Bristol." It contained pieces of music without the publishers' name. I went to his address at 146, York Road, Bristol, and found the pieces of music which form Exhibit 18 in different parts of the room, some being covered by the bed clothes. Blythe was taken before the magistrates and the pirated music was given up to Mr. Preston. Exhibit 17 contained also a printed catalogue of "Up-to-date Music, Songs, Marches, Selections," etc., and on the catalogue was a circular letter. "Sir or Madam,—Having purchased an enormous quantity of high-class music, we are able to supply a splendid assortment of pieces at ridiculously low prices," etc. On August 21 I went to 39, Newfoundland Street, Bristol, which is a shop, and saw there a parcel of pirated music addressed to a man named Kemp. I kept observation on the place until the man called for it. I followed him into the street and arrested him. He gave the name of David Myers. In the parcel was the letter signed "Chicago Bill." Myers gave the address, 7, Walcot Street, St. Paul's, Bristol. On searching there I found 233 copies of pirated music hidden in an old washstand, with some good copies on the top. Myers was before the magistrates on September 23 and the music was ordered to be given up to Mr. Preston.
Detective ALBERT BAILEY , Bradford City Police. I have known prisoner Whiteley about two years. His address is 46, Piston Street. Manningham is the nearest railway station to Bradford. On August 17 I went to 53, St. Michael's Road, Bradford, with a search warrant. I saw Whiteley and also his mother. I read the warrant. Whiteley said, "You can search now; there is no music here." I searched the house. While doing so a Great Northern Railway van drove up to the door. I was searching a cupboard and Whiteley got to the door before me, and I saw the van man handing him a brown paper parcel of the shape of copies of music. (Exhibit 15.) Whiteley said, "Take it away; I do not want it. The detectives are here;
take it back." The van man said, "Then you refuse to take it in; you want sign for it." Whiteley replied, "No; take it away; I do not want it. The van man then drove away and Whiteley came back into the house and said, "You can search now; there is no music here. I found no music of any kind. Whiteley afterwards said, "I do not live here. I live at 46, Picton Street. Our people have nothing to do with the music." As I left the house Whiteley followed me to the gate and said, "Do not make any to do about it this time and I will not have any more come." Carlisle Road Post Office is about half a mile away from Whiteley's house in Picton Street. On October 9 I got a warrant to search both addresses, Piston Street and St. Michael's Road. At Picton Street I found nine genuine songs, 11 envelopes, five letters, three pirate catalogues, four note books, and four slips of paper bearing addresses. The letters had reference to dealings in pirated music. At St. Michael's Road I found a visiting card, "Bob, 50, Liverpool Road, Islington, London." I also found a letter from "Mrs. S. Burgess, wholesale and export stationer. Dear Sir, I have sent you parcel from King's Cross to your address. Hope you will receive in good time."
(Thursday, December 12.)
GEORGE STEPHENSON . I rent a coffee shop at 150, Liverpool Road, and have known Ridd since I have been in the neighbourhood, about 12 years. Walsh I have known about the same time. I also know McCarthy. They are all customers, but Kidd used the place more than the other two and had letters addressed to the place in the name of "Bob" Sometimes we would give them to Kidd and sometimes, being a regular customer, he would walk into the place and take them off the shelf himself. I suppose that has been going on for about 12 months.
HENRY TRY , clerk to the Music Publishers' Association. On August 23 I went to the coffee shop. 50, Liverpool Road, and went inside. Kidd came in and went straight through to the private part at the back. After quarter of an hour he came out, bringing with him a few letters. I went there four or five times in August and September, between 11 and 12. On each occasion Kidd came in and did as I have described. I followed him on more than one occasion. He generally went in the direction of Chapel Place. I have seen him speaking to Walsh and McCarthy. (Witness identified No. 2. Chapel Place from photographs.) Walsh sometimes went into No. 2. Chapel Place with Kidd and came out with a sack with something in it. I also kept observation on Myers' receiving office for several days after September 6 and saw Michael Walsh take sometimes four or five parcels in a sack and leave them there.
outside. There are two doors—a side door and a shop door. I have a kitchen downstairs which I let as a store room to Kidd, as near as I can recollect, about six or seven months ago, at a rental of 2s. a week. I have seen Kidd there several times, and Walsh and McCarthy sometimes with him, talking in Chapel Street, as a rule.
To Mr. Black. There is a vegetable market in Chapel Street, and there are always a good many men talking in the street.
FREDERICK JAMES THOMAS , sign and glass writer. I am landlord of the premises, 15, Wellington Road, Stoke Newington, and in October, 1906, let the workshop adjoining my house to Mr. Leslie, the gentleman with the spectacles on (prisoner Clarke), who said he wanted it for printing. He continued to occupy the premises down to the date of his arrest on October 22, about a twelvemonth. I know Bokenham through having seen him come in and out. I think they were both there about the same time, and used to come pretty regularly. I heard the printing machines at work at all manner of times, by day as well a a by night. There was no name outside the premises of any printer's firm, and nothing to show that a printing business was being earned on there. I have seen the parcels of the size of music done up in brown paper being taken away, generally by van, but I have also seen them taken away in sacks.
To prisoner Bokenham. I did not let the premises to you, and you did not pay me any rent. I never saw pirated music being printed there. On October 22 I saw you in the custody of the police and heard you ask to go out, but you were not allowed to do so.
To Mr. Houston. I was present when the raid took place and saw the blocks from which the music was printed taken away by the police. There was a plain clothes man on either side of Bokenham. I heard him ask to go out, and I sent one of my chaps out of the back shop to get some refreshment for him.
To the Common Serjeant. I did not actually see the blocks, which were done up in brown paper. I have been in the printer's shop several times. I have seen very little going on when I have been in.
EDGAR NATHAN ETHERLEY , clerk in the Secretary's office of the General Post Office, produced Exhibit 31, the postal order sent by Mabe from Brighton, payable to Mr. Bob Kidd, on August 19, and cashed at 39, High Street, Islington; Exhibit 32, a post office form for a registered letter to Mr. Boh, 50, Liverpool Road, Islington, dated August 20, 1907; Exhibit 16a, the certificate of posting a registered postal packet at Yarmouth on August 7 found on Chard when arrested; and Exhibit 39, the certificate of the posting of a registered letter addressed to Mr. Clarke at 156, Langham Road, West Green, Tottenham, dated September 25, and also the certificate of delivery.
FREDERICK GEORGE WAGSTAFF , postman, attached to the South Tottenham District Post Office, proved the delivery of the registered letter to Clarke at 156, Langham Road, for which the receipt produced was given.
To prisoner Clarke I cannot remember at all by whom the receipt was signed; we have so many.
Police-constable JOHN CLARK . N Division. I arrested McCarthy on September 27. On October 22, the day that Clarke was arrested, I went to his address at 156, Langham Road, and found there the agreement for the hiring of the premises in Wellington Road, a copy of the Musical Copyright Act of 1906, a rent book, a printed copy of some testimonials, 800 dialogues of music, and a quantity of billheads and memorandum forms.
To prisoner Clarke. When you were under arrest at Wellington Road I assisted to search you. Nothing incriminating was found on you.
To Bokenham. I was present when you were searched at Wellington Road, but did not assist to search you.
Police-constable DENNIS ROCHE , N Division. On October 22 I went to the address of prisoner Bokenham at 24, Foxbury Road, Brockley. I found there 103 copies of pirated music by the side of the piano in the front room (Exhibit 63). There was only one genuine song, "I Love a Lassie." It bears the name of Francis, Day, and Hunter, 142, Charing Cross Road, and is copyrighted also in the United States. Of the pirated songs there were 83 different sorts. There is one sheet which contains several songs and is intended to be out up. It is in the state in which it came off the printing machine. I also found a number of newspaper cuttings relating to the examination before Mr. Marsham and the trial at the Old Bailey of Willetts, for infringement of the Musical Copyright Act.
Prisoner Bokenham asked the Common Serjeant to look at the music produced, and called attention to the fact that it was dog-eared and thumb marked; and it was, he said, produced when he was arrested two years ago on a similar charge.
Witness (to Bokenham). I took away all the music I found. I do not know Whether you were detained in Wellington Road after four o'clock; you stayed there till six. I cannot any whether that was of your own free will. There were enough people to prevent your going away if you had wanted to do so.
Detective-inspector JOHN MARTIN , N Division. On September 27 I saw prisoner Kidd enter the coffee shop, No. 50, Liverpool Road. He left there about noon. I had a brougham with me, and I told him I should like to speak to him. I put him into the brougham and then told him I should charge him with conspiracy. I asked him what he had in his pocket. He put his hand into his back trousers pecket and, handing me 13 post letters, said, "Here you are; this it what you want." The letters were addressed, "Bob, 50, Liverpool Road," and contained postal orders and orders for songs and music. One from Liverpool is as follows: "September 26. I enclose
P.O. for 11s., for which please send a 10s. 6d. parcel of music as marked on the list, and for the other 6d. please lead 100 catalogues if you have them to spare. Address as above and oblige, yours respectfully, R. White." The other letters are similar, and come from various parts of the country. I took Kidd to Islington Police Station, where I saw Walsh and McCarthy in custody, and I read the warrant for conspiracy to the three prisoners. Kidd said nothing in reply. McCarthy and Walsh said, "I should like to know what you mean by conspiracy?" I said, "You have been obtaining a quantity of pirated music and selling it to other persons." The three then chimed in a kind of hours, "Well, we can say nothing against that." I did not search Kidd before I took him to the police station. At the station a small card with "Bob, 50, Liverpool Road," on it was found. From Clerkenwell Police Court I had obtained four search warrants. At the addresses of McCarthy and Walsh I found nothing relating to this charge. At Kidds address, 2, Chapel Place, I found eight copies of copyright music. I then went to No. 12, Chapel Street, and in a cellar or back kitchen I found 6,632 copies of pirated music, of which 71 specimens are produced. Looking at the letters found on Kidd, I am able to say that the pieces ordered correspond with she names of the pieces of music found in the cellar. The titles of the copyright music I found in Kidd's house also corresponded with the pirated music in the cellar at No. 12, Chapel Street. I also found some catalogues which correspond with the catalogue found at Whiteley's house on his arrest. On October 9, shout midday, I saw Whiteley in she Market Place, Bradford, looking into a music shop. I told him I was a police officer and read the warrant produced to him, charging him with conspiracy to pirate music. He said, "I do not know Kidd, McCarthy, or Walsh, but I will own I have sent letters to "Bob," at his address in Liverpool Road. I have been dealing with him about six months. The truth always goes furthest. I used to give him 4s. per 100 for music. I sent him a letter about a fortnight ago with a postal order for 5s. 6d. I have not had that lot." I showed Whiteley the order for 5s. 6d. which had been handed to me by the witness Stephenson. Whiteley said, "Oh, that is it." I had two letters in my hand at the time, which I showed to him, and he admitted having written them. I found on him a catalogue of pirated music, some memoranda, the counterfoil of the postal order for 5s. 6d., and a pocket book with a page turned down, on which was written the names of some songs. On October 22 I saw prisoner Bokenham at Wellington Road. Stoke Newington. He was leaving the premises. I told him I had a warrant to search 15, Wellington Road, and asked him if he would go back with me. He opened the door with a key which he took from his pocket, and I made a search with other officers. Afterwards, in the Wellington Road, I saw prisoner Clarke about 5.30 p.m. going in the direction of these premises. I afterwards read to the prisoners the warrant for their arrest. Clarke pointed to the occupier of the house, Mr.
Thomas, and said, "This man knows nothing about it." Thomas said. "These men rent this place from me and own everything here." Bokenham said, "I do not rent it from you, do I?" There was no answer made to that. I then sent them to Islington Police Station, where they were charged. Bokenham said, "I do not know any of these persons (Kidd and the others) mentioned in the warrant. Clarke made no reply. On October 25, after the whole of the prisoners had been remanded, I went with Bokenham to a house in Areola Street, Stoke Newington, and from there to No. 6, Elton Street which is close by. In an outhouse I found 71 complete sets and eight incomplete sets of blocks of pirated music. It was at the suggestion of Bokenham that I went there. He said. "I am plead to get the thing off my mind. You have got the lot. You have broken the neck of it. This is a load off my mind. When prisoner Kidd was searched in my presence there was found on him a receipt for a registered letter addressed to "Clarke, 156, Langham Road, West Green, Tottenham." I also found in his pocket book a card with the name, "Walter A. Clarke."
To Mr. Black. Neither Kidd, Walsh, nor McCarthy put any obstacles in my way, but gave me all the information they could. They denied all knowledge of conspiracy, and said they did not know the meaning of it, while frankly admitting that they had been dealing in this pirated music. I do not know from my own personal observation that Kidd, Walsh, and McCarthy are costermongers who buy and sell in the market. I do not know that Kidd has been dealing in crockery.
To Bokenham. You came back with me to the Wellington Road premises of your own free will. There were two or three detectives with me and some officers in uniform in the neighbourhood. You stayed there from four o'clock of your own free will till the warrants arrived. If you had wanted to go away I think I could have persuaded you to stop. You asked if you might go out and get some beer, and I told you, "If I were you, I should stay where I was."
Serjeant ALBERT HAWKINS , N Davis: on. On October 22 has I went with Inspector Martin to 15, Wellington Road, Stoke Newington, and found, in a warehouse at the roar, 34 sets of blocks for the printing of music, 13.100 copies of pirated music, four complete sets of stereos for printing catalogues, and a large quantity of printed music catalogues. The catalogue produced is one of them, headed "To be called for, Catalogue of Up-to-Date Music, Songs, Marches," etc The catalogue found on Whiteley and the catalogue now produced are the same. The stereo plates produced are some of those we found. There; is a paper mache matrix for running the metal into to make the stereo plate. I also found 57,600 coupons relating to German lotteries, 2.200 Bank of Engraving notes, a quantity of type for printing lottery tickets, a melting pot, three printing machines, and some paper Mache moulds for setting up type. There was nothing outside the premises to indicate that a printing business was
being carried on there. The three blocks produced are examples of those found on the premises. One is the block of the song "Angus Macdonald," another "Veronique," and the other "Coo." The bundle produced contains copies of those three songs and others. I searched prisoner Clarke after his arrest and found on him a quantity of miscellaneous memoranda, a membership card of the Hackney radical Club, a small memo book, and a red leather pocket book containing miscellaneous memos; it also contained a piece of blotting paper which bore on it the words "Kidd, 12, Chapel Place, Chapel Street, Islington," and also the name "Kidd," and the words "To be called for." I produce the note book and the blotting paper. I also searched Bokenham, and found on him a pocket book containing various memos, including a catalogue of cheap music issued by Messrs. Pitman, Hart and Co., and a copy of the Musical Copyright Act, 1906 was also one of those who went with. Inspector Martin, with Bokenham, to Elton Street on October 25.
Cross-examined by Bokenham. On October 25 Bokenham took us Areola Street; the plates had been removed from there; the people living there told us to go to Elton Street, which Bokenhem said he did not know, and we had to inquire the way there.
EDMUND MATTHEW GOODMAN , 50 New Bond Street. I am a director of Chappell and Co., Limited. I produce the copyright certificates of a number of songs. It includes "Angus Macdonald," "Bandolero," "Beauty's Eyes," "Coo," "Daohes of Dantzig Selection" Dear Heart," "The Gates of the West," "I'll Sing thee Songs of Art by," "Lanastahiche," "Dreams," "The Merry Widow," "Oh Dry Those Tears," "Swing Song from Veronique," "Spring Chickens Collection," etc. The latest is "Spring Chickens" 1905 was the date of the first publication. They were all registered before January of this year. The copy of "Angus Macdonald)" taken out of the bundle seized at 15, Wellington Road, the copy found in the parcel bought Linford from Walsh and Kidd on July 31, 1907, the copy in the parcel found on Smith at Bristol, the copy found at Smith's address at Bristol, and the copy delivered in Brighton are all alike, and comparing them wish the block found at Wellington Road it is my opinion that they are all printed from the block, because they all have identical blemishes and imperfections of printing, which correspond with the block. With regard to the "Swing Song from Veronique," the five copies produced correspond in the same way with the block produced. The some thing applies to the song "Coo" and also the "Duchess of Dentzig." Our firm has given no authority to anybody to print copies of those pieces of music.
Cross-examined by prisoner Bokenham. In the case of the Woolwich prosecution, in January, 1906, I saw copies of most of theory songs which were evidently printed from the same plates, but there is at least one that has been produced since, that is the one called "Lamatchiche," which is produced by a lithograhic process, It would be possible to produce another block from the matrix after it
had been used once, but it would differ; the blemishes which these copies bear are caused by faulty fitting of the metal of the plates to the blocks. I cannot say how old the blocks are; once they have been printed from it is impossible to tell at what date they were made. There are some pieces in the catalogue which are quite new, "My An Folk." "Thora," "The Trumpeter." "When the Fields are White with Daisies," "Will you Love me in December as You Do in May?" I only produce certificates of our own copyrights—some of those are Messrs. Boosey and Co.'s. I cannot swear that any of the plates found in Bokenham's possession were new plates since the date of the Woolwich prosecution. The prosecutors in this case are the Association of London Music Publishers, represented by Messrs. Chappell and Co. That association consists of practically all the leading music publishers in London. I remember Bokenham calling at my office in New Bond street about February, 1906. He told me he was opening a shop at Chiswick, he was trading in the name of the "Pioneer Music Company," and asked me to give him our best trade terms. I have no doubt that I wrote a letter afterwards refusing to do business with him, but I have no recollection of it. In June, 1906, I heard that Bokenham was residing at Kilburn, or Brondeebury, and in the same house was a young man who was in the employ of the firm of John Church and Co. As we are on friendly terms with that firm, I went round and saw the manager, and made inquiries as to how far Bokenham and the other man were in communication with each other. I found that he was quite a respectable young man. I did not tell him anything about Bokenham's previous conviction; he knew of it. I do not think the fact of my going there did Bokenham any harm. The two blocks produced of "The Swing Song from Veronique" have been used; I could not say how old they were. The song was in existence before the Woolwich case. "The Trumpeter" was registered on May 7,1906. One of the matrices of the catalogue found at 15, Wellington Road contains the names of the songs that have been referred to, "My Ain Folk." "Thora," "The Trumpeter." "When the Fields are White with Daisies," "Will You Love Me in December as You Do in May?" etc., and stereos corresponding with that matrix were found at the same time. There were no transfers or lithographic stones found at 15, Wellington Road to my knowledge. I believe there were some lithographic prints found there, but I only know that from what the officers have produced here. There were also lithographic prints founds at 12, Chapel Place. So far as I know, the newest songs have been produced by means of transfer lithography, which is a much easier, cheaper, and quicker process.
(Friday, December 13.)
Verdict, All guilty.
Mr. Muir stated that Bokenham attended here, not only in this case, but also on recognisances which he entered into in January, 1906. On August 17, 1905, his premises were raided and a quantity
of blocks and pirated music found in his possession. Clarke was them his partner, and Bokenham and Clarke told Mr. Gardner, the prosecutor, that if he did not ask for costs on the summons they would give up printing pirated music altogether and have nothing more to do with it, and that request was complied with. In November, 1905, Willetts and a number of others were brought up before the magistrates, and it was found that Clarke and Bokenham were going on with their printing and loading up vans with pirated music as if nothing had happened, and Clarke was found in the act of printing pirated music. The case was tried at the Old Bailey, and his Lordship then decided that as this was the first time that proceedings of a criminal nature had been taken with regard to the printing, and a great many persons had been engaged in the production of these since blocks, the prosecution was not proceeded with, and the prisoners, amongst them being Bokenham, were bound over not to offend in future. With regard to Clarke, there wee no doubt that from 1905 onwards he had been engaged in this business of illegal printing. (Mr. Muir then referred his Lordship to the Sessions Paper report of the case.) Clarke was also engaged in the printing of Bank of Engraving notes of superior finish.
Sergeant HALL , N Division, produced a certificate of the conviction of Kidd at North London Sessions in 1900 for receiving, and stated that during the last two or three years be had done no honest work at all, but had been engaged in selling this pirated music. On being released from prison for a time he sold cookery in Chapel Street. McCarthy did no regular work, but occasionally sold carbages for people who had stalls. There was no conviction against him nor against Walsh, who also did no regular work.
EDMUND WALTER CHURCH , recalled. When Bokenham volunteered to show the police where the blocks were kept I went with the police to Eldon Street, end on the way asked Bokenham who the litho printer was. I suggested to him several names, but Bokenham said, "Well, I cannot tell you that. I will not tell you now, I will consider the matter. "A little later I approached him and he then wanted to know whether a certain reward which had been issued for the printers of the "Merry Widow" was still in existence. I told him it was not, but had been withdrawn, and he then said he would consult with Kidd and the others, which he did, but they would not disclose the name of the litho printer, and we have not been able to find out the sour of the process of reproducing the music.
Detective BAILEY , recalled, stated that Whiteley got his living as a hawker of pirated music and newspapers, and he had never known him follow any other employment. He had been summoned in Bradford for selling pirated music on several occasions send ordered to any costs. His parents were very respectable people, send witness believed he could get honest employment if he liked.
Mr. Black asked that Kidd might be released in order to attend the funeral of his child, but the Common Serjeant said he could not do that.
Sentences: Kidd, 14 months, with hard labour; Walsh and McCarthy, each six months' hard labour; Whiteley, six months' hard labour; Clarke, five months' hard labour; Bokenham, six months' hard labour in respect of the present charge and six months' in respect of the previous conviction, the sentences to run concurrently.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE GRANTHAM.
(Wednesday, December 11.)
Mr. Eustace Fulton prosecuted; Mr. Huntly Jenkins defended.
ALICE ELIZA BATES , wife of prisoner. I was separated from my husband by an order of Court on October 11. I have the first floor front at 35, Wander Road. We have been married 13 years and have two children. I got the separation order because when he got the drink he behaved very badly. I got custody of the child and 7s. 6d. a week. On several occasions prisoner tried to persuade me to return to him. He used to beat me when he was in drink and I was very much afraid of him. He was working on the trams at Hackney when I left him. On November 16, about 8.30 a.m., I was at breakfast when my husband knocked at the door. I said, "You cannot come in here; I am now coming out." He prised the door open and caught hold of me by the neck. I saw him take a knife out of his pocket. The child screamed so and I was so upset that I cannot remember what he said. I understood him to say, "We may as well both die together," but I may have been mistaken. I cannot remember whether he used the knife before we fell down together. I can remember something cut my arm and I looked at my hand and saw it was bleeding. He did not cut my throat. I thought that was what he was going to do, but I may have been mistaken. I put my hand up to protect my throat. It was alter I felt my arm cut that I fell down. He begged me to go home. I believe he is very fond of me and the children too, but he sometimes loses all control of himself, and he has a very bad temper. I said, "I will come home with you, Walter," because I wanted to get rid of him. He said. "I did not mean to do that, Alice." The knife was like a shoemaker's knife. After that he sat down on the bed and kept on repeating he was sorry for what he had done. He said he intended to take his own life. He had not the knife in his hand then. I think he had put it in his pocket again. I tried to calm him down and said, "Will you have some tea?" He took that knife out of his pocket once after that, when he said he was going to take his own life. When I asked him to have some tea he threw the knife on the carpet and broke it, and threw it in the grate. The knife shown to me is the knife he had. I had never seen it before. The
landlady came into the room. My arm was then bleeding. My husband had put some cloths round it. Afterwards a police officer came and my husband was given in charge.
Cross-examined. He was very excited when he came in. The only previous cruelty was that he sometimes hit me with his hand. When he has not been on the drink he is a good husband. He is fond of me and the children and I am fond of him. It was only in consequence of his drunken conduct that I got a separation order. If anybody has said anything against me he has been the first to protect me. I tried to get the knife away from him, and in the struggle we fell. I cannot say when my hand was cut. He was very much upset when he saw the blood on my hand, and said, "I did not mean to do it. I may as well finish myself. I cannot live without you. I have come here to die." Then he got me some water to bathe my wound, and got a wet cloth and put it round my arm. He offered to take off his handkerchief. I said, "Never mind; you could not help it," or something to that effect. It may be that he was only trying to take his own life. He said he had better get me some brandy, and then he kissed me. I received a letter from him on November 11, five days before this happened. (Letter read.)
Re-examined. I thought the was going to take my life, but I may have been mistaken. He held me round the neck and held a knife in his hand. It was then that I understood him to say, "We had better die together," or words to that effect. (To the Judge.) I hope you will be lenient with him, sir.
AGNES GILBERT , widow, landlady at 35, Warrinder Road. 'Mrs. Bates occupies a room in my house. I have seen prisoner come to my house and have refused him admission in consequence of what Mrs. Bates told me. On November 16, Miss Salmon, a lodger, let him into the house. Afterwards I heard a noise and went upstairs and saw him beating the panel of the door in with his fist. I begged him to be quiet. He broke the door open. I followed him in in two or three minutes. He pushed me out of the room and I fell on the landing. Then I sent for the police. When I tried to get into the room I saw Mrs. Bates on the floor. I did not go to help her. I went into the room with the policeman when he came. Mr. and Mrs. Bates were quarrelling. I did not notice her arm then. When she came downstairs she was bleeding.
Cross-examined. When I saw Mrs. Bates on the floor I think he was stooping over her. They were struggling. Prisoner seemed almost mad and did not seem to know what he was doing. After prisoner was taken to the station I saw blood on the carpet and about the room.
EDITH ANNA SALMON . I live with my mother at 35, Warrinder Road. On November 16 I heard a knock at the front door about eight a.m. I opened it and prisoner walked straight in, saying he wished to see his wife. He went up a few stairs and turned back and asked me what room she was in, and I told him. He seemed rather excited. I went downstairs and said something to Mrs. Gilbert.
Police-constable JOHN ELKINGTON , 217 Y Division. About 8.45 on November 16, I was called to 35, Warrinder Road. I went into the front room on the first floor and saw Mrs. Bates in a chair with her husband standing by her side. Mrs. Bates's left wrist was bandaged and covered with blood. I asked her how she received the injuries, and she said, "My husband done it with a knife." I told the prisoner I should take him into custody for causing the injuries. He said, "Yes, I done it. I love my wife. I did not do it for the purpose." On the way to the station he said, "I intended to do myself in. She struggled with me, and that is how she got cut." At the station he said, "I pushed the knife into the floor and broke it and threw it into the fireplace." He was then charged. He replied, "Oh, my God!" He appeared to have been drinking, but was sober, in my opinion.
Cross-examined. He seemed genuinely upset at what he had done and seamed very sorry that his wife had been hurt. He was very excited.
Detective-sergeant ALFRED BALL , Y Division. About 10 a.m. on November 16 I went to 35, Warrinder Road, and into the first floor front room. The left-hand panel of the door was split and the woodwork around the latch torn away. In the fireplace I found half of the knife which has been produced, and under the window a portion of the blade. I examined the blade of the knife, which is a shoemaker's trimming knife, and it had signs of having been recently sharpened. Mrs. Bates describes her husband as a butcher, but he told me he has been a horsekeeper. That is not a trade in which that sort of knife would ordinarily be used.
Cross-examined. His father is a butcher. Prisoner was wearing his brothers coat at the time, and his brother told me that the knife belongs to him, and that he used it for cutting tobacco.
THOMAS MARSHALL , Divisional Surgeon, Y Division. On November 16, about nine a.m., I was called to the station and examined the prosecutrix. She had a bad wound in the back of the left wrist diagonally across the wrist, and two much smaller wounds below the elbow of the same arm. The big wound was about a quarter to a third of an inch deep in the middle. I stitched it. Some considerable force must have been exerted to have caused the wound, either by the aggressor or by the action of the victim. Prisoner had two slight cuts on his fingers. I tied up one of them.
Verdict, Guilty, with intent to do grievous bodily harm. Police proved previous convictions on charges the outcome of drink. Prisoner undertook to sign the pledge. Released on recognisances in £50 to come up for judgment if called upon.
Mr. Graham-Campbell prosecuted.
Verdict, Unable to plead. Ordered to be detained during His Majesty's pleasure.
MARTIN, Robert (48, dairyman), pleaded guilty of feloniously sending a letter, knowing the contents thereof, to Lily Randell Clarke, demanding money of her with menaces, without reasonable or probable cause.
The police stated that prisoner had been indicted on November 25, 1891, for sending five threatening letters under similar circumstances to his employers, and bound over to keep the peace. Since then he had been discharged from two situations for embezzlement. Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Wednesday, December 11.)
NEVILLE, Charles Henry (35, labourer), pleaded guilty of attempting to break and enter the warehouse of William Drake, with intent to steal therein; being found by night, unlawfully having in his possession, without lawful excuse, a certain implement of housebreaking, to wit, a jemmy, with intent to commit felony.
Several short convictions for larceny were proved. Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.
DORBIN, Thomas (24, seaman), pleaded guilty of burglary in the dwelling-house of Charles Williams, and stealing therein 13 hones coins, the goods of Sidney Alfred Macrae Fisk; breaking and entering a certain warehouse in the occupation of some person at present unknown, with intent to commit felony therein.
Convictions proved: March 7, 1904, stealing, released on recognisances; May 31, 1904, North London Sessions, warehouse breaking, six months' hard labour; January 17, 1905, 15 months for the same offence; June 12, 1906, larceny and receiving, 18 months. Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.
GARDENER, Charles (46, accountant), pleaded guilty of forging and fettering certain affidavits belonging to certain Courts of Record, to wit, an affidavit of the Westminster County Court of Middlesex in an action in which one Harry Vince Long was a creditor and William Robert Wilkins was the debtor; an affidavit of the Brighton County Court of Sussex in an action in which one Hogbin (jun.) was a creditor and one Hogbin (sen.) the debtor; an affidavit of the Brighton County Court of Sussex in an action in which one Staple Hurst was a creditor and one Philip the debtor; an affidavit of the Brighton County Court of Sussex in an action in which one Williams was a creditor and one Jupp the debtor; an affidavit of the Brighton County Court in an action in which one Reginald was a creditor and one Jupp the debtor; an affidavit of the Watford County Court of Hertfordshire in an action in which one Hamilton and Co. were creditors and one Frank Oliver the debtor; an affidavit of the City of London Court in an action in which one Ernest George Schmidt was a creditor and one Adulbert Schrepper the debtor; in each case with intent to defraud; forging and uttering certain authorities and requests for the payment of money, to wit, an authority to one Ernest Barrett to receive certain money from the Brighton County Court of Sussex; an authority and request addressed to the Registrar of the Watford County Court of Hertfordshire in respect of an action in which Hamilton and Co. were the creditors and Frank Oliver the debtor; an authority purporting to be signed by Messrs. Cohen and Cohen, addressed to the Registrar of the City of London Court; an authority purporting to be signed by Ernest George Schmidt, addressed to the Registrar of the City of London Court; in each case with intent to defraud.
Prisoner was stated to have been concerned with one Robinson, convicted in January, 1906, at this Court, for obtaining from various County Courts moneys due to successful suitors which were unclaimed, by personation and forging false affidavits, and the present conviction was due to information given by Robinson. Prisoner had had six months' hard labour for fraud and a short term for acting as a solicitor.
Sentence, Three years' penal servitude.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Wednesday, December 11.)
Mr. W. B. Campbell prosecuted.
Sentence, 18 months' in the second division.
Mr. Arthur Gill and Mr. Boyd prosecuted.
Sentence, Six months in the second division.
ARTHUR WILLIAM MOORE , Liverpool City Police, detailed the antecedents of the prisoner. The prisoner stated to his lordship that he had nine months of his ticket-of-leave unexpired, and that he would leave the country if the Court dealt leniently with him.
Judge Rentoul said that having regard to all the circumstances he would pass a light sentence.
Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.
NUNN, Albert Edward (19, labourer), and PRIOR, George (19, labourer), pleaded guilty of breaking and entering the Victoria Mission Hall, Greenwich, and stealing therefrom the sum of 5 1/2 d. belonging to John Peter Broadbelt.
Mr. Graham prosecuted.
Prisoner Nunn stated that he stole the money because he was hungry and had no home to go to, his father having refused to receive him back. A previous conviction was proved against him for larceny; and a conviction against Prior also for larceny.
Sentence, both, Six months in the second division.
He was released on his own recognisances in £10 to come up for judgment if called upon.
Mr. Muir and Mr. Kershaw prosecuted; Mr. Coumbe defended.
Police-constable CHARLES PELL , 266 C. On the morning of November 19 last I made a plan of the scene of the accident. The motor bus was still in Park Lane, opposite Dudley House. The railings between Hyde Park and Park Lane were broken down to the extent of about 11 ft. 6 in. I could not say what damage the motor-bus had sustained as I did not examine it. The front of the motor-bus was right up against the coping of the railings. The width of the road there is 41 ft.
JOHN WILLIAM DOVE , four-wheeled cab-driver, badge number 14941. On the night of November 18 I was driving my cab along Park Lane empty, going home, on my near side. I do not remember anything about the accident until I found myself in St. George's Hospital.
Cross-examined. I cannot even remember that the motor-'bus struck me. My horse was a very quiet one. I shall not get another one like it in a hurry. I have not yet brought an action against the motor-'bus company for damages, but they have been to see me.
HENRY WILLIAMS . I live at 36, Lyncroft Gardens, Finohley Road, N. I am of independent means. On the night of November 18 I got O. on this Vanguard motor-'bus (which was driven by the prisoner) P. close by Victoria Station, with the intention of going to Marble Arch. Q. I was sitting inside on the nearest seat to the driver on the left-hand R. side immediately opposite to him, and could see everything clearly. S. I noticed with regard to his driving that he took the corners that we T. passed at the same speed as when going straight, which was too fast.
When the motor-'bus got into Park Lane I noticed that the accused, instead of keeping on the near side of the rests, after passing one rest, got in between that and the next that he was approaching; he drove as near as he could safely do to the next rest and then came out on the near side again, coming past the rest he was immediately meeting with only a few inches to spare. (To the Judge.) He was keeping what was described in the police court as a "serpentine" course. (To Mr. Kershaw.) He was not driving faster than motor-'buses usually are driven. We passed several horse-drawn vehicles. I saw the four-wheeled cab. When I first saw the cab it was being driven along in the same direction as the motor-'bus was going. Immediately before we got to it, the driving of the accused was what I should describe as "monkey tricks"—he was apparently trying his best to pass the cab in the same kind of way that he had been previously driving. Immediately before striking the cab I think the cab horse took a step to the right, but it was only then a question of inches. There is a slight turn in the road there, and the cab was on its proper side. As far as I can say the body of the motor-'bus caught the box of the off-hind wheel of the cab. I think the accused in his excitement, instead of putting off power, accelerated the speed. I thought to myself, "Am I going to be killed?" and I flung myself on the bottom of the 'bus, which went into the Hyde Park railings like greased lightning. This stopped the 'bus. The glass of the motor-'bus was smashed. I suggested that the cab horse should be shot; I believe it eventually was killed, though I did not see it. When I got out of the 'bus I saw the accused, who spoke to me, and I said, "Please do not speak to me; you drove like a damned lunatic." I saw the police put the cabman in another four-wheeled cab and send him off to the hospital. This was about 20 minutes after. The accused at that time had not been taken to the station.
Cross-examined. The steering gear of the motor-'bus and the cab may have been closely locked. The accused took the corners in a reckless fashion. I have very rarely been up and down the route at all. I cannot say whether there is a sweep of the road as it comes by St. George's Hospital. There are several rests in Park Lane. I am absolutely certain he drove as I have said. It was not a greasy night but there had been plenty of wet on the roads. I thought it was a most scandalous way of driving. I had been spending the evening with my sister and some nephews, with whom I had had tea.
Re-examined. He appeared to be driving as near the cab as possible. We passed a couple of hansom cabs, and, I think, one or two other horse-drawn vehicles; there was lots of room. (To the Judge.) Although I have come to give evidence against the accused, I have had a great deal of experience of motor traffic, by cycling and seeing it where I live; and I know these drivers have precious little time to themselves. No sooner is a 'bus up, than it is off again, and if this poor fellow had been drinking a little, I could excuse him myself. I hope, if he is found guilty, you will be lenient with him.
Mr. Kershaw stated that whatever the result of the case might be he felt that everybody was much indebted to the witness coming forward to give evidence, with which the Judge concurred.
Police-constable CHARLES GREEN , 392 C. About half-past 11 on November 18, I was on special duty at Dudley House, in Park Lane. I heard the crash and saw the motor-'bus on the left hand side of the road; it was then on the pavement, the front of the 'bus touching toe railings, about 12 of which were broken. The cab was also on the footway a little south of the motor-'bus. The horse's head was lying on the coping stone of the railings, its front legs were under the wheels of the 'bus, and the other part of it was on the footway. I saw the driver lying on his back in a southerly direction. The motor-'bus must have passed 10 yards at least from where he fell off. I saw the prisoner there and by this time there were a number of other people. Police-constable Thorn came up, and I sent him off with the injured cabman to the hospital. I also sent for a "vet.," and the horse was slaughtered. I said to the prisoner, "How do you account for this? Where is your license?" He produced his license and said, "The driver pulled to the right into me, and struck my steering wheel, rendering it powerless." While I was speaking to him I noticed his condition—he was drunk. He smelt very strongly of drink; he was unsteady in his gait; and while I was taking particulars of his license, he kept pushing up against me. I sent him later to Marlborough Street Police Station in custody of Police-constable Marony—I should think about 12 o'clock. Marlborough Street Police Station is about 20 minutes or half an hour's walk from Park Lane.
Cross-examined. I did not send him off to the station until about half an hour after the accident. In my opinion he was drunk—I do not mean that he was incapable; his breath smelt very strong. His speech was thick. I cannot say that I have ever been in a fright myself, but I have seen people who have been very frightened indeed and have not thought that they were drunk. Those people have been able to talk quite clearly and distinctly at times, and at times not.
Police-sergeant ALBERT TIMMS , 23 C. I went to the scene of the occurrence on the night of November 18. Police-constable Green was there before me. When I got there I saw the motor-'bus and the horse and the cab. I sent for a "vet." and the horse was slaughtered. I did not speak to the prisoner until after this, which would be 20 to 25 minutes after I got there. I asked him how it occurred and he explained to me that his steering wheel caught the hind wheel of the cab. I made a note at the time which says, "I saw the driver and asked him how it occurred, and he said, 'I was coming up the Lane when I thought I had got room to pass the cab. My steering wheel might have hit this cab and I could not help myself.'" After I had spoken to him I came to the conclusion that he was drunk. I judged this by his manner of speech, and he reeled up towards me; he was
thick in his speech, and his face was very flushed. I sent him with Police-constable Marony to Marlborough Street Police Station. The conversation I had with the prisoner was quite independent of that which Police-constable Green had with him.
Cross-examined. When I spoke to prisoner it would be about 40 minutes after the accident. There is not, to my knowledge, a public-house quite near the scene of the accident—the nearest one would be in Park Street. I did not know at the time I spoke to the prisoner that he had gone to the nearest public-house and had a drink. I do not think there was time. I saw him several times without speaking to him. During the time I was taking particulars of the accident he did not go away to my knowledge. He may have received a shock, but I do not think if would bring him in the state in which he was.
Re-examined. While I was there I am quite sure the accused did not go into a public-house. I was not asked any question about this at the police-court.
Police-constable GREEN , recalled. There were a number of people collected on the spot, and a number of constables came up. The nearest public-house is some distance from the scene of the accident. I should think 500 or 600 yards; 440 yard is a quarter of a mile; probably the public-house was not quite so far away as that—it is the length of a street—it is some distance. It would take the accused some noticeable time to go there and get a drink. and come back again to the scene of the accident. I was not keeping any particular observation on him during this time. I know the route of the motor-'bus. Some 'buses take a diagonal sweep from the Triumphal Arch to Hamilton Place; others do not.
Police-constable HENRY MARONY , 171 C. I was on duty at half-past 11 on November 18, and was sent by Sergeant Times with the prisoner to Marlborough Street Police Station. I started with the prisoner about 20 minutes past 12. The Marlborough Street Police Station was about 20 minutes' to half an hour's walk. Prisoner was very excited and he smelt very strongly of drink, but he walked all right. In my opinion he was drunk.
Cross-examined. I have been five years in the force. I have had some experience of 'busmen and cabmen, and rows and accidents, I should not, because I heard a row, say that a man was drunk. He smelt strongly of drink and was very excited; I do not think he was frightened.
Inspector JOHN RENFRAY , C Division. I was on duty at Marlborough Street Police Station in the early morning of November 19, when the prisoner was brought in at 12.40. In my opinion he was drunk—unfit to drive. He smelt very strongly of drink—he had a flushed appearance and a generally "muddled" appearance. I did not say anything to him at that time with reference to drink. The divisional surgeon, Dr. Edmunds, examined him. I told Dr. Edmunds that the prisoner was charged with being drunk in charge of a motor-omnibus.
It was 1.30 when the charge was read to him. After the charge had been read he said he had not seen the doctor. I then read, from the doctor's book at the station, the doctor's certificate that he was drunk and not fit to drive. The prisoner still denied being drunk.
Cross-examined. I took into consideration the fact that the man had had a bad accident; I think that would have a sobering effect rather than anything else. I did not put him to any tests. I had formed my opinion of him before I saw the doctor. The constables came and told me what happened, and I had to go on that as to whether it was a case to go before the magistrate. Mr. Montgomery (a member of the London County Council) came to the station, and expressed surprise on hearing that the accused was charged with being drunk.
DR. PERCY EDMUNDS . I am divisional surgeon at Great Marlborough Street Police Station. On the night of the 18th and the early morning of November 19 I was asked to examine the defendant, and I did so. He most fully understood that I was the doctor. After I had examined him, and told him I thought he was drunk, he asked me to put him to further tests. When I examined him I asked him first of all to show me his tongue. It was very dirty and quite dry; his lips were also quite dry. I then examined his eyes with a lenses and I found the pupils rather dilated, and they did not respond quickly, as the pupils should do when a beam of light is thrown in. His breach smelt very rankly. It was a stale smell, as if he had been drinking half the day. I could smell it at a distance off—4 ft. or 5 ft. off. He spoke very well; his articulation was not affected arterially at all. He walked fairly well, considering that he had heavy trousers on, such as motor-drivers wear. I gave him credit for walking and good enunciation. I told him I considered he had had a great deal too much to drink, and was not under control. He said, "This is a very important matter for me, doctor; I want you to put me to other tests." He said he would like to write his name, and I handed him that piece of paper marked "A" that I had been making some notes upon. He came up to the desk, and wrote his signature, "Richard Sansom." I said, "Well, that is not bad, but the 'Richard' is rather weak." He said, "Let me write it again," and he did so. Taking everything into account I considered it then my duty to say that he was drunk—that he was not fit to drive a motor-car.
Cross-examined. The effect of coming out from the dark into a lighted room would make the pupils contract. His eyes were a little too open. I do not know of any sudden action, by fright, upon the pupils. The defendant showed no symptoms of fear. I think Darwin's "Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals" was written 25 to 30 years ago. People have learned a great deal more shout the nervous system since then. I paid a great deal of attention to the defendant's case, and endeavoured to treat him with every fairness. It was not brought to my knowledge that between the time of the
accident and when brought to the police station he had had one glass of bitter ale. I have been 13 years at Vine Street and Marlborough Street Stations. I don't think, from the fact of having had to deal previously with a lot of "drunks and disorderliness," that I came to a wrong conclusion with regard to this man.
Re-examined. It would not be possible for him to be in the state he was in if he had only one glass of beer in the morning and one after the accident.
(Thursday, December 12.)
JAMES ARTHUR VENNING . I was house surgeon at St. George's Hospital, on November 18 last, when the cabman was brought into the hospital at about midnight. He remained under my charge until he left the hospital on December 4. When brought in he was conscious, but suffering from concussion of the brain. There was no external symptom; his recovery was slow. I saw him yesterday, but not to examine him. It is impossible to say how long it will be before he can resume work. I said at the police court that I thought two months at least. From seeing him yesterday it is still more impossible to say.
RICHARD SANSOM (prisoner, on oath). I have been a motor-'bus driver for 11 months, in the employ of the Vanguard Motor-'Bus Company; previously I was in the employ of the London United Tramway Company, for five years as conductor. I have a clean license. On the morning of the day of the accident I started from home after a fair breakfast. I took the motor-'bus out of the garage, and at 11 o'clock something went wrong with it. I put it right, and went on again to Willesden, when the 'bus broke down altogether. I could not rectify it, and the conductor telephoned to the road-fitter, who arrived at six o'clock in the evening. The motor-'bus was got to go again at 9.55 that evening. We loft the "White Horse," Willesden, and got to Ebury Bridge just about 11 o'clock. Inspector Ellis is time-keeper there. The conductor's name is Henry Jeffries. The fitters name is Haddow. I had a glass of beer at 11 o'clock in the morning; one glass at 1 o'clock with some bread and cheese, and I had had one more drink in the course of the afternoon before the road-fitter came at six o'clock. I did not have any drink after that. From Ebury Bridge to the place of the accident I have seen the road worse, but it was bad. On the route there is only one corner that can properly be described as a "corner"—Hamilton Place. The motor-'bus went slantingly across the road from Grosvenor Place to Hamilton Place, because there was little traffic. It bad been raining a considerable part of the day, but it was not raining at the time; although it was muddy it was drying. In Hamilton Place the condition of the road was rather bad. There was mud towards the side of the road where the road sloped down; the middle of the road was pretty good travelling. In Park Lane there are several
rests, some of which I was obliged to pass before the accident happened. I kept the middle of the road as much as I possibly could. I had to go a little to the side when I came to a rest, and after I had pared the rest I went round into the middle of the road again, to as to have the beet part of the road to drive on. There is no truth in the suggestion that I followed a "serpentine" course or was up to "monkey tricks." I was driving carefully from eight to 10 miles an hour where the road was good. The distance from the Victoria Station to the scene of the accident is perhaps a mile and a half. The accident took place just after 11.25, but before 11.30. What took place immediately before the scene of the accident was this: I came to this four-wheeled cab; it was not exactly in the kerb, it was more towards the crown of the road and I attempted to panama him. I had to get a little nearer him than I was in the first place, but I allowed myself sufficient room to pass him, and certainly there were more than inches between me and the cab. I had to keep a little closer in on account of a nasty turning I was coming to. At that time of night there are a good many hansom cabs and motor-cabs taking theatre parties home which come across from Upper Brook Street at rather a swing round the corner. I could not get too far on the right-hand side of the road in case of an accident in those cases. I was just passing the four-wheeled cab—I passed his back wheel—and suddenly I saw his horse pull out—whether the horse was frightened or not I do not know. I pulled my 'bus out, but I pulled my wheel rather too violently having regard to the bad state of the road—the road sloping down a good deal towards the gutter—with the result that my front wheels skidded into him and my near front wheel caught his off-front wheel. The collision quite took the steering out of my hand, and the 'bus, in skidding as it went down, rather gained force than anything else by the skid, the state of the road being what it was; and being still looked with the four-wheeled cab we both went on to the pavement. Directly afterwards I got down to see what assistance I could give, and I found my conductor had tacked up the cabman, who was afterwards taken to the hospital. After that I went round trying to interview people I thought were passengers. Mr. Williams got out of the 'bus first and he spoke to me, and also Mr. Montgomery and also Mr. Deverell. I felt rather shaken up and very much distressed on account of the serious accident, and walked down the mews and went across to a public-house in Park Street and asked for a drop of brandy. I put threepence in coppers on the counter and the barmaid served me with "mild and bitter"—I did not know whether it was only a beer-house or not. I drank the "mild and bitter," and the girl looked at the coppers and wondered I suppose why I put threepence down, and I had another glass. I was not gone more than 10 minutes. I went back again, and the police-sergeant being there wanted more particulars; he sent me with a constable to the station. I was charged with being drunk, and I said it was ridiculous. I asked to see the doctor and saw him. He examined me and I asked to be put to further tests. The doctor told me to
write my name down, which I did. The inspector said that I said I had not "seen" the doctor. What I said was I had not "finished" with the doctor.
Cross-examined. This was last journey home that night. At 11 'clock in the morning the motor-'bus broke down near the Falcon Hotel, West Kilburn. I did not have to get assistance on that occasion. I had one drink at the Falcon Hotel. It broke down again at one o'clock and did not star: again until 9.55. I had nothing to eat at all after breakfast except some bread and cheese at one o'clock. I recognise the plan. I did not mention the skidding to Police-constable Green. I did not ever in any way suggest to Sergeant Timing that the accident was caused by skidding. To my mind skidding was not the principal cause of the accident—it was that the cab pulled out of its proper course. If I had not skidded possibly I should have cleared the cab. It did not strike me at the time as being important to mention it to the police-constable. I thought Sergeant Timms would have gone and seen for himself the marks of the skidding. I cannot say why he did not see them; they certainly must have been there. I was very much upset; I was suffering from a good deal of feeling.
Re-examined. I was not asked by either of the police officers about skidding. There is no truth in the suggestion that I was guilty of wilful and wanton driving, or that I was drunk.
HENRY EDWARD JEFFRIES , conductor of the motor-'bus, corroborated the last witness as to the times the 'bus was running. Just before the accident I noticed the cab immediately in front. Noticing the bus slightly swerve I thought there was a passenger to pick up. Whether the cab horse was startled or the driver pulled him I could not say. The front wheel of the 'bus seemed to skid into the cab and the two vehicles ran into the railings. The driver was not either reckless or drunk.
Cross-examined. The first time when the 'bus broke down, near the Falcon Hotel, the accused did not go and have a drink while I was there. If he says he did I never missed him. I never missed him between three o'clock and 9.55. At seven o'clock I loft the 'bus and went to a coffee shop to get some tea. The fitter was working at the car about six o'clock and Sansom was assisting him, and if he went away then I should have undoubtedly missed him.
Re-examined. I could not say the exact time as I had no watch. All I can say is I did not miss him.
PETER HADDOW , fitter Vanguard Motor Omnibus Company. I got to Church Road. Willesden, at six o'clock on the day in question, and the accused stayed and held a light for me while I was repairing the 'bus He was perfectly sober the whole of the time.
Cross-examined. He was holding the light for me.
GEORGE ELLIS , inspector and timekeeper, Vanguard Motor Omnibus Company. I was on duty at Ebury Bridge at 11 o'clock on the night of the accident. The accused, before leaving Victoria, had to go down a decline, and circle round, and come up the hill again, and
turn to his right, and to his right again. That requires a driver who is perfect in his work. The accused was as sober at I am now. I booked him of! at 11.6.
Cross-examined. The drivers know I am on duly there; I book the 'buses away. The driver got off and stood on the pavement; I Spoke to him for a few minutes.
ROBERT HUGH MONTGOMERY . I am a member of the London County Council. On the night of the accident I was in Park Lane. I saw there had been an accident, and made inquiries as to what had happened. The accused came up to me and said, "Did you see the accident?" I said I did not I asked him how it had occurred, and he told me that a a he was passing the four-wheeler it pulled out and hit his steering wheel and he lost control. He said a few other words, but I do not recollect what they were. I was very much interested in the horse, which was in great pain and was afterwards slaughtered. After that I saw the prisoner being taken off, and I went to the police-station and expressed my opinion to the inspector. During my conversation with the accused he struck me as being absolutely sober. I should have been quite content he should have driven one of my cars. I have attended here at great personal inconvenience.
Cross-examined. I did not see anything at all of the driving of the motor 'bus. I was given to understand that the accident occurred eight or 10 minutes before I arrived on the scene. From the conversion I had with the accused I formed the opinion that he was sober. I went to the police court, but I was not called—nobody was called.
FRANCIS DEVERELL . I am a mining engineer, living at 17, Bryanston Street. I was in Park Lane on the night of the accident about two minutes after it occurred. I asked the driver how the accident happened, and he gave me his version of it. I noticed that he appeared to me to be in every way absolutely coherent, and he did not seem to have had anything at all in the way of drink. I have a very keen sense of smell, and I think I should have noticed it if he had been drinking. I attended at the police court, but I was not called as the defence was reserved. I have attended here at great personal inconvenience.
Cross-examined. I did not notice any smell of drink at all. The prisoner seemed to me to be exactly in the same state that he has been on other occasions in which I have met him in Court, except that he was much upset at what had happened. I should say he appeared aggrieved rather. I have a very keen sense of smell myself, being practically a teetotaller. I understood from the accused that the cabman pulled across in front of his wheels as he was going by and the vehicles in acme way got locked together.
Mrs. ELIZABETH KIRTON . I live at 14, Barnsdale Road, Maida Vale. I was a passenger in the motor 'bus on the night of the accident. I should say the pace was moderate. If he had been driving furiously I should have been too nervous to stay in it. After the accident the driver said, "This is rather a serious accident. I hope nobody
blames me, as my steering gear got looked." He was decidedly not drunk.
Cross-examined. I got on the bus at Victoria Station; there were five other passengers in it besides myself. I was sitting on the first seat inside on the right hand side. I did not see anything of the four-wheeler before the accident—I only heard the crash of the glass.
WALTER HENRY PLOWMAN . I live at 102, Disraeli Road, Putney. I am an inspector in the employ of the Vanguard Motor 'Bus Company. I was checking another 'bus coming from the Marble Arch to Park Lane. My attention was called to the accident. I saw the driver of the four-wheeled cab picked up by the conductor and taken on to the pavement and then sent away in a cab. I had a conversation with the driver, and he told me how it occurred. I also smelt his breath in the company's interests to see what his condition was. If I had found him drunk and incapable or found anything improper in his driving it would have been my duty to have sent to the yard for them to take the 'bus away. I formed the opinion that he was absolutely sober. (To the Judge.) When I smelt his breath I smelt nothing in the shape of drink.
Cross-examined. I should say it was five minutes after the accident happened that I smelt his breath. I was not at the police court I do not know Dr. Edmunds. If be has said that the driver's breath when he examined him at 20 minutes past one was very offensive and smelt of drink, I should be very much surprised. That would not alter my opinion at all. It is a serious thing for the company if a driver is the worse for drink.
Re-examined. I do not know how it would affect the company in this trial, which is a criminal one.
Verdict, Not guilty of being drunk. On the second count, the Jury said there was not proper care used in driving and added that they thought the 'bus itself was not in a proper condition to be let out.
The Judge suggested to accused whether it might not be wise for him to put himself for the future in such a position that, if any accident ever occurred again, he would be in a very strong position with regard to his condition. He was released on his own recognisances in £10 to come up for judgment if called on.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE GRANTHAM.
(Thursday, December 12.)
Sir Charles Mathews, Mr. A. H. Bodkin, and Mr. I. A. Symmons prosecuted; Mr. Marshall Hall, K.C., Mr. Herman Cohen, Mr. Huntly Jenkins, and Mr. J. Lort Williams defended.
HENRY JOHN DIMMOCK , plasterer's labourer, Coventry Road, Kingsbury, Tarn worth, brother of deceased. I attended the inquest at the Coroner's Court, St. Pancras, on September 16 and saw the body of my sister, Emily Elizabeth Dimmock. She was 23 years of age and had been living in London about five years. I had last seen her alive at 31, Great College Street last Easter Sunday night. I thought then that she was married to Bertram Shaw, but I found out afterwards she was not. I did not notice a ring on the finger of her left band.
Cross-examined. I saw a paper on September 13 and saw the notice that a woman of the name of Emily Dimmock had been murdered in a house in St. Paul's Road.
Detective ALFRED GROS , Y Division. I have made a plan of St. Paul's Road and its neighbourhood (produced). The "Eagle" public-house at the corner of Great College Street is 720 yards from 29, St. Paul's Road. The distance from the "Eagle." to the "Rising Sun" in the Euston Road is one mile 318 yards by the moat direct route, via the Midland Road. The distance between 29, St. Paul's Road snd 12, Frederick Street, where prisoner lived, is 1 1/2 miles. No. 29, St. Paul's Road is situate between two electric lamps of the arc pattern, hung down from standards. The nearest of those is 22 2-3 yards away from the gateway. There is a very short forecourt, 13 ft. 9 in. The next lamp is 38 yards away, and the next nearest is 102 yards away. The main line of the Midland Railway runs undernesth St. Paul's Road. Within a range of 100 yards there are six arc electric lights on the line, which throw a light upwards in the direction of No. 29. I have made a plan showing the position of those lights on the railway, which I produce. The line is about 40 ft. below the road, and the standards are about 30 ft. high, making the lamps 10 ft. below the level of the road. In the first plan I have included a ground plan of the two rooms on the ground floor of 29, St. Paul's Road. The front door is approached through a gate which gives on to the street and a little forecourt, and then there are some steps. The ground floor consists of a sitting room in front and a bedroom at the back, there being communication between the two by means of folding doors. The front sitting room door opens into the hall. Anyone using a latchkey could get into the hall and into the sitting room probably without being heard by anyone in the house. I produce a photograph of the outside of the house. The houses are semi-detached. The front room is 12 ft. 3 in. wide and the back room 11 ft. 1 in. The bed is 4 £ft. by 6 ft. I produce a photograph of the back of the premises also.
Cross-examined. I was asked to make a plan showing the light coming from the Midland Railway at the latter part of last week. I call it an absolutely fair plan, from the point of view of a surveyor. I know that the Electric Light Company have informed the police that the electric standards in St. Paul's Road were extinguished at 4.40 on the morning of September 12 I have not heard McGowan say
that that morning was muggy and dark. If the electric lights were extinguished at that time they would be useless for the purpose of light at 4.55. If it was a dark and muggy morning some light it wanted from somewhere. I say the six lights on the railway throw light in the neighbourhood of No. 29. I do not suggest that they would throw light on the front room of No. 29. There is a big bush in front of No. 29. On September 12 the foliage would be at its densest and thickest. The houses on the opposite side of the road form a continuous row, except that they are semi-detached—a few feet apart. The depth of the houses is sufficiently great to exclude the angle at which light would come from the railway, so that for the purpose of light they would be a solid block of houses. The only light that could come would be light that was projected above the top of the houses and reflected downwards into the street. On a dark night there would be reflection at a greater distance. On a drizzly, thick, muggy morning the refractive power would be at its minimum. There is an 8 ft. wall on the bridge at both sides. What I say is that when all the lights are alight they cause a glare in the air. There is a very busy shunting station near. I have only shown lamps on the plan within a range of 100 yards, but there are 50 lamps higher up, which would make the glare greater. They do not increase the possibilities of refraction. I know what McGowan's evidence is. The are lamps are on standards with a rectangular arm and a drop. They are about 50 candle-power and give a white light. The houses in St. Paul's Road back on to the houses in St. Augustin's Road, which have short gardens. The footpath on the side of St. Paul's Road where No. 29 stands consists of the ordinary flag stones and the steps of the house are stone. It is possible that a man coming down those steps would have heard the footsteps of McGowan coming down the road.
BERTRAM JOHN EUGENE SHAW . I live at 29, St. Paul's Road, Camden Town, and am a dining-car attendant on the Midland Railway. I made the acquaintance of deceased about two years ago and lived with her from January of this year—first at 50, Great College Street, then at 31, College Street, then at St. Pancras Buildings, and finally at St. Paul's Road, where we had been for seven or eight weeks before her death. The last time I saw her alive was on September 11. On that day I went out at 4.30 p.m. as usual to join my train. Deceased had not been out that day. My usual time of returning is between 11 and 11.30 a.m. My train leaves St. Pancras at 5.42 for Sheffield, returning next morning at 7.20 am., so that I never was at home at night except on the Saturday. I had not been home regularly on week-day nights since Tuesday, June 27. When I returned home on the morning of the 12th I let myself in with a latch-key. I occupied the front parlour and room adjoining, the latter being the bedroom. The front room opens out on to the passage and the back room is entered through folding doors and has also a door into the passage. The keys of the folding doors, and of the door leading into the front room, were as a rule kept in the respective locks. Having let myself>
in by the front door, I tried to get into the front room, but the door was locked and there was no key there as there usually is. On my return from work I would usually find the deceased woman waiting for me and the rooms open for me to come into. I borrowed a key of the front room and entered it in that way. I noticed that all the drawers had been pulled out of the chest of drawers with the exception of the left-hand to drawer, and the contents were chucked about the floor. My razors were lying on the top of the cheat of drawers. They were usually kept in the top right-hand drawer. The key of the folding doors was not in the lock. The doors were locked and I burst them open. Before borrowing the key of the front room door I had tried the door of the back room leading into the passage. It was locked and the key inside. That door wise usually kept locked. The bed looked all of a heap. There is no doubt that whoever committed the murder must afterwards have come through the folding doors, locked them, taken the key, come out through the front room door, locked that on the outside and taken the key with him. There was no light in the room, and the daylight was shut out by the shutters. I went to the bed and pulled the clothes aside. I then saw the body of Emily Dimmock lying on the left side, her left arm stretched across her back and her right hand on the pillow. She was lying little bit on to her stomach, a little bit forward. Her throat was out and she was dead. The bolster was lying lengthways across her back under the clothes. I missed from the rooms a silver curb chain with a little matchbox attached, and a small charm; her purse, which I had seen the previous day (Wednesday) containing 5s.; a silver watch, a cigarette case with the initials "W. A. S." on the front, and two rings from her hand, a wedding ring and a curb keeper, from which people seeing her would think that she was married. I have not seen any of these things since. Deceased had a latchkey. I have not found either the latchkey, the key of the front room, or the key of the folding doors. Leaving everything as I found it I went for a constable, and Dr. Thompson, the divisional surgeon, came soon afterwards. My landlady was away when I burst open the folding doors, but she saw me previously. I knew of the deceased woman collecting post-cards. The album produced Was hers. The room was lighted by a lamp. There were signs of a lamp having been burnt out; the globe was all brown. The album was usually kept on a small table in the front room, and I think it was there when I went away on the Wednesday, but I cannot say for certain. On Thursday morning I found it on the sewing machine against the window in the front room. The shutters of the window of the front room ware partly open; there was a gap of about a foot. We were accustomed to close the shutters of the back room at night time. I moved from these rooms about a fortnight or three weeks after September 12. I am still in the same house, but in rooms upstairs. In preparing for moving I turned out the chest of drawers and found this (the "Rising Sun") postcard under the paper at the bottom of one of the drawers. There was a fold in the paper to make it fit the drawer, and as I lifted
the paper up I discovered the postcard. That occurred on Wednesday, September 27. I gave the card to Inspector Neil. The drawer had been searched before, but the card was not found until then; I did not know it was there.
Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. I had been living with the woman since January of this year, and had known her about two years. I did not know that she was living an immoral life. I knew that she had been living in a house of ill-fame before she came to live with me. I was giving her £1 a week. I consider that was ample for her, and that there was no necessity for her to go anywhere else from the point of view of getting money, because she did dressmaking herself. She paid the rent—6s. When I found the body it did not occur to me that the woman had committed suicide; I did not know what to think. Before searching the room I went for a police-constable. I feel quite sure the deceased had not been out on September 11 before I went to work. I had plenty of sleep at Sheffield. I found the postcard album on the machine. I do not know that deceased was in the habit of getting letters from people. She was not afraid of me in the slightest. I should have had no objection if a man had written a postcard to her if there was nothing in it. She always called me "Bert." It is not likely that she would have been frightened of my knowing that she had met a man who had given her a postcard. I have never been unkind to her in the slightest. I had never had any quarrel with her. I consider I had been particularly good to her. After I went to the police station I knew almost at once that Roberts had slept with Mrs. Shaw (Dimmock) on the Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday nights. I knew that Roberts had said that a postcard had been shown him by the dead woman and that she had put the postcard into one of the top small drawers of the chest-of-drawers. That is not the drawer in which I found it. Knowing that a man who had slept with this woman had said that a postcard on a particular night was put into a top drawer of that chest-of-drawers, the question being whether I ransacked the whole chest-of-drawers from top to bottom, what I did was in front of the police. We were looking for that postcard. I could not say how many policemen there were. A postcard is a thing that might get under a piece of paper, but I do not remember pulling the papers out of the chest-of-drawers. I was told that the letter of which we have heard was a letter signed "Bert." "Bert" is the name that this woman always called me. As a matter of fact, I did not write it to her; I swear it. I did not write to her anywhere from the train that night. Whenever I have written to her I have always signed the letter "Bert." I tell the Jury that, though searching on the night of September 14 with two policemen for a postcard in a chest-of-drawers. I did not find it until September 25, a fortnight later. I had been in the house since. Accidentally. 12 days later, I found this postcard and the piece of paper which I have produced. There was 5s. or 6s. in the purse when I saw it on the Wednesday. There might have
been gold in it for all I know. I heard the evidence of Roberts that he gave her 12s., 14s., and 16s. (two guineas) on the three nights. If that is true I do not know what hat been done with the two guineas. For all I know there might have been two sovereigns in the puree as well as the shillings. There is not much light in the early morning after the electric lamps are put out. I have not been there lately in the early morning. There is one tree outside the front door; it is a stunted tree and would darken the light into the front room.
Re-examined. I had known the woman about two years, and it was in January of this year that the first came to live with me. With regard to the postcard album I could not say whether I found it on the sewing machine or the chair near by. I believe it was on the machine, but I cannot say definitely. As I have said, the shutters of the front room were partly open. I slept in Sheffield on the night of September 11-12, and was teen there by a fellow employee. We slept in the tame street, in houses opposite. I heard Roberta's statement at the police station on the Thursday night (September 12). The postcard was mentioned, and the letter signed "Bert." The fragment of a letter produced is not in my handwriting. I do not know the handwriting at all. Roberta's statement was that the fragments of the letter produced (mounted on glass) were found in the fire grate in the back room, the bedroom.
Sir Charles Mathews asked if Mr. Marshall Hall desired to have the alibi of the witness proved.
Mr. Marshall Hall accepted the statement that witness was in Sheffield on this particular night.
Re-examination continued. I did not make a minute examination of the contents of the purse. I merely saw some silver and coppers. When I last saw her on the afternoon of September 11 she had on a brown velvet skirt, a light blouse, and her hair was in metal curlers. She was attending to the washing that day and I left her to employed.
To Mr. Marshall Hall. She was in the habit of keeping her hair in curlers in the day time.
To Mr. Justice Grantham. Her habit at night was to wear a night dress. I have never known her sleep nude.
SARAH ANN STOCKS , wife of George William Stocks, 29, St. Paul's Road, Camden Town. The man Shaw and the woman Emily Dimmock lodged with us. We knew them as Mr. and Mrs. Shaw, and previous to her death they had been there nine weeks, occupying two rooms on the ground floor and paying a rent of 8s. a week. I knew that Shaw was employed on the Midland Railway. On September 11 I was at home in. the afternoon and evening. Shaw left as usual about 4.30, and the woman was in the house then. She was employed washing in the washhouse in the yard at the back. After Shaw had gone she gathered up the linen and took it away. She afterwards went into the wash house several times to clear the place up, and the last time she was there was near eight o'clock.
I noticed that she had on a brown velvet skirt and light blouse, and her hair was in curling pins round the forehead. Besides folding her linen she tidied the rooms upstairs in expectation of Shaw coming home next day. The last time I saw her that evening was about eight o'clock. About 20 minutes past eight I heard the front door shut. She had a key of the front door. The key of the parlour was usually kept in the door inside. The key of the folding doors was generally kept in the door, and the key of the back room leading into the passage was generally kept in the door inside. I went to bed that night about five minutes to 11. By that time I heard no sound as of anyone going into the front room. Next morning I got up about eight o'clock. It was my habit to knock at the deceased woman's bedroom door. On the morning of September 12 I knocked at the door about nine o'clock and getting no answer I thought he was out. Mr. Shaw came home about the usual time, about 20 minutes past 11. I was present when he tried the parlour door, and I got the key that would fit it. I went into the room when he had opened the door. The drawers from the chest of drawers were piled up; some of them were on the floor. The shutters in the front room were shut with the exception of a gap of about one foot in the middle. Mr. Shaw forced open the folding doors and went into the bedroom. I saw the body of the woman lying on the bed and a good deal of blood, and then I went back to my kitchen. Afterwards a policeman came.
Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hull. My husband works on the railway, and we both of us get up early. I said before the magistrate that I did not know the life this woman was leading. I thought she was a respectable woman. She might have brought home a man without my knowing anything about it.
To Sir Charles Mathews. My husband used to leave work between half-past five and 20 minutes to six.
GEORGE WILLIAM STOCKS . I live at 29, St. Paul's Road, and emanengine cleaner in the employ of the London and North-Western Railway. On the morning of September 12 I left my house between 5.30 a.m. and 5.35 a.m. I wear a uniform. I get home in the evening about six o'clock or there about. On the evening of Wednesday, September 11, I saw Mrs. Shaw in the house engaged in washing. The last I saw of her was about five minutes past eight, and some few minutes after that I heard the front door shut. I noticed that her hair was still in curling pins. (Witness identified a photograph produced as that of the deceased woman.)
Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. When she went out she had a green costume on, not the costume she had been working in all day. I sign on at Granby Street, Hampetead Road, which if about 20 minutes from our place. I generally have a cup of tea before I go out; sometimes my wife gets it and sometimes I make it myself. As I get up about five o'clock I should have heard anybody moving about the house about that time. I did not hear anybody moving that morning (September 12).
Re-examined. The alarm went off that morning about 20 minutes to five. I did not trouble to get up then. I lay trill 20 minutes past five, and I had to make a rush to get to work by six.
JOHN THOMPSON , Divisional Surgeon. On September 12 I was called to 29, St. Paul's Road, and on arriving there went into the bedroom, situated on the ground floor. I saw a heap of clothes first of all. The bed had a very disarranged appearance. The clothes were all tossed about. The bolster was lying lengthwise at the back of the figure on the bed, and on removing the coverings I saw the nude figure of a dead woman. The bedclothes were all saturated in blood, and there was a stream of blood on the floor reaching to within a foot of the fender. The blood had gone through the bed. I first noticed a black spot on the back, which gave me the idea that there was a stab there, but on careful examination I found that it was a clot of blood which had dropped from the fingers of the left hand, which, had evidently been drawn across the back. I then saw a cut in the throat, which was not very visible at first because the chin was down towards the breast, but on raising the head slightly from the breast, I found an extensive cut, reaching from about three-quarters of an inch from the lobe of the left ear, very deep, and cutting through the arteries, veins, and nerves on that side towards the right side, cutting through the windpipe—in fact, separating everything to the vertebrae. The head was almost severed from the trunk, and was only held in position by the muscles at the back of the neck. The wound extended to the lobe of the right ear, but was not so deep on the right side as on the left. I formed the opinion that the wound must have been caused by a very sharp instrument, used with a very determined force. The cause of death was syncope, arising from the sudden loss of a quantity of blood. Death must have been almost instantaneous. It is quite impossible that such a wound could have been self-inflicted. The temperature of the body at the time I found it was quite cold. Judging from the rigor mortis, the woman must have been dead for several hours, but how long it would not be easy definitely to say. I made a post-mortem examination by order of the coroner, and amongst other things examined the contents of the stomach. She evidently had had supper, and among other things I found indications of mint, as though from mint sauce, and potatoes and bread. The stage which digestion had reached indicated that the meal had been taken about three and a half hours prior to her death, or it might be four. Digestions vary—some people digesting food more quickly than others, There were also indications that she had drunk something dark, which I thought was probably stout. When I saw the woman she was lying on her left side, rather inclining towards the stomach or chest. The right arm was lying on the pillow within 8 in. or 9 in. of the head. The left arm was lying across her back saturated with blood, which had dried on her hand, and there was also the clot on the back. The attitude was suggestive of natural sleep. Her head was still upon the pillow. The position of the left arm was scarcely
a natural position for a person to sleep in, but all the other portions of the body were natural, and I came to the conclusion that her left arm was placed in that position alter death by her assailant. The legs were drawn up in a very natural position. The right knee was resting just below the left knee. I formed an opinion as to how she had been attacked. I should say that the assailant was at her back on the bed between her and the wall. The head must have been slightly raised either by placing the hand under the forehead or by grasping the hair—more likely I should say by placing the hand on the forehead, raised sufficiently to get the sharp instrument as far back as possible to the throat. The head at first evidently was not raised sufficiently for the instrument to pass between the head and the bed. Consequently, there was a clean cut on the sheet and the tick of the bed. When a sufficient height had been obtained, it was simply a matter of a moment. There need not have been much blood necessarily on the assailant except upon the right hand. My attention was directed to the basin on the wash stand. The water in the basin was very much discoloured with blood, and in the basin there was a petticoat which might have been used for the purpose of cleansing, let us say, the hand. There were no finger marks upon it. There were two drops of blood on the cover of the washstand, probably dropped from the fingers in moving the hand towards the basin. There was a drop of blood on the soap dish cover and a drop on the jug, which was on the floor and nearly three parts full of clean water. Those were drops which might have come from the hand before it was put into the water for the purpose of getting rid of the blood which remained. I made an examination of the body for the purpose of seeing whether sexual connection had taken place within an appreciable time. There was a quantity of mucus, but after four or five microscopical examinations I failed to detect spermatozoa. The woman had suffered from syphilis, but not recently. There were a few skin marks, and it might have been 12 months since she had the disease. I noticed the condition of the woman's hair. There was a roll of curlers in front, and she had also some combs in her hair and a back comb was lying on the pillow as though it had fallen out of her hair. I do not remember seeing the woman's clothes.
Cross-examined. Before the magistrate I put the death at between 3.30 and four o'clock, being guided by the contents of the stomach and the time at which she probably had her supper. In my opinion there had been a digestive process going on for three or four hours. The assailant would not necessarily have to get over the body to get out of the bed on to the floor. He might have got out at the foot of the bed. When an artery is severed there is an enormous spurt of blood, but in this case the neck was towards the bed and the blood would spurt into the bed. If the wound was inflicted with a razor the razor must have been held in a firm grip, or a handkerchief might have been tied round the tang to keep the blade in position and hold it rigid. The razor, or whatever instrument was employed, would be simply swamped in blood, and it would be difficult to get
the blood out of the interstices between the blade and the handle of the razor. Under these circumstances I believe it would be difficult. I came to the conclusion for that reason that neither of the razors belonging to prisoner had been used.
Re-examined. A razor might be cleansed by putting it in water and wiping it with the petticoat. The petticoat in the washstand basin was saturated with water and blood. The indication in the basin might have been produced by the cleansing of the weapon as well as the washing of the bands.
Mr. Marshall Hall stated that the razors had been taken to pieces and microscopically examined, and no trace of blood had been found upon them.
THOMAS PERCIVAL ROBERTS , ship's cook, 31, College Place, N.W. My ship was paid off on August 30. I remember on Sunday, September 8, meeting Emily Dimmock in the Euston Road and going with her to the "Rising Bun." After remaining there a time I went with her to her lodgings at 29, St. Paul's Road. I went into the house about 10 o'clock and left just on closing time. She opened the door with a latchkey and took me into the sitting room and looked the door. The folding doors were then slightly ajar. We went through them into the bedroom and I passed the night with her. I left about half-past seven in the morning and gave her 16s. On the following night, September 9, I was again in the "Rising Sun" about six o'clock and remained some hours. Emily Dimmock; came in about eight o'clock She spoke to me. Prisoner Wood came in and the deceased went over and spoke to him, and they remained talking at the bar for some time. At about nine o'clock they both went out together, and I remained in the public-house till they returned about 11 o'clock. They stayed till 10 minutes past 12 and then went away together. A short time afterwards the woman came back by herself, and I again went with her to 29, St. Paul's Road. I remember the deceased woman taking a postcard from her bodice and showing it to me. It was signed by the Christian name "Alice." I gave her back the postcard and she put it in the left-hand drawer of the chest of drawers. I remained with her that night and left next morning at about half-past seven, paying her 14s. On the Tuesday evening I saw deceased again in the "Rising Sun" about eight o'clock and we went to the Euston Theatre together. We went back to the "Rising Sun" and had some refreshments and then returned to St. Paul's Road. I left next morning about half-past eight or a quarter to nine. On Wednesday morning, while I was in bed with her, I remember that there was a knock at the bedroom door and two letters were pushed under the door. One was an advertisement from a ladies' tailor and the other a private letter. After reading the letter the woman went to the left-hand top small drawer and took out the
postcard. She then showed me the postcard and the letter together. I formed the opinion that they were in the same handwriting. The letter was written on three tides and the back was blank. One part stood out very plainly by itself and said: "Dear Phyllis,—Will you meet me at the 'Eagle' to night, 8.30. Wednesday, Camden Town?" and was signed "Bert." There was some more writing, but this was the part she particularly showed me. I can say that the letter began in affectionate terms. The fragments of letter produced (mounted on glass) appear to me to be fragments of the letter. I saw deceased afterwards put the two letters into one envelope, and having set fire to it with a match, throw it into the fireplace. Both the letter and the postcard appeared to have been written with an indelible pencil. The postcard she put back again into the same place. Before leaving I paid her 12s. or 14s. I never saw her again alive. I noticed that the postcard was signed "Alice" and the letter was signed "Bert," but she didn't give any explanation of that. On each night she wore two chemises. On the following afternoon (Thursday) information reached me that the woman had been found murdered. Later in the evening a detective found me at the "Rising Sun" and I went with him to the police station at Somers Town and made a statement. I saw Bertram Shaw at the, police station. I gave all the information I had with regard to the postcard and the letter. On October 5 I was taken to the Highgate. Police Station, where prisoner was paraded amongst a number of other men. I at once identified him as the man who had been in the "Rising Sun" on the Monday night with Phyllis Dimmock.
Cross-examined. There were about 15 people paraded for identification, and I recognised prisoner at once. I know a woman named May Campbell. I first saw her on the day of the funeral, September 15. May Campbell gave me a description of a man whom she said she knew as a friend of Dimmock. That description tallied very much with the man I picked out on October 5. I do not know that May Campbell made a long statement to the police on September 20. She told me she wanted to make one, but her husband would not let her. I saw a description that was published in the "News of the World," but I cannot remember the date: "Aged 28 to 30; height about 5 ft. 7 in.; sallow complexion, dark hair, cleanshaven, peculiar appearance about the eyes." That is almost word for word the description given to me by May Campbell. She also added, "Pimples on the lower part of the face and neck." I was not in a great fright when I heard of this murder. I realised that I was next to the murderer. It was for that reason that I went to the "Rising Sun." I said, I am going to stay here all night until a detective or a policeman comes in." The habitués of the "Rising Sun" knew that I had slept with this woman on the Sunday, Monday, and Tuesday nights. They knew also that I was a ship's cook with my ship discharged. I had been frequenting the "Rising Sun" for practically a week, and naturally being an innocent man I wanted to
prove conclusively that I had had nothing to do with the murder. I realised the danger of having been in contact with the woman, and that the fact of having slept with her three nights, and her being murdered the next night placed me in a very unpleasant situation. I slept, next to the wall. (Witness examined the fragments of the letter with a magnifying glass.) I noticed that the paper has faint blue lines upon it, and that the writing is across the lines. As to the suggestion that the letter is written on a piece of paper torn out of a scribbling book or a pocket book, I can only say that I saw the letter, and I say that it was written on three sides. I have been asked to describe the letter, and I have described it to the best of my ability. The fourth side I say was blank. I deny that the story of this long letter is an invention. It was signed "Bert." Where it came from I cannot tell you. I know that the name of the man deceased was living with was Bert Shaw. If the object had been to put suspicion on Bertram Shaw, the signature "Bert" would have been a very useful piece of evidence. I do not accept the suggestion that May Campbell and myself made up a composite description. Her description tallied with the man I bad seen in the "Rising Sun" on Sunday night. The police have been providing me with money during this case, and I have not gone back to any other ship. I have been kept in England for the purpose of this trial. I did not see the deceased at all on the Wednesday night. My alibi has been absolutely accepted by the police. I didn't say before the magistrate that this letter was couched in affectionate terms because I was not asked. The letter commenced "Darling Phyllis,' and the part making the assignation began "Dear Phyllis."
Re-examined. Phyllis Dimmock was not at the "Rising Sun" on the night of the murder. I was asked to give a description of the man I had seen at the "Rising Sun" on the evening of the 9th, before I saw May Campbell. The description I gave was very similar to that given in the "News of the World." I did not identify the prisoner from any description given by May Campbell. I saw him in the "Rising Sun" on the Monday night for two hours, and all the time he was looking very hard at me and I was looking very hard at him. I had no doubt that he was the man who had been at the "Rising Sun." I am certain that the letter contained an assignation for Wednesday night. It was half-past 12 when I left the "Rising Sun" that night. I was accompanied by a friend named Clarke, and we walked home together. We were lodging under the same roof, and were admitted by the landlady at about quarter to one, and I did not leave the premises again that night.
(Friday, December 13.)
ALICE LANCASTER , 29, St. Paul's Road. On Wednesday, September 11, at 7.45 a.m., I received from the postman two letters addressed to Mrs. B. Shaw. I knocked at her bedroom door and said, "Two letters," pushed them under the door, and Mrs. Shaw called
out, "All right." The next morning I left the house at eight o'clock. So far as I knew nothing was wrong.
Cross-examined. I am a lady clerk, and have lived at 29, St. Pawl's Road, since February 12 last. I occupy the second floor front room. Mrs. Stocks occupies the first floor front room and the front basement, which she uses as a kitchen. I generally take the letters if I am up, and have frequently put letters under Mrs. Shaw's door. I did not know that Roberts was with her. I knew Shaw was away. I heard no conversation; they would be asleep, as I had to knock twice. I was first asked to give evidence Last night. I had never discussed the receipt of these two letters with anyone. At the Coroner's Court I heard Roberts speak of the two letters. I mentioned it to Mrs. Stocks soon after the murder.
FRANK FREDERICK HOLLAMBY , clerk in the Accountant General's office of the General Post Office. The "Rising Sun" postcard is marked "London, W.C., four a.m., September 9, 1907," at the head office, W.C. district, Southampton Row. If posted at the head office of the district it would be put in the box between two and four a.m., if at any other letter box between one and three a.m., on Monday, September 9.
Cross-examined. If postcards are not properly addressed they are not returned through the dead letter office. This postcard must have been posted after one a.m.
FRANK CLARKE , commercial clerk. (Address written down and handed in.) I am in the habit of using the "Rising Sun" public-house. I knew Emilv Dimmock by sight. The witness Roberts has lived in the house I live at since September, 1907. On Sunday, September 8, at 10 p.m., I was with Roberts in the "Rising Sun," and Dimmock was there talking with Roberts up to 11 p.m., when I left. On Monday, September 9. I was again at the "Rising Sun" at 10 p.m., and saw Roberts and Dimmock together. The prisoner was also there at about 11 p.m.; he spoke to Dimmock for a minute. She walked over to speak to him and went back to Roberts. Prisoner remained three or four minutes. I left Roberts and Dimmock there at 12.20. On Tuesday, September 10, I was again in the "Rising Sun" at 10 p.m., and did not see Roberts or Dimmock there. On September 11 I was there at 10 p.m. I did not see Dimmock or Wood; Roberts was there, and I remained in his company till closing time. We then walked home together, talked for about 10 minutes, and went to bed at one a.m. I slept on the second floor and Roberts on the third floor above me. At 10 a.m. the next morning I saw Roberts at breakfast in the common coffee-room.
Cross-examined. I have seen prisoner in the "Rising Sun" two or three times before September 8. It is about 300 yards from where I live. On October 15 I picked prisoner out as a man I had seen there. I have known Roberts since the Sunday previous to the murder. I have seen him since September 1 or 2, when he came to lodge where I live. He did not say he was very anxious to prove
where he was on September 11. I have heard that he slept with Dimmock on September 8, 9, and 10—I knew it on the morning of September 11—he told me in conversation that he had slept with her.
Re-examined. What Roberta said to me was, "I have bean with Dimmock"—he did not mention the particular day or night. I am quite certain he made that statement on the Wednesday morning after breakfast.
AMELIA LE SAGE , wife of M. La Sage. I keep a temperance hotel at the address written down. Clarke has lodged with me for about six months. Roberts came on September 1. On Wednesday, September 12 or 11, I let Clarke and Roberts in at about 12.15. Neither of them had keys. On Thursday, at 11 or 12 p.m., the police visited me.
Detective-sergeant GEORGE OSBORN , Y Division. On Friday, September 13, at nine a.m., I searched the bedroom in which the body of Dimmock was found. In the grate of the fireplace I found letter and envelope pertly burnt (produced between glasses). I handed them to Neil. I was present when the pieces were shown to Roberts.
Cross-examined. There was much more burnt paper in the grate—I took all the portions on Which there was legible writing. There was no coal ash in the grate, only charred paper and a charred pattern book. I saw the drawers lying on the floor in the front room with wearing apparel and different things in them.
Detective FRANK PAGE , Y Division. On Thursday, September 12, at three p.m., I went to 29, St. Paul's Road, with Neil. On a chair in the front room was the postcard album (produced). It was lying open, with several postcards loose on the book and several on the floor immediately in front of the chair. I called Neil's attention to it. On October 5, on instructions of Neil, I went with Charles Carlile Wood to the Paste Restante, St. Martin's le Grand. Wood asked for a letter which I took possession of (produced). The letter is dated "One a.m., September 30, 1907."
Cross-examined. The album was on the chair, not on the sewing machine. If Shaw says it was on the table it must have been moved. I searched prisoner's premises on October 4 with Neil. The album had apparently been filled with cards; we have taken a lot out to go through them; I believe none are in the writing of prisoner.
Re-examined. The sewing machine stood immediately in front of the window, the table in the corner a few feet from the window.
Detective-sergeant HERBERT MILTON , Y Division. On Friday, September 13, I went to 29, St. Paul's Road, with Roberts and searched a chest of drawers. The top long drawer was on the floor in the front room, the others in the cheat. I did not find the "Rising Sun" postcard. In the top long drawer were a number of books and wearing apparel, the bottom covered with newspaper. After taking the articles out of the drawer I lifted the paper up
and looked underneath for the card. The paper was folded under, and I did not unfold it. I put the things back in the drawer and left it on the floor.
Cross-examined. I am an experienced police officer—I was given to understand that the postcard was in the top long drawer. I took everything out of the drawer, lifted up the paper, and put it bark. I did not shake the paper, but missed the postcard. I was searching for a postcard.
ROBERT HENRY MCGOWAN , carman. I was living at 2, Hawley Street. Chalk Farm Road, from the early part of September, 1907, was out of employment, and seeking work. I knew Coleman, who was doing odd work, as I was also. I usually went to the V.V. Bread Company, in Brewery Road, at five a.m. On Thursday, September 12, I left home at 4.40 a.m., went through St. Paul's Road, which is about eight minutes' walk from my home, and on to Brewery Road. When I got to 29, St. Paul's Road, I heard steps as I passed the gate, as if someone had been standing there, and started off of a sudden. I turned round, and saw a man leave the gate of No. 29 and go down the road towards King's Road, in the opposite direction to me. He wore an overcoat with the collar turned up and a hard bowler hat. I noticed a peculiar jerk in his walk, a sort of quick motion, the left hand was down by the side, the right shoulder coming round—a sort of quick Jerk with the right shoulder. Coleman had been accustomed to go with me in search of work. If a light was in his window I knew he had not left, and would wait for him to join me. I could see his window between the houses in St. Paul's Road. That morning I saw his light, and waited for him. The man came out of No. 29 just behind me as I had just passed the gate. I thought Coleman was playing a trick on me, and had come out of the gate suddenly. I looked round several times for Coleman, and the man was still in sight. I saw him for quite 30 yards in good view. Coleman did not join me; when I got to the V.V. Bread Company he was there. I was taken on at 5.5 a.m. to do two hours' work. I learned of the murder on Friday morning at 8.30 from the paper, and on Saturday, at 10 a.m., gave information to Sergeant Ball. I went to him at Some Town Police Station, after speaking to a constable. Ball took my statement down in writing, read it to me, and I signed it. In the evening, at seven p.m., I saw Inspector Neil, and on Monday I picked out the prisoner from a number of men who were ordered to walk round. I instantly selected prisoner by the jerk of the shoulders—the same movement that I had seen in the man in St. Paul's Road. Neil asked me if I recognised anyone. I said "Yes" and walked up and touched prisoner.
Cross-examined. I was looking for a job on the morning of September 12. I did not get taken on at the V.V. Company. I got the job the morning before. I did not know it was No. 29 that the man came from at the time. Coleman lived at 2, Rotham Road. There is
an open space in St. Paul's Road, where I could see Coleman's window as I stood by the Vicarage gate. If the light was there Coleman was supposed to be there; if out he had gone. I saw the light and thought Coleman had not gone. Sometimes his wife had the light, and that would deceive me. I thought it was Colemen jumping out upon me from No. 29. I said before the coroner and before the magistrate that I left home at 20 to five and that it was five minutes to five when I was passing 29, St. Paul's Road, as near at I could tell—that it would take me a quarter of an hour to go from my home to 29. St. Paul's Road, and that I heard the clock strike five shortly after in the Brewery Road. I do not want to alter that excepting that I think it would take me about eight minutes' walk from my house to 29, St. Pauls Road, and about 12 minutes on to the V.V. Company in Brewery Road. I think it would be 12 minutes before I heard the clock strike. I was cross-examined on my statement, and I have walked over the ground since. Whatever time it was, I know the standard electric lights were alight. I was up at the V.V. Company when I heard the clock strike. It was a drizzly, thick, foggy morning. I should call it drizzly if it were muggy, thick, and foggy, although it had not rained. I am Suffolk. I have not swallowed the dictionary. In Suffolk "drizzly" means a morning without rain. I did not tell Ball I saw the man come down the steps—that was put down by mistake and I corrected it before the coroner. If I had said he was coming down the steps I should have seen the man's face, but his back was turned to me. I told Ball I heard steps, turned round, and the man was outside the gate. I did not describe the man at wearing a dark, loose sac overcoat. If it it taken down at the inquest, "The man had an overcoat, the collar turned up—it was a sac coat, loose," that is wrong. One of the jury turned round and said, "Is it a coat like this?" The words were put to me. I do not know the difference between a sac coat and another coat. I said it was a-dark overcoat. (Prisoner's coat produced.) That would look dark in the morning—it is a dark brown. Deposition produced was read over to and signed by me. At the inquest I asked to have Ball's statement altered for the first time—not when Ball read it over to me; I did not notice it then. I did not say the man was a broad-shouldered man. I said he was a trifle broader across the shoulders than me. I only identify prisoner by the peculiar twitch of the shoulders. When he came out I only paid attention to his peculiar walk. I was dawdling—waiting for my mate, Coleman. The man's peculiar walk attracted my attention. I did not then know the number of the house. When I left off work on the Friday morning I got a paper and read about the murder; then, on the Saturday morning, I was going past the house and saw the number of the house out of which I had seen the man come. I knew which house it was because it was in the paper—No. 29. I went on to work, and, as I came back, spoke to a policeman, who sent me on to Ball. I did not tell the policeman shout the peculiar walk. I simply asked him where I should find the detective in charge of the case. I described him to Bell as a man
with a swaggering gait and with a peculiar twitch of the right shoulder, stiff-built, with broad shoulders—a trifle broader across the shoulders than me. (Prisoner was directed to put the coat on.) I describe prisoner as broader-shouldered than me. In the deposition I said. "The man was about 5 ft. 7 or 8 in height." The "8" was crossed off at the coroners—I denied that. I saw the man by the electric light; I did not want any light from the railway below. There were two electric light standards, one on the same side as No. 29 and one opposite. I identified prisoner when he had no overcoat on. I did not seen any description of Wood in the papers before identifying prisoner on October 7. I take the "People" newspaper. I had not been told the suspected man wore a blue serge suit. I had no conver-station with May Campbell. After I had touched prisoner May Campbell was brought in and identified him. Miss Raven and the barman from the "Eagle" were in the yard before me. They saw me identify him. I did not see a description of the suspected man in the "People" before I identified. When I said, "I have seen several descriptions. I saw the 'People'—the description there was misleading," that was afterwards. They gave my evidence a week before I gave it in the Court. I never read the account in the paper from September 14 to October 7, when I identified.
Re-examined. I have no interest in this case and never saw or spoke to any of the persons concerned. I have attended to give evidence and have received no money except 3s. at the inquest for the three days I attended there. I have been 16 years in the army. 12 years as a non-commissioned officer, discharged with the best character, then 12 years as a commission agent for the Aerated Bread Company, and I am now in employment. At the inquest I said the man wore a long overcoat reaching to the back of the knees. One of the jury got up and said, "Was it like this?" I said, "Yes," and Mr. Newton said, "A sac overcoat," and the words were put down to me. I am certain the electric light was on. It was just getting daylight, but it was a thick, heavy morning. There were two lights, one 30 yards from the house, the other 23 or 24 yards away on the other side. I do not think the light from the Midland Railway would show on the road—the line is too far down under the arch. With regard to the electric light, sometimes they would go out when I was in King's Road, at another time when I was in St. Paul's Road, and at another when I was crossing the Camden Road. They were never all out at the same time. May Campbell came bouncing about while I was in the yard to identify the prisoner, and then flew out again. She was there when I picked the prisoner out. Miss Raven and the barman from the "Eagle" were in the yard, 10 or 14 yards away from me. (To Mr. Marshall Hall.) The corner of the Brewery Road is about 800 yards from 29, St. Paul's Road. I heard the man when he was outside the gate. He shut the gate after him. I heard the gate click. A policeman was on the opposite side of the road ahead of me. I saw him as he stopped at the butcher's shop at the corner,
where the electric light is. (To the Judge.) I do not know what time the electric lights went out—I did not notice them go out.
RICHARD LANE COLEMAN , No. 2, Wrotham Road, Camden Town. I am a van man, but not in regular employment; I do some day work for the V.V. Bread Company in the Brewery Road; I have been working in that way for some time past. In the month of September last I was in the habit of leaving my home at 10 minutes to five in the morning to go either to work or to look for it. I have known McGowan three years, but intimately to work with him about six months. He used to go to the V.V. Bread Company in search of employment in September last. I used to go with him almost every morning. By the light from my window he would find out whether I was at home or whether I had left home. If there was a light in my window it would indicate that I was there.
Mr. Mirshall Hall said he did not with to object to the evidence for fear that the jury might think he wanted to keep anything out. He submitted the evidence was not relevant to the issue.
Mr. Justice Grantham said he should have thought the arrangement was evidence in the case.
The Witness. I went with McGowan from time to time to the V.V. Bread Company. There might have been two or three times upon which I did not meet him, and afterwards found him at the Bread Company's premises, or he found me. I do not know any certain dates. There was an occasion upon which we did not meat and go together. On that occasion he caught me up in the V.V. Company's yard in the Brewery Road. Shortly after that occasion I heard of this crime. I heard of the fact of the crime the next morning. Upon the morning after that—Saturday—we had a little conversation.
Inspector ARTHUR NEIL , Y Division. I first got some information in connection with the case about five minutes to three on the afternoon of Thursday, September 12, in consequence of which I want with Detective Page to 29, St. Paul's Road, where I found Police-constable Killion in charge. There were some other officers there. I noticed a chest of drawers in the sitting-room closes to the folding doors on the right as you are going to the back room, which is used as a bedroom and a living room. (The witness marked on the plan the position of the chest of drawers, which was next to the fireplace.) I noticed that ail the drawers were pulled out and the left-hand top drawer was right out, standing on the floor. The contents of he drawer which was on the floor had, I should think, been taken out and thrown back again. There were little articles of clothing or woollen material, and some papers in there of which I took possession. The things in the drawers which were partly pulled out had also been turned over. In the right-hand small drawer I found three small rings in the corner—I think of 9-carat gold. I could see them at once without moving any of the articles. I did not find a wedding ring in any part of the rooms. Detective Page called my attention to a chair and a postcard album lying on the chair. The album had appatently
been turned over and some postcards were lying on the leaves, loose, and some on the floor. The chair was very close to the window. There is a sewing machine standing right opposite the opening of the shutters and the chair was betide that. The chair was in such a position that the light from that opening would fall upon it. The shutters were closed in the back room. On the table there was a lamb-bone or a mutton bone, a glass which had apparently contained stout, a bottle about half full of stout, and two plates, which were packed with knives and forks as if they had been put there in a hurry. I afterwards had my attention drawn to some mint-sauce in a cup in the cupboard. I have been present while Dr. Thompson was describing the condition of that room, which was correctly described. There was also in the back room a pail about half full of soapy water, with a scrubbing brush and flannel in it, as though the deceased woman had been using it for scrubbing. I found one razor on the chest of drawers and another on the sewing machine, both in cases. (The razors were identified by the witness.) They are very old razors and very rusty. I did not take out the paper which was lying at the bottom of the drawers; I was searching more for an instrument that might have caused the wound. On that day I got possession of photographs of the deceased woman. (Exhibits 4 and 5.) On September 13 a photograph of the deceased woman in the sailor hat appeared, I believe, in the newspapers. I first saw the witness Roberts late on the night of the 12th and then again on the next morning. In consequence of what I heard from him I first of all went in search of a man whom he described, and the following morning I directed Sergeant Osborn to go and search the grate in the back room of 29, St. Paul's Road, and that same morning I directed Sergeant Wilson to go with the witness Roberts and first of all search through the various postards in the album and from there to go to the house and make a further search for the "Rising Sun" postcard, which he had described. At that time we had had the album taken to the Kentish Town Police Station. On September 13 I got from Osborne the burnt paper, which is between two pieces of glass. I got this picture of the "Rising Sun" postcard from Bertram Shaw on September 25, a facsimile of which appeared in the newspapers on September 28 and 29. I saw McGowtan on the morning of the 13th; Sergeant Ball took his statement. The inquest was opened on September 16 and adjourned until September 30, and then further adjourned until October 14. At those adjournments only very short and formal evidence was taken. The prisoner was apprehended on October 14. I first saw Ruby Young on that day about five o'clock in the afternoon at the Piccadilly Tube Station in consequence of a communication made to me. I went with her to Gray's Inn Road and saw the prisoner at 6.15 cross the road and speak to her. I followed behind and spoke to him. I said, "Mr. Wood." He said "Yes." I said, "I am a police inspector, I wish to speak to you." He said, "Certainly." I then said to him, "I do not wish this young lady to hear what I have to say." That was said to the
prisoner in Ruby Young's presence, and the then stood on one side. I then said to him, "I have been making inquiries respecting the murder of Emily Elisabeth Dimmock at 29, St. Raul's Road, Camden Town, on the night of September 11 last. Some post-cards have been found which were sent to her by a man with whom she was acquainted, and from my inquiries I have reason to believe they were written by you." He said, "Quite right, but I only wrote the one with the sketch of the 'Rising Sun' on it." I said, "Well, we cannot discuss the matter here, you had better come with me, I shall detain you pending inquiries as to your movements on the night of the murder; I have reason to believe you know something about it." He said, "Very well, sir; you will allow me to wish my young lady 'Good night' before I go." He then turned to the young lady and she came towards him. At that time I had hailed a cab, and we were about to get into it, and he said to her, "Good-bye, dear, don't worry, I have to go with this gentleman; if England wants me she must have me; don't cry, but be true." She replied, "Leave that to me." The prisoner and myself got into the cab, and he then said, "I want to give you an explanation." I directed the cabman to drive to Highgate Police Station. Before that date three postcards besides the "Rising Sun" postcard had appeared in the papers. I cautioned him. He said, "There is no secret about the card—my young brother, or rather my step brother, called my attention to the handwriting on the postcards when they came out in the Sunday papers. I only told him it was like my handwriting, but I knew at the same time I wrote the card, and the same night I had a chat with my elder brother Charles, who lives at 43, Museum Street, and his wife Bessie; he is a conscientious chap, and both he and his wife advised me to go to Scotland Yard; I was vary busy in the office because my principal was away and I had to do his work, so my brother suggested that the next best thing to do was to write a letter addressed to the Posts Restante, St. Martin's-le-Grand, and stating I acknowledged writing the postcard and giving my reasons for not coming forward; he wrote the letter, and Bessie and he and I signed it, and he addressed it to himself at the Poste Restente. His name is Charles Carlile Wood, and you will find the letter there. I want you to get it to show that I did not conceal the matter." He repeated that several times, and then went on: "I only met she girl by accident on Friday night before she was murdered, and I considered it very hard to be drawn into the matter, as I know practically nothing about it; I did not care to be dragged into a matter of this sort; I did not think my evidence would make much difference to the case; if one has a good name you do not care to get mixed up in matters of this sort." I then said to him (still being in the cab), "It is alleged that the person who wrote that postcard had an appointment with the deceased at the 'Eagle' Public House, Camden Town, between eight and nine on the night of the murder; she received a letter, said to be in the same handwriting as the postcard on the Wednesday, making that appointment." The prisoner said, "Well, I
never wrote anything to her but the postcard, which was sent quite by accident; I met her in the 'Rising Sun,' in Euston Road, quite by chance on the Friday night before she was murdered, when she wanted me to buy her a postcard from a boy; I told her I had some better ones in my pocket and showed them to her; she seemed pleased with them, and I promised to send her one. I wrote it whilst I was with her, but did not send it that night." He kept repeating that he had made, no secret about this postcard until we arrived at the Highgate Police Station. He also said some people at his works knew of it. When we arrived at the Highgate Police Station I cautioned him again. I said to him, "If you desire to make a statement explaining your movements on the Wednesday night, September 11, I will make full inquiries about it." He said, "I want to tell you the truth about the whole matter." I then had a statement taken down at his dictation. Sergeant Mitchell wrote it, and it was read over first by the prisoner himself, who made certain alterations and punctuated it, and it was afterwards read over to him again by Sergeant Ball. After it was read over by Sergeant Ball to the prisoner the prisoner signed it as it now appears. (To the Judge.) This statement was taken down shortly after he had made the previous statement to me. (The statement signed by the prisoner was then read by Mr. Bodkin, the clerical errors in it being noted.) In that statement the letter from the prisoners brother addressed to the Poste Restante is referred to. I got back from Detective Page that envelope and the letter. (Exhibit 9 was then read by Mr. Bodkin.) The envelope bears the post-mark, "1 a.m., September 30." He told me that his brother wrote this letter. The (prisoner referred to his father and said where he lived—12, Frederick Street—and he also said if I was going to his house he wished me to be careful, because his father was in ill-health and it might upset him. What I have detailed happened on the night of October 4, and by the time the statement had quite finished it must have been past one o'clock. I came back after it was finished and when it was read over. I left Sergeant Ball and Sergeant Mitchell at the police station before the statement was finished and went to 12, Frederick Street and saw his father the same night, who pointed out the front ground floor room as the room which the prisoner occupied, which was divided by the folding doors from the back bedroom, which the prisoner's father and the step-brother occupied. Against the folding doors, both on the back-room side and the front-room aide, furniture was placed, and without moving which it would not have been possible to open the folding-doors so as to get through from one room to the other—you would have to go out into the passage and in at the other door. In the front room I found some clothes hanging on pegs behind the door—an overcoat, a pair of trousers, and, I believe, a vita and a jacket. I put them on the bed and searched through the pockets. I left the overcoat on the bed and did take any of the clothes away with me. To the best of my recollection the other things were underneath the overcoat on the peg. Going in from the street into No. 12, Frederick
Street the door of the front room wee just inside on the right-hand tide, about a yard or two yards. Leaving that door on your right you follow along the passage and on the right there it the door leading to the back room. The distance between the two doors is, I should think, about a yard or a yard and a half. It is very similar to 29, St. Pauls Road. On October 5 I was at the Highgate Police Station and prisoner was placed with 15 other men at 5.30 p.m., and certain persons—Roberts, Clarke, and Crabtree—saw them. Roberts, I believe, went in first alone and remained there. He recognised, amongst the 15, the prisoner. Then Clarke followed and recognised him also, and he remained. Then Crabtree went in and looked at the men and said, "There is a man here who knew Phyllis Dimmock"—this was said in the presence of the prisoner—"bat the man that I have referred to in my statement is not here." I asked him to pick out the man he was referring to as having known the deceased. And he said, "No, I came here to identify another man and I shan't pick this man out." I again requested him to point out the man, and reminded him that he bad been called there to tee anyone whom he could recognise; whether it was the man he had referred to or any other man it did not matter, if he was someone he knew at a friend of the deceased. Eventually he told me the number where prisoner was standing and picked him out. I cannot be tare that prisoner made any observation about what Crabtree was saying; I took Crabtree out into the other room for a few minutes. I think afterwards that the prisoner said, "I am the man," or something to that effect—I am not quite sure about that. These three men I have mentioned were the only three who were brought to Highgate on that occasion on the evening of October 5. On the same evening after this identification I said to prisoner, "I have made inquiries and find that your statement as to being with the young lady you have mentioned, on the Wednesday, the night of the murder, is untrue." I produced a photograph of a tracing of the burnt fragments (Exhibit 7), and I said, "This is a photograph of a portion of the letter making an appointment for a man to meet the deceased woman on the night of her death; I believe it to be in your handwriting, and as you have been identified a a an acquaintance of the deceased for some months prior to her death, and your father and brother are unable to say whether you were at home that night or not, I shall charge you with wilfully murdering her." Exhibit 7 is really a reproduction of Exhibit 3. The prisoner took that tracing in his hand to look at it. He said, "The handwriting is certainly very like mine—in fact, I should call it a very good imitation; if the young lady denies I was in her company I cannot help it; one cannot be correct aa to small details, but I have told you the truth and I cannot do more." He was later taken to the Kentish Town Police Station, and about 8.30 he was charged. He made no reply then the charge was read over, but a moment or so afterwards he muttered something which I understood was: "Do you wish any further explanation?" I had, in fact, charged him, to I said
nothing further. On October 7, at the Kentish Town Police Station, at about half-past nine in the morning, the prisoner was placed with nine or 10 other men. From the night of the 4th until October 7 the prisoner was dressed in a blue serge suit, a square-cut jacket, a bowler hat, collar and tie. On the morning of the 7th we were very careful to get men as near the prisoner's own stamp as we could, and we had some difficulty. We took them from the street—persons going going to business. They were all dressed in dark clothes and most of them wore jackets; one or two of them had morning coats. I would not be sure whether any had blue serge clothes on—three may have been. First of all several constables were called in to see if they could identify him as the man they had seen in the neighbourhood that night; and after that May Campbell, the barman from the "Eagle," and Miss Raven, the barmaid, were called in the yard to see the men; I think May Campbell was the last of those three. There were no other private persons with the exception of McCowan. As you go into the police station there is an archway, and a little beyond the archway those men stood in a line in the open air for the first three persons to see. It was a rather dull morning, and we thought it advisable to have the men out in the light. Miss Raven was the first to go in and she did not pick out anyone from the row; the barman went in next, and he was not able to pick out anybody; he remained there; May Campbell went in and she was not able to pick out anybody, and she remained. Those three persons then stood all together up against the way facing the men. The fourth person who came in was McGowan. I was there the whole time until McGowan identified one of the men. There had not been any communication of any kind between McGowan and the other three up to that time. McGowan first of all looked along the line of men and said he could nor identify anyone by the features. I then asked the men to walk round the yard. They did so, and McGowan watched them walk round, and as they came back McGowsn spoke to me and went up and touched the prisoner. The prisoner had been put up also for identification on Sunday, October 6. He was in the charge-room at the police station on three occasions, I think—there was Gladys Lineham or Gladys Warren; Lineham; Neil Lawrence; the woman Smith; Crabtree; and Smeeth, the barman from the "Rising Sun." They all saw the row of men in which the prisoner was. All those, with the exception of Crsibtree, picked him out, and also a man named Miller. The same system of identification was adopted. That is always the practice. The charge-room is a large room. There were never less then 10 or 12 other men with the prisoner, I should think, on the Sunday. I sent an officer for the prisoner's overcoat on October 5 Police-constable Grossy and Sergeant Goodchild was with him. It was the same coat that I had seen on the night of October 4. I had just come into Court as the prisoner was putting on a cost. That was the one that Grossy brought back to me.
Cross-examined. There were three postcards excluding the "Rising sun" postcard—two in one handwriting and the third in another. I do not think either of those three were written by Wood. They were circulated because it was thought that either of these might have some bearing on the case. As far as I can judge they are all in the handwriting of an educated man. The postcards were photographed and sent to Scotland Yard. I cannot tell which paper it was that the "Sailor Costume" photograph appeared in. The "Sailor Costume" photograph is very unlike the other big photograph of her standing. I only just saw McGowan as he was leaving the station—not to have any conversation to him. He made his statement to Sergeant Ball, who has been in the police force nearly 19 years, I think. I do not think he is the sort of man likely to put down in a statement, "I saw a man come down the steps," if it hadn't been said by the person he was taking the statement from. We went after anyone that we could find that could throw any light on the matter—Roberts amongst others. He gave a description of the man that he said he had seen in her company on the Monday night—that is the prisoner. Roberts's statement was given on the night of the 12th, at nearly 12 o'clock at night. On September 20 we got some evidence from May Campbell. She had made several statements. I have the statement that Roberts gave with the description of the man he saw in the public-house. (Mr. Marshall Hall read the statement, and also the various descriptions of the supposed murderer which appeared in the Press.) We have descriptions of various persons who were Known to be acquaintances of the deceased woman and those persons, nearly all have been found and have satisfied us as to their movements. I am satisfied that the man May Campbell intended to identity was not the prisoner. I do not think she could identify anybody if she spoke the truth. When I showed the prisoner the fragments of the burnt letter, what I handed to him was not the original fragments, but a photograph of a tracing from the original, which was photographed at Scotland Yard. The result of the microscopic examination of the razors disclosed no trace of blood upon them. The same process has been applied to Wood's razors with the same result. I do not think anything was found at 29, St. Paul's Road belonging to the prisoner. There is the postcard and the fragment of paper that was found in the grate. Nothing was found that belonged to him, nor anything to show that he had ever set foot inside that house. Up to this day none of the missing articles has ever been traced to Wood's possession. I believe there are other people living in the same house as Wood's family, but have never been there since. I found the overcoat behind the door. At that time I did not expect the coat would have any bearing on the matter. I did not put it in my original reports, which were before the prisoner was arrested. I did not send for it with a message that Wood was feeling cold in prison, and would they let him have the overcoat, nor do I know what the officer told them; I told him to fetch the coat away. I am not aware that there was any complaint that Wood was cold in prison
and wanted to get the overcoat. I think I had only made one general report to the Treasury at that time, but there may have been subsequent reports. I recollect the incident about the coat very well. I had taken it down and felt in the pockets and laid it on the bed and was turning out the drawers at that moment, when Sergeant Ball picked the overcoat up and asked me if I had searched all the pockets. I said, "Yes, I took it from the door." It was the same coat. The brother's coat was in the other room, hanging up in exactly the same way. I have heard that the prisoner has lived nearly 20 years in the district. I made the statement before the Magistrate, "McGowan told me he recognised him by his walk, but he did not tell me at that time that he had a peculiarity in his walk." He had spoken about the walk before and I had noticed the walk. I did not put in my report to Scotland Yard that I had noticed some peculiarity in his walk. I think I said at the inquest about the peculiarity in his walk The people that were put up with Wood for the purpose of identification were all of the same standing—persona of his character as near as possible—some a little shorter, and some taller, and some about his own height. I was introduced to Ruby Young by a member of the "Weekly Dispatch." I am not quite sure whether she told me the prisoner had asked her to say that he was with her on the night of the Wednesday. I had only had a very few words of conversation with her. Prisoner gave me to understand that he would be able to account for his movements. A statement was taken from Ruby Young on the 5th, and I think Sergeant Ball took a statement from her on the 11th. I had arranged with her that she should meet the prisoner, and that I should speak to him and get his explanation with regard to the writing of the "Rising Sun" postcard. It was not the arrangement that she should kiss him; she did not. When Ruby Young went and had tea with me she gave some information. I think she told me then that the prisoner had asked her to say that she was with him on the night of the 11th. When he made the reference to Ruby Young in this long statement I said to him, "Do you think the young lady will bear you out, because I do not?" Ruby Young gave evidence before the coroner on two occasions. From the time when she first made the statement to me on October 4 or 5, for a period of eight weeks, down to December 6, I never had any conversation with her. Until her statement on December 6 that she had noticed a peculiarity in the prisoner's walk she had not ever said so to me, nor as far as I know to any other police officer, because I had been given instructions that no questions were to be asked of her.
Re-examined. I was called before the coroner upon the five occasions that he sat. On October 21 I said in answer to you, "I noticed a peculiarity of gait in the prisoner." Upon the occasion that McGowan picked the prisoner out I noticed a peculiarity of gait—he carried the left hand in his jacket pocket, and as he kept walking he kept bringing his right shoulder round in this way (describing). I think the other officers noticed it at the same time also. Inspector
Carpenter was present on that occasion. He was responsible for the identification and made entries in the book.
To Mr. Marshall Hall. Before the question was asked on the very last day by Sir Charles Mathews I had spoken about this peculiarity, and I think I had made a statement to that effect to Mr. Williamson, of the Treasury.
Inspector WILLIAM CARPENTER . I conducted the identification at the police station on October 7, when I saw the prisoner walk. I noticed a peculiarity in his walk—he held his right shoulder a little forward, with his left hand in his coat pocket, with the coat pressed rather forward with the left hand and as he walked he swung his right arm and brought his shoulder pound a little.
Cross-examined. I noticed this on October 7, but did not tell anyone of it. I have read the newspapers. I did not know that the defence was most strenuously denying that the prisoner had any peculiarity of gait, but knew the question had been raised. I did not make any report in writing of this alleged peculiarity until December 10. The prisoner was dressed in a blue round jacket with pockets in the side. I have seen men put their hands in their pocket and drag the coat forward so as to display their figure behind. It is a quite common attitude.
(Saturday, December 14.)
JOHN PAUL MAIR , manager, Port Patrick Hotel, Port Patrick, Wigtownshire. I had a man named Alexander Msckie continuously in my employment as kitchen porter from June 16 until Sunday, September 15, except one night. He would be away every evening for an hour or two. (Mackie stood forward and was identified by the witness as being the msn in his employment.) During that time he slept at my hotel every night.
Cross-examined. I can prove that he left my employ on September 15 by his personal writing when I paid him his wages. (Document produced.) The signature only is his. It was written in my presence and two witnesses on Sunday evening, September 15. The explanation of the date at the top, "September 15, 1907," and the date at the bottom, "August 15, 1907," is this: I kept back half his wages because of my dismissing him without notice on the Sun say evening on account of my finding him thieving. He left my house at once, and I paid him £2, for which he gave me a receipt, and I kept back the other until I had gone through the hotel silver in case I found anything missing. I am a German. I did not know until last Wednesday night, about six o'clock, that it was thought important that Mackie should be able to prove where he was on the night of September 11-12. He was in my employ that night. I did not see him until nine o'clock the next night. To the best of my belief I actually saw him on the night of September 11. I saw him every day that week. This document reads, "J.P. Mair, manager, telegraphic address Hugh Portpatrick," and written at the
top is 15/9/07. "I, Mackie, agree that £2 of my wage a, which amounts to £4 18s. 3d., shall be kept back until Mr. Mairsees there is no other table silver massing.—Alec. Mackie." Then there is the date 15/8/07. He must have been mistaken about the month. Perhaps he never looked at. Only the signature is his; the rest of it is in the handwriting of one of my servants, who is a foreigner. When that document was written I had to make inquiry to see if anything was wrong. I wanted to keep the whole thing quiet on account of visitors, because it makes a bad impression if you have a servant who is stealing. When he came into my employ I thought he was a very decent fellow. He did his duties extremely well; but just about three weeks before I dismissed him he seemed to me as if he could not look in my eyes as straight as he used to. I got suspicious and I watched him (on account of hearing rumours that several things were missing) until I actually had a proof. I went with a policeman and searched his box, and found table silver in it and several other small things, and then I dismissed him on the Sunday night—the same night. I did not know that he returned to London last Monday. On the back of that document is written in my bookkeeper's writing, "Received balance of wages.—A. Mackie." The other document is a document of October 1, 1907, signed Alexander Mackie. After I went through the stock of silver I did not find any more missing. I sent the money to Glasgow. This document was sent and received back by me. The whole document was written on September 15, and I can get the hotel books where the entries are. I am quite sure he was in my employ and in Wigtownshire on the night of September 11-12. He was only one night away, and that was when out for a sail at night and was rescued by the lifeboat.
Re-examined. This date of "15th Sept." in my bookkeeper's writing is the date upon which the man left. The figures at the bottom are Mackie's figures. He may have put down the date wrong because he was excited—he was afraid I would give him in charge of the police.
ALFRED BALL . I am a detective sergeant attached to the Y Division. I was present when the prisoner was arrested on October 4. I was not in court yesterday when Inspector Neil gave evidence. I was at the Highgate Police Station when the prisoner dictated a statement which he signed, and I was present when the inspector charged the prisoner with this offence, and after that I searched him and found three pencils, which I produce—two ordinary blacklead pencils, and one described as a linen marking ink pencil. (Mr. Marshall Hall said that it would not be contested that the pencil produced would make the writing that was on what was called the "Rising Sun" postcard and on the fragments of burnt paper.) The writing on each of those is writing which would have been written with such a pencil as I have just described.
Cross-examined. The three pencils are of the kind which a draughtsman would very naturally have in his possession. I took
the statement from McGowan. I have got the original note of it. It is dated 14/9/07. At that time I ascertained in a general sense whether it was strictly accurate that he was out of employment. He was going there in search of employment. I took his statement down petty accurately. I should know the importance of taking a statement of this kind fairly accurately. It says, "On Thursday morning last, the 12th inst., I left my house at"—not about—"20 to five and passed through St. Paul's Road on my way to Brewery Road, where I was going to the V. V. Bread Company to seek work; as I was going past 29, St. Paula Road I heard footsteps and looked round and saw a man coming down the steps of No. 29." I have not any doubt that that is what he said, "coming down the steps of No. 29." He closed the gate after him and walked down the road at a brisk pace. I took no notice of it at the time. He did not say anything to me there about watching this man for 30 yards and standing still. Later in the statement you will see exactly what he said. (Mr. Marshall Hall then read from McGowans statement.) I should think are 10 or 11 steps if you take in the bottom step above the kerb. I cannot say what the distance is from the corner of Brewery Road to 29, St. Paul's Road. It would not he true to suggest that it may have been read over in such a way that he could not hear whether those words were in it or not. I took this statement as we do, generally, exactly as he said it. McGowan alludes to having corrected a par., of it. He goes on first to say, "I heard footsteps; I looked round and saw a man coming down the steps of No. 29." Later the statement he says, "I did not see the man's face. I had pasted the front door before I heard footsteps coming down." That is my impression of what he alludes to. The police have not, to my know ledge, had a communication from the Electric Supply Company who supply that district. I went there to make inquiries. I was not in formed that the recording instrument showed that the are lights were put out at 4.37 that morning. I should like to explain about the chart I saw Mr. Baines. He showed me two recording instruments for recording the pressure of the electric light, and also that when the arc lights in the streets are cut off—the exact time that they are cut off is recorded by the instrument. He showed me the chart of the instrument for September 11-12, showing the short vertical line marked where the horizontal one ends—that is between 4.30 and 4.45. The charts are marked in quarter hours. I will take Friday, November 8, as the date on which I called on Mr. Baines. He told me from that record it was impossible that those lights could have been burning at five to five, and that, to the best of their belief, from that instrument, the lights were out at 4.40; he also told me that they had tested the instruments and they had found that there was no greater deviation than three minutes. In Mr. Baines's room there are two recording charts, one termed the "positive" and the other the "negative" chart. The positive chart showed that the lights went off at 37 1/2 minutes past the hour. The negative chart (which I take it is this one) shows that the lights went off at 4.45. It was then November
8, this occurrence having happened on September 11-12. Mr. Baines said that he would not be positive that the clocks were correct, but he would test them. I am positive he did not tell me that the maximum variation must be less than three minutes. From the instrument, whether accurate or not, he told me that none of the lights could have been burning at 4.40 on that morning. Until November 7 I did not know that any question would arise as to these lights. I heard McGowan give evidence in the police court that he saw what he did by the light of the standards. York Road lies to the south of the Cattle Market. You have to cross the York Road to get into Brewery Road. McGowan's evidence is that when he got to the comer of Brewery Road he heard the clock strike five, doming his way the corner of Brewery Road would be where it crosses York Road.
WILLIAM JAMES MOSS . I am in the employ of the London Band Built Goss Works, in the Gay's Inn Road, as principal designer, where I have been 28 years. Prisoner has been employed in that firm for 14 years, during the last five of which he has been with me as a designer. His usual hours would be from eight in the morning to 6 10 in the evening, with an interval of three-quarters of an hour in the middle of the day. On Friday, September 13, I read some account of the murder in a newspaper; I think there was also a portrait of Dimmock dressed in a sailor costume. A day or two after I had some coercion with the prisoner. As nears I remember I said, "There is another one of those unfortunate women killed or done to death." He said he was not surprised at that kind of thing happening, as they never knew whom they could be taking home. About a fortnight later I saw in a newspaper a reproduction of the "Rising Sun" postcard. I know prisoner's writing, but did not recognise the writing on that reproduction, though it seemed familiar. I spoke to the prisoner the day that I saw the postcard. I said, "The fellow that wrote this postcard could draw." He said, "I think be can."
Cross-examined. During the last five or six years I have had the prisoner very peculiarly under my observation. The general character that he bears in the works is an exceptionally good character; he has been described as one of the favourites amongst the employees. When I saw the postcard and thought the writing was familiar I did not at once identify it as the writing of the prisoner. During the 14 years he his been there I have had more opportunity of seeing him than anyone else, and there is no peculiarity about his walk. I have not the slightest doubt about that. I can give specific instances where I have walked behind him for miles. I have never noticed anything such as has been described as taking place at the police station when taken out for the purpose of identification namely, that he had his left hand in his pocket dragging it forward, and swinging the right shoulder round. Any man pulling his coat forward like that would be bound to walk from the hips
because his clothes would be pulling him tight round the waist, and there must be a certain amount of swing. From the point of view of amiability—though virtue to an excess becomes a vice—I should describe him as altogether out of the ordinary. I know nothing in his character that would lead me to believe him capable of committing a crime of this kind. He was kind to animals, an upright, honourable, and industrious young man. I can remember that I saw him on the morning of September 12. He came to work as usual at eight. I did not notice any sign or tremor of excitement or nervousness about him that morning. He was dressed as usual in a blue serge suit, the same as he had always worn. I never saw him wear a long, dark overcoat with a loose hack. (Mr. Marshall Hall stated with reference to the western that he did not sun pose Sir Charles Mathews would contest this—that on Septembers,9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14 no rain fell at all; and that Thursday, September 12, was officially recorded as the hottest day but one of the summer.)
Witness. The prisoner did not wear an overcoat before the winter—at least, I never saw him with one. The earliest time before September 12 that I had seen the prisoner wearing an overcoat was certainly not later than the very, early spring. (The witness's statement before the magistrate with regard to the gait of the accused was read, and witness said he repeated that statement.) I went twice to the police station. On neither of those occasions was any suggestion made to me by any policeman that the prisoner had a swaggering gait or peculiarity in his walk I saw Inspector Neil on the two occasions. I live at 44, Gower Street, keep a house there, and am in receipt of a substantial income.
Re-examined. When I have seen the prisoner wearing an overcoat it was such an overcoat as was produced yesterday. I think it is the one I have seen him wearing. In my walks with the prisoner I did not for the most part walk beside him; I have seen him in front of me 50 times more than I have walked by his side. When we were out for a walk together we sometimes walked side by side, but sometimes there would be a party of four, and he would walk with one gentleman and I would walk with another. I have seen him walking to and from the office and up the long yard about 200 ft. long, and on one occasion the entire length of Fulham Road, when I was about eight or 10 yards behind him. My hours are the same as his. Sometimes we would walk a little way together after leaving business. There is nothing distinctive in his gait. My description before the magistrate was this: "We would walk side by side; occasionally I have walked behind him." I do not know why you want to pin me down to "occasionally." It is a vague term. I have seen him many times behind. It would be more correct to say "very often" than "occasionally." When I said to prisoner, "There has been another of these unfortunate women done to death or killed," and he replied to it, "Yes, and it is not surprising, because
they never know with whom they go home," the prisoner, is far as I could see, was in a perfectly normal condition. A fortnight later, when I had seen the facsimile of the postcard, and thought the writing was familiar to me, and said to the prisoner, "The fellow who did that postcard could draw," and the prisoner replied, "Yes I think he can," he did not upon that occasion seem to me to be perfectly normal; he seemed to me to be slightly embarrassed nothing more than that. When I called his attention to, the writing on the postcard I called attention to its artistic points. (To the Judge.) I had no idea that he was leading the life that it has been said he was living.
JOSEPH LAMBERT . I am a bookseller carrying on business at 106, Charing Cross Road, and have known the prisoner nearly two years. In February of this year I received from the prisoner the postcard (Exhibit No. 10). From that time until September 11 I did not see prisoner. On September 11 I remember being in the "Eagle" public-house somewhere between nine to a quarter past. When I went in I saw the prisoner with a young lady whom I had never seen before. I was shown at the police court a photograph of that person, which I recognise, and whom I now know as Emily Dimmock. I did not learn her name at all that night. I spoke to the prisoner and was introduced to the young lady. We had some refreshment, which prisoner ordered, and while he was ordering it he was, I should think, about five or six feet from the girl. The girl said something to me, which I do not think the prisoner could have heard. I noticed that her hair was in curling pins. She said she hoped I would excuse her dress as she had just run out. While he was ordering the drink she made a remark (which I do not think he heard) that he was a nice boy. I was in their company about 10 minutes. I gave prisoner my telephone number in case he wanted to see me again—I volunteered it. The prisoner said he had been for his holidays. I asked him what he was doing in that part of the world, and he said be had some business up there, but did not say what it was. After this ten minutes or so I left the public-house, and the two were there when I left. (His Lord-ship asked how far the "Eagle" was from 29, St. Paul's Road and Sergeant Ball said it was 720 yards.) Witness. I was in my regular employment at this time, going to my office each day. To the best of my belief, about two days afterwards I saw him again. On the Thursday morning I had seen something in the paper about the Camden Town murder. I rather think it was then that I saw a portrait of the murdered woman. On the Friday morning I rather think it was. The night I met him was September 11, which was Wednesday. I am not certain which day it was I first saw anything in the paper about the murdered girl. When I did see the portrait of the girl she was dressed in a sailor costume. I am not certain as to that either, whether I saw that portrait in the sailor costume before or after I heard from the prisoner the next time. When I heard from the prisoner about two days after I had seen him in the "Eagle" it was by telephone. (To the Judge.) It was a photograph similar to that
sailor costume that I saw—I believe it was in the "Daily Mirror." (To Mr. Bodkin.) That appeared on the 14th—Saturday. I cannot fix the day whether the first time I saw it in the paper was Saturday and not Friday. I know it was very soon after I had seen the prisoner on the Wednesday night. (To the Judge.) I cannot identify the girl that I had seen by this portrait. I do not recognise it as the portrait of the girl I had seen with the prisoner on the Wednesday night. Exhibit No. 11 is the photograph I saw at the police court and also at the inquest. I had on both occasions that I saw the photograph identified that as the woman I had seen the prisoner with. (To Mr. Bodkin.) I do not remember being recalled at the police court and being shown that photograph (indicating) or a similar one. Now that I have been shown that photograph I believe it is the photograph of the girl I saw in the "Eagle" on the evening of September 11. I am certain it was a Friday. To the beat of my belief that would be September 13. I am not positive if it was the Friday following the Wednesday in the same week, but I am certain it was a Friday. If it was not the 13th it would be the following Friday, the 20th. I got the telephonic communication about 10 o'clock in the morning. Prisoner asked me if I had read about the Camden Town affair. I answered him "Yes." He said that Mr. Moss had mentioned something about it to him. Then I think he said. "Of course, as far as he was concerned, he would be able to clear himself of anything." Then I said I did not wish to discuss such a matter on the phone; he had better come round and see me. He said that probably he would be up Holborn in the morning and that he would call. I then put the receiver up, and a few minutes after I had done so I had another ring from the prisoner. He asked me what time I closed business, and I said about eight o'clock. He then said he would call round between seven and eight o'clock. He did. He mentioned about the Camden Town affair again. He said that Mr. Moss had mentioned something about it to him, but, as far as he was concerned, he would be able, to clear himself. He also said, "If Mr. Moss says anything to you about it you can say we met, had a drink, but leave the girl out of it." I said, "That will be all right." I understood that to mean that was all I was supposed to know. I know Mr. Moss well enough to go to his house.
Cross-examined. Mr. Moss is a thoroughly respectable gentleman. I have known prisoner about nine months. I always held him in very high esteem. It was between nine and a quarter past when. I went to the "Eagle." I do not know how long prisoner had been there. The girl's name may have been mentioned, but I cannot remember. She did not seem in the slightest degree afraid of him. The bar was well lit up. I am certain that prisoner was not wearing all overcoat or carrying one. He was dressed in a blue suit which I have seen him wearing several times. I have never noticed anything out of the ordinary at all in his walk. When I saw him in the "Eagle" on the night of the 11th he did not show any sign of perturbation or excitement. When I saw him afterwards he said
he did not want to be mixed up in the affair. I went to the police on September 19. Nothing was then said to me about any alleged peculiarity in the prisoner's walk.
Re-examined. I cannot fix the date I maw the police. I have not walked with prisoner very often; when I have it has been side by side. Nothing was said by the police about any peculiarity in his walk.
LILIAN RAVEN , barmaid, "Eagle" public-house, Camden Town. On September 11 this year I was in the bar between nine and ten; I remember noticing a woman come in, because she had her hair in curling pins; she had a hat on, but I cannot any what sort of hat it was, and a long dust coat. She came in with a man, but I could not recognise him. While they were in the bar I noticed another man come in, but did not take notice of the men there. The last man joined the others just as they were about to leave. They had some refreshment. The girl spoke to the last man. As far as I remember her words were, "I hope you will excuse me for being so untidy, but I had to come and meet him."
Mr. Marshall Hall than said he objected to the evidence.
Mr. Bodkin asked the witness to look at photographs Nos. 4 and 5.
Mr. Marshall Hall agreed that she identified Dimmock, but she had not identified either of the men; and until she positively identified the prisoner as being there nothing that was said was evidence against the prisoner.
Mr. Bodkin submitted that as the witness Lambert had identified the girl Dimmock, that for the purpose of admitting what Dimmock said, the evidence of Lambert (which was not cross-examined to) about the conversation with Dimmock, himself, and the prisoner, might he used.
Mr. Marshall Hall submitted that was not sufficient, because this witness had not identified the men, and that Mr. Bodkin must prove not only that this girl said something in the presence of prisoner, but that prisoner had an opportunity of hearing it, as that was the whole principle upon which this evidence was admissible. Mr. Bodkin said it might be perfectly possible that this witness heard the girl make a somewhat similar statement but not in the same language; the sole question was whether this witness might say (after Lambert had proved that the prisoner was there) what she beard Emily Dimmock say to the man. His Lordship said, not unless it was the same remark that Lambert had said he heard Dimmock make.
Mr. Bodkin asked how it was to be determined whether the remark was the same until hit Lordship ruled that the question was proper to be put. His Lordship said that they had got two remarks, one being her statement that the girl said to him that a he had come to meet him. It might have been said to somebody else; that was not the language used by Lambert, and that was where the difficulty came in.
Witness. When I saw these three together it was between nine and half past—I cannot say the exact time. I did not see the men that the girl came in with, nor Emily Dimmock with any other person than the man who was about to leave. (Mr. Bodkin submitted that that made the observation admissible.)
His Lordship asked the witness if she meant that she only saw her with the same two men during that period from nine to half past.
The Witness. The girl came in with one man and one was about to leave when they met the other man, and then the other one went out after they had had a drink together, and the woman and the first
man remained there. (To Mr. Bodkin.) As far as I am aware the one man who went out was the only person who spoke to them while they were there.
His Lordship said he thought that would let the evidence in.
Mr. Marshall Hall submitted that it could not until the witness identified Lambert as the person who was talking to Dimmock, and until the witness identified the prisoner as the person to whom Lambert spoke and with whom Lambert and Dimmock spoke.
His Lordship said that he did not agree.
Mr. Marshall Hall then asked his Lordship to take a note of his objection.
Witness. The man who was about to leave stayed a little longer; they had some drinks together and then he left. After he left the man and the girl who came in together sat down and remained in the house about 20 minutes or half an hour, and I heard the girl say something to the man she came in with. (Mr. Marshall Hall objected to the evidence. His Lordship said he would admit it.)
Witness. I heard her say to the man she was sitting down with, "Fancy you making me come out like this." I remember having seen the prisoner's face, but I could not say where or when.
Cross-examined. I have been at the "Eagle" about two years and three months. I never saw Dimmock before. I do not know a woman called Smith; I do not know Mrs. Lawrence. I should say it was nearer ten minutes past nine than half past nine when these two people came in. The police first came to me about the matter on Friday, September 13. I went up on a Monday to Kentish Town Police Station to identify a man; I could not say if it was October 7. I may have seen an account in the papers before I went; I do not think I took much interest in it. It was common talk in the neighbourhood. Some other people were taken to the police station at the Same time to identify Wood. I could not pick him out. If Lambert was there I say the same as to him. It was very quiet in the bar. I was wiping glasses and looking at the woman some time. I should not stand looking at the men who come in the bar. I should not like to pledge my word that the exact words the girl used were, "Will you excuse me for being untidy. I had to come out to meet him"; I have said all along they were words to that effect.
RUBY YOUNG . I am now living with friends at an address which I would like to write down. I had known prisoner for three years in September last. I first met him in the Euston Road. At that time I was living in the Liverpool Road. I went to the "Rising Sun" with him that night, and after that I saw him every day. At that time he lived at 129, King's Gross Road, and worked at the Sand Blast Works in the Gray's Inn Road. I used usually to meet him as he came from business or came out to lunch. I used to come and meet him from where I lived. Liverpool Road is Islington way. My meetings with him were mostly in the street, and our evenings were spent together for the most part in going for walks. I remember his moving to 12, Frederick Street. He used to come to my
lodgings in Liverpool Road. From there I went to Liverpool Street, King's Cross, where he visited me. On January 21 this year I went to Karl's Court. During the time before I moved to Earl's Court I became intimate with the prisoner, and our meetings continued to bo of that frequent character down to the time of my moving. After January 21 this year I did not meet him as frequently, only on rare occasions—he used to come on a Saturday after he had been: to foot ball at Fulham, about five in the afternoon. That was a regular day. I used to meet him perhaps once or twice a week, sometimes at lunch time, sometimes at 6.30, outside his works in the Grey's Inn Road. We used to have a cup of tea and a walk round, then I used to go back, but he did not go back with me. I have been to prisoner's house in Frederick Street. That went on as from the month of January till towards the end of July. We were friendly. At the end of July we had a quarrel—I found him with another woman. I broke off my relations which, before I left for Karl's Court, were of an immoral character, but not after that. The improper intimacy took place at Liverpool Road and Liverpool Street—nowhere else. Nothing went on at Frederick Street; I only stopped there one night, about a week before I went to Earl's Court. I passed the night in the front room, which was occupied by the prisoner. The father and brother were in the back room. They knew nothing of it. Prisoner took me into the house. I came out about half-past nine or 10—after he left for business. Improper intimacy took place between us there. It was late at night when I went there because I had got locked out of my lodgings in Liverpool Street. The cause of the disagreement in July was that it got to my I ears there was a girl stopping with him at his father's house for a fort-night. The change in our relations between January and July was due to the distance between us. When prisoner come to see me on Saturdays the intimacy was not renewed. I saw the prisoner in August, the Sunday after he came back from his holiday. I met him in Cranbourne Street and asked about his holiday. I may have been with him about half an hour. I did not see him again during that month. On Friday, September 13, I received a telegram from him in the morning at Earl's Court asking me to meet him at 6.30 at "Phit-Eesi," in Southampton Row. (On the original telegram produced the date was September 20.) I identify this as the telegram making an appointment, which I kept. I had but one telegram. It may be my mistake; it must have been Friday, the 20th. (To the Judge.) It is signed "Bob." I always called him Bob. I kept the appointment on Friday, September 20, and saw prisoner at Phit-Eesi's. We went to Lyons', about two doors along and had some refreshment. While there prisoner said, "Ruby, if any questions are put to you, you say you always saw me on Mondays and Wednesdays." I asked him why. He said, "Will you do so?" As he gave no reason I said "Yes." We went out and walked down Charing Cross Road. We had been in Lyons' from about 6.30 to 10 to seven. Prisoner told me he was going to see Mr. Lambert at Westalls, the bookseller's. I
knew Mr. Lambert. I parted from prisoner at Leicester Square Tube Station about quarter past seven. During tea prisoner had given me a card and had written on the corner, "Mondays and Wednesdays." He made arrangements to take me to see "Miss Hook of Holland" at the Prince of Wales's on the Monday, but I could not go. I next saw him on the Sunday evening, the 29th. Postcard produced is in prisoner's handwriting, dated September 23, the morning of the day I was supposed to go to the theatre with him: "Sweetheart, if it is convenient for you, meet me as before—Phit-Eesi's at 6.30—and we will have tea together and then go to the theatre, which I hope will be a little ray of sunshine to your life.—Good-bye." That was received on the Monday morning following the parting at Leicester Square Tube, and I saw him at 6.30 in the evening at Phit-Eesi's again. He went to the Prince of Wales's Theatre first, and I followed on. He left me in order to go to the Piccadilly Tube to go home. I walked to Piccadilly Circus and took a 'bus. On that evening he said, "Mondays and Wednesdays, don't forget." I threw sway the card he gave me after I had kept the appointment. The next time I saw prisoner was when he called on me on Sunday, the 29th. Between eight and nine p.m. on that day I saw in the "News of the World" a facsimile of the postcard in his handwriting, which I cut out and enclosed it in a letter to prisoner. Newspaper produced is a copy of the one I saw. I think I just cut out the postcard. I left the envelope containing cutting on the table to post, and it was there when prisoner came. On his arrival he said, 'Ruby, I am in trouble," I answered, "Yes, I know; this is your handwriting," referring him to the letter on the table. He then earns, inside, and I gave him the letter, which he read and then burnt, keeping the outting between his fingers. He said, "Have patience, and I will tell you all," and Then told me how he' came to meet the girl. It was on, Friday; he was walking up Euston Road with a friend and they went in the "Rising Sun" for a drink. While there a girl came up and asked him for a penny to put in the electrical organ in the bar and afterwards asked for a drink. In the meantime his friend said he had to go to King's Cross and left him with the girl, making an appointment for another evening at 8.15 at the Rising Sun." While the girl and Wood were having a drink a little boy came in with some postcards. Prisoner said, "Do not buy those, they are common. I have got some in my pocket from Bruges," and showed her one. She said, "That is a pretty one; send it to me and write something nice on it." Prisoner remembering that he had the appointment with his friend wrote the same words of the same appointment. He was going to sign himself when she said, "No, don't do that; the guv'nor might cut up rough; put my friend's name, Alice." He said he would post it, but had no stamp then. They had another drink, and he went out and never saw her again that evening. The next time was Saturday, the next day, when he was going up Great College Street to the gas company, and the girl came towards him. She said he had not sent the postcard, and he told her he had forgotten
it, but potted it between then and Monday. She walked up the street with him and left him. The next time he saw her was on Monday evening in the "Rising Sun," when he saw the girls friend, who beckoned to him, and said, "Phyllis has not seen me yet." Phyllis was over the other corner with several men. Her friend signed across the bar to her, and she came running round to prisoner. They had a drink together; then she left him, saying she would be back in a few minutes; but she was so long he did not want, and as he was crossing the road she called out to him, "What about my drink?" He said, "I thought you were not coming back," because she was talking to another man at the corner—a lame man—to whom she said, "I will see you after the houses are closed." Then they both went back to the bar, she saying, "I hate that man." They stopped there drinking for some time; then they left together, and walked up Euston Road as far as Seymour Street, where there were some men on the other side—horsey-looking men, who attracted her attention, so she said good-bye to Wood and went over to them. That was the last he saw of her that evening, and he told me he never saw her again. On Tuesday he said he was with his brother Charles, whom he met in the evening in Red Lion Street. On Wednesday he said he was out walking alone, and as be had no one to prove where he was he asked me to say I was with him. I said if he went to Scotland Yard and explained to them how he came to send the postcard, and where he was on the Wednesday, he would be free; but he said he could not do it. He said he had to go back to Charles that night; and that the latter knew he was coming to ate me. I asked him where he was on that Wednesday, but he gave me no answer; he said he could not prove it. After a lot of talk I said I would say I was with him. I told him the best plan would be that we should say I met him at 6.30 at Phit-Eesi's, and had tea at Lyons'; we then walked down Kingsway, along the Strand, straight to Hyde Park Corner and to Brompton Oratory; it would then be about 10.30; we would, part there, and he would come back by tube to King's Cross; I going back the other way; he getting home about midnight. We left it at that, and I said I would carry it out. He was with me on the Sunday night till about 10 o'clock. He said he felt happier, as I was going to keep my word. I went in the tube with him to Piccadilly Circus, and he went on to Holborn. On that evening I told him it would get me into trouble; that other people would prove I was not with him. He said, "Your word and my word will stand against the world." I told him if my name got into the papers it would hurt my mother, and he replied, "If your name gets besmirched in any way I will marry you, if I get free." I told him I did not want to marry. I had a letter from him on the Monday, which I told him I had burnt. I had asked him to send some pawntickets for some articles of his, which I said I would get out for him. I got the tickets, I think on the Monday, but did not get the articles. I saw him again on Tuesday, I going to Museum Street at lunch time. He went there to lunch on Tuesdays and Fridays.
I met him coming from there, and he referred to my promise, saying, "You will be true had say you were with me on the Wednesday?" I said, "Yes, ail right, I will." I was with him about quarter of an hour. On the next day I met him at lunch time in Grays Inn Road, told we went to the Express Dairy in Hart Street. He again referred to my promise, and I said, "Yes, I will be true; but don't bother me; it is getting on my nerves." On the Thursday evening he called on me at Earl'e Court, between eight and nine about. He again referred to the promise, and I again pointed out the trouble it would get me into. He said, "If you do not want to be true say good-bye now." I said I would be true. We went together by train, and he left me about 10, going back to Holborn. On that night I met a gentleman friend and asked his advice. On the next day (Friday) I saw him again with another gentleman, about 2.30, in Gambrinus, Regent Street. As a result of our conversation one of the gentlemen left in order to communicate with the police. Later on in the evening, in consequence of a communication, I saw Inspector Neil outside Piccadilly Circus Tube. Later (about 6.30) I was in Gray's Inn Road and met prisoner coming from his work, and we walked into Holborn Viaduct. He said, 'Do you see that man over there by the gate I—I believe he is a detective." I said, "Take no notice." Soon after we met the police officers, and one spoke to prisoner, asking him to step on one side out of my hearing. Then a cab was sent for; meanwhile prisoner said to me, "Don't cry, girlie, I have to go with these gentlemen; if England wants me she must have me. Be true." I made my first statement to the police the next day, Saturday, October 5, at my room a, Earl's Court, to Inspector Neil and Sergeant Ball. I have walked beside and behind prisoner at times. He has a walk that nobody else can copy; with the left hand tight in his left pocket, and brings the right shoulder forward. If he walked behind me its more noticeable.
(A discussion took place as to whether two questions should be asked and answered in writing. Mr. Justice Grantham thought they had better be read. The written answers to the questions were identified by witness as her handwriting.)
Witness. On the occasions that I have had intercourse with prisoner I have always been dressed, except once or twice; at whose instance I cannot say. I forget the date, but prisoner once said he wished he knew what the bits of paper were that were found. I asked if he had written anything else besides the postcard; he said, "No"; that perhaps they were some bits of sketches he was doing in the "Rising Sun" which had been found. Prisoner always wore an overcoat in winter.
Cross-examined. Every word of my statement on October 5 was taken down in writing and signed by me. The first time I was asked about prisoner's gait was at the last hearing—on December 4. I had not spoken of it before. It is true that I knew prisoner intimately for nearly three years, seeing him nearly every night up to January 21 I formed the opinion that he was of a lovable nature and formed
a great affection for him. He always spoke in a kind sort of way of everybody, and of valuing the opinion of his own family very highly. It is true that our intimacy was not renewed after January this year. When I said, "The intimacy was renewed between January and July, 1907," I did not mean that kind of intimacy. I had seen prisoner between January and the occasion after he had been for his holiday in August. I had no doubt at one time that he was fond of me, but I doubt it now, and have done for some months. The trouble that made me break with him was about the girl called Pansy. Up to the beginning of August I was not jealous of him. He knew that I knew he knew several women. I did know where the "Rising Sun" was, but had only been in it once. I am not sure when I first saw the portrait of the murdered woman in the papers; I saw it in the evening paper. Until Wood came to me I had never associated him with the deceased. I could not believe, when Wood spoke to me about the postcard, that he had committed the murder. When I saw reproductions of the postcard I at once recognised Wood's writing. I follow that the alibi I made up was of no use as regards the murder itself; it did not strike me then. I should not have liked it had I known prisoner was a friend of Dimmock. I knew prisoner's father was ill and that prisoner was very fond of him. The gentleman whom I met on October 3 was Mr. McEwan Brown. I do not know that he is connected with the Press; nor did I know that the other gentleman whom I met was. When I asked their advice I put a case to them similar to this, without mentioning names, and asked them what I should do about my promise. I thought and was almost sure that prisoner would clear himself when he was arrested. I spoke about Wood's gait because McGowan had been ridiculed about it. I do not suppose I should have mentioned it had McGowan not been ridiculed. It is true that intimacy with prisoner took place once at Frederick Street; his bed is small—made for one. I had nowhere else to go that night. I know there is no convenience there. Prisoner used the words, "If I get out of it," not "If I get free," when he talked about marrying me. I have been an artist's model.
Re-examined. I had not seen prisoner between the end of July and the sending of the telegram on September 20, except the casual meeting after Bank Holiday, when I was with him for about a quarter or half an hour. On leaving we made no appointment to see each other again. I believe I saw the photograph of deceased on the Friday after the murder—that was before I received the telegram. I did see the offer of reward in the "News of the World." It had no effect on me in giving information. I told Inspector Neil I thought prisoner would be able to clear himself. I read the evidence of McGowan and of the treatment he had been subjected to, and then I determined to speak about prisoner's walk. I myself have been turned from my own home.
Mr. Justice Grantham said he would treat anybody who was proved to have interfered with witnesses in a very severe manner.)
(It was arranged that the Jury should visit the scene of the crime on the next day—Sunday.)
(Monday, December 16.)
Inspector NEIL , recalled. The coroner's inquest had practically concluded before the magisterial proceedings were commenced. The inquest commenced on Monday, September 16, when Bertram Shaw, Henry John Dimmock, Mrs. Stock, Dr. Thompson, and P.C. 418 Y were called. Dr. Thompson stated that he saw the body at about 1 p.m., and that death must have ensued seven or eight hours before. This evidence was reported in the evening papers on Monday. When Ruby Young was cross-examined she admitted having acted as a prostitute. To my knowledge she has acted as such.
JOHN PEARCE TINKHAM , foreman, London Sand Blast Decorative Glass Works, Limited. I have known prisoner as employed at the works with me about 14 years. He was in attendance in the ordinary way up to October 4. He was not under me. On September 28 I saw a facsimile of the "Rising Sun" postcard on the placard of the "Daily Mirror," looked at the handwriting, and formed the opinion it was that of the prisoner. The same morning, between 10 and 11 am., at the works, I asked prisoner if he had seen the papers that morning. He said, "No, Jack—why?" I then told him there were reproductions of certain postcards called murder clues and I believed the handwriting was his. I then showed prisoner the reproductions, including the "Rasing Sun" postcard, He said, "I acknowledge writing that card, Jack, and if you will be patient I will tell you how I came to write that card." He then gave me a long account. I afterwards saw in the newspapers a similar statement made to Neil Ruby Youngs name was not mentioned to me. He said nothing about Lambert or a telephone conversation. He said he had met Dimmock on three occasions—the first in the bar of the "Rising Sun"—that she accosted him and asked for a coin to put in the instrument, and that a boy came in with some postcards, and as she was about to buy some he stopped her, said he had some better in his pocket, and pulled the Bruges card out, that she was very pleased with it, and asked him if he would write something pleasant on the card and send it to her. The second occasion was in the Camden Road; the third occasion was in the "Rising Sun." He made no mention of the "Eagle." He said I was the first to approach him on the subject He told me his father was in a very poor state of health, and that if he knew prisoner was mixed up with this affair it might have dire results. I understood his father had gouty eczemas. He asked me as a personal favour to keep this information to myself. I told him I certainly would. On Monday, September 30, he told me he had seen his brother Charles and his wife, told them everything, and his brother's advice was that there was only one course for him to pursue—the straight one, to unburden himself to the police, and tell them
all he knew; that between them they had come to the conclusion to make a statement and send it, at I gathered, to the police. That satisfied me that the authorities had been communicated with.
Cross-examined. I think he said that the statement had been sent "to the proper quarter." I have been 14 years in the same employ as the prisoner and know him very well. His character is absolutely good, he is remarkably amiable, a very conscientious fellow, and he bears the character of an honest, upright, honourable young man—he is practically the favourite of the firm. I never met a better fellow in my life. I have very often walked with him side by side, have seen him from the back and from the front on hundreds of occasions. He has no noticeable walk that could be called a twitching forward of the right shoulder with a swaggering gait. He gave me to understand that he knew nothing whatever about the murder of the woman, and that he was very anxious not to be mixed up in the matter on account of his father's health and of his own reputation. His demeanour from September 12 to the 28th was the same as usual. He at once acknowledged writing the postcard. He was quite calm. I have noticed to peculiarity whatsoever in his walk.
ELLEN LAWRENCE , wife of Joseph Lawrence, 60, Albert Street, Barnsbury Road, printer. I have known the deceased girl eight or 10 years, and that she for some time lived an immoral life as her means of livelihood. She lived in Bidborough Street, 12, Manchester Street, 15 months ago; 30, Liverpool Street, Gower Place, College Street, Judd Street, and then with Shaw at 29, St. Paul's Road. I know prisoner well by sight. I first saw him when Dimmock lived in Manchester Street in the "Pindar of Wakefield" public-house, Gray's Inn Road, in conversation with Dimmock—they seemed very good friends. I have also seen them, both there separately. Frederick Street, in which the prisoner lives, is very near the "Pindar of Wakefield." I have not seen them together since until the Friday before the murder, September 6, in the "Rising Sun." At about 8.30 p.m Dimmock came into the bar where I was having a drink with Mrs. Smith. Prisoner came in and teemed on friendly terms with Dimmock. On Monday Smith and I when there at eight p.m. We were going to the Euston Music Hall for the second house at nine p.m. Prisoner came in. He stood Mrs. Smith and me a drink. We spoke to him, and he asked if we would have something to drink. He asked if we had seen Dimmock he called her "Phyllis." She has been known by that name ever since sue came to London. Mrs. Smith passed a jovial remark to him, "Don't tell Phyllis we have had a drink with you—she might be jealous." Shortly after Dimmock came in. said "Good evening" to us, and passed direct over to prisoner. She put a penny in the gramophone which prisoner gave her. They staved a little while and came out at the same time as we did. She said they were going to the Ho'born Empire; they crossed the road and got into a busDimmock seemed nervous, as if she did not want to go with prisoner—
She was a very timid girl—easily frightened. I and Smith returned to the "Rising Sun" at 11.30 or 11.45 p.m. after going to the Euston Music Hall. Prisoner and Dimmock came in shortly afterwards. She said they had not been to the Holborn Empire; they had been in she "Adam and Eve" all the evening. Prisoner was standing at the bar calling for a drink. The "Adam and Eve" is at the corner of Euston and Hampstead Roads. They remained till after 12 and left together. Dimmock came alone and spoke to me. I left her with Roberts. I bad seen Roberta with her on the two previous nights. When the prisoner was there he was sitting in the further corner. She said "Good evening" to Roberta while prisoner was there. (To the Judge.) There may have been further conversation between Dimmock and Roberts. I think prisoner knew of her intimacy with Roberts, because he called her outside for 10 minuses and spoke to her. (To Mr. Bodkin.) On Tuesday, September 10, at about 7.30, I was again in the "Rising Sun." Dimmock was sitting talking to Roberts—that is the last time I saw her alive. On October 6 I identified prisoner at Camden Town Police Station from a number of men. I had not previously known has name.
Cross-examined. I know Mrs. Smith. She is a truthful person. She is married to a printer at Acton. She formerly led an immoral life. I knew Dimmock in service at Luton. I led an immoral life five years ago. I am now married. Dimmock was not of the lowest class. She was as good as any in the Euston Road. I have seen her with all classes of men. I knew of the murder on September 12. I had no occasion to suspect prisoner, but I thought he should have come forward being in her company; I did not know his name or address. When he was arrested I told the police I could identify the man she, was with. I read the description in the paper stating that he wore a blue serge suit and black felt hat and had a sallow face and dark eye. I never met Ruby Young. I have heard she lived in 30, Liver-pool Street, immediately opposite where Dimmock lived in Manchester Street. I said at the police court that I saw prisoner and Dimmock 6.30 or seven p.m. on September 9, at the "Rising Sun." That is true. Mrs. Smith and I looked in there, as we thought of going to the Euston for the first house. I have no feeling against prisoner. He has never done me any harm. When I said I had seen Roberta with her the two nights previously I was speaking of the Tuesday night I saw him in her company on Sunday and Monday nights. I have not talked over my evidence with Smith. On Tuesday I saw prisoner look in at the doorway at about seven or 7.30 p.m., and that Dimmock and he recognised each other; that is true. They did not speak to one another then.
Re-examined. When prisoner looked in at the door on Tuesday Dimmock was with Roberts. I spoke to the police two days after the murder. I identified prisoner on October 6 and then made and signed a statement. I knew Dimmock eight or ten years when she was quite a young girl in service.
FLORENCE SMITH (address handed in). I have gone by the name of Emily Steward. I have known Dimmock about 12 months. I used to go to the "Rising Sun" and see her there. On Friday, September 6, I went there at about eight p.m. alone and saw the prisoner there. He said, "Good evening"—I had never seen him before. Emily Dimmock came into the bar and spoke to the prisoner. I then left them together. On Monday, September 9, I went to the "Rising Sun" with Lawrence. Prisoner came in. I said, "Are you going to treat us?" He paid for a drink for me and Lawrence. I said, "Don't tell Phyllis." He smiled and we three had a drink. Shortly after Dimmock came in, prisoner spoke to her and they had a drink together There was conversation as to where we were going, which resulted in Lawrence and I saying we were going to the Euston music hall and in their saving they would go to the Holborn Empire. At 8.30 or 8.45 we left them in the bar and went to the Euston and returned at about 11.30 to the "Rising Sun," when Dimmock and prisoner were in the bar. I asked, "Have you enjoyed the Holborn Empire?" Dimmock said, "We have not been to the Holborn Empire, we have been sitting in the 'Adam and Eve' all night"—that is a public-house at the comer of Hampstead Road. We stayed there talking till about 12.10, when, as far as I remember, Lawrence and I left them there. The woman seemed very nervous—as if she wanted to get away; but she did not say so to me. That was the last time I saw her alive. On Sunday, September 16, I made a statement to the police—I awoke to them on the Thursday or Friday previous. I afterwards identified the prisoner as the man I had seen with Dimmock on September 6 and 9.
Cross-examined. Lawrence has not spoken to me about the evidence I gave before the magistrate.
GLADYS WARREN , 40, Union Road, Newington. Two years ago I lived at 121, Judd Street, Euston Road. Dimmock used to come round and see me. She had one of my rooms for one week—on April 27, 1906—because she was turned out of her lodgings. I had known her for about three years before that. I did not keep up the acquaintance after that—I used to see her, but I was not friends with her. The last time I saw her was about nine months before she was murdered, when she called at my place. Previous to 12 months ago, when she was living in Gower Place, I saw her with the prisoner in the "Rising Sun" once in April, 1906; once at the corner of Judd Street; and once in June. 1906, going up Euston Road, I knew she afterwards lived in Belgrave Street, King's Cross. I have left the neighbourhood of Euston Road for about 12 months. On October 6, at the police station, I identified the prisoner as the man with Dimmock on the three occasions I have mentioned.
Cross-examined. I have been living in the same house with Lineham for some time. I know him very well. I did not live with him. I have not had immoral relations with him. I knew the life Dimmock was living—it was very low class—that is why I did not
associate with her. She has never mentioned prisoner to me. I did not say before the magistrate, "I have read about the case and had seen the description of the man before I went to the police station"—that is what they said I said. I may have said so, but I do not remember it.
Re-examined. I picked out the prisoner because I remembered having seen him with deceased.
WILLIAM LINEHAM , Rush House, Covent Garden, office attendant. Up to about April, 1906, I lived at 121, Judd Street. Gladys Warren also lived there. I had known Dimmock (bout 3 1/2 years up to September, 1907; she lived at 13, Manchester Street; Gower Place; and 121, Judd Street, where she lived for a few weeks about April. 1906. I have seen her in the "Rising Sun" on several occasions. I have seen the prisoner four or five times in the "Rising Sun" between 18 and nine months ago—that is between April and December, 1906—in company with the deceased. On October 6 I picked out the prisoner from a number of men as the man I had seen in the 'Rising Sun" with Emily Dimmock.
Cross-examined. I have only seen Warren lately in reference to this case. I know her well as a friend—nothing more. I occupied three rooms at Judd Street for about two months, paying 8s. 6d. a week. I let one of them to Dimmock for three or four weeks; another was occupied by Warren, and I occupied the third. I do not know what rent Warren paid me at Judd Street. I do not remember the name of the landlord. I afterwards went to live in Burleigh Street. Warren left Judd Street before I did. Since that most of the time Warren and I have lived at the same address. She has not always been a tenant of mine. We both lived for about four months in Tolmer Square, and then both went to Union Road. I have never spoken to the prisoner. Dimmock has never mentioned him to me by name. I cannot swear to any date on which I saw them together. Before I identified the prisoner I had seen a description in the "Morning Leader" or one of the papers. I just spoke to Warren about it. I saw the prisoner end Dimmock together at about eight or nine p.m. I cannot say what clothes he wore—he had not an overcoat. I should describe him as an broad-shouldered as myself. I could not pass an opinion whether he is a broad-shouldered man. I recognised the man by his face. I do not know if he had a blue serge suit on when I identified him. I knew what Dimmock was during the 3 1/2 years I knew her. I knew Warren gave up her acquaintance 10 months ago because she did not like her friendship any longer. I fancy Dimmock paid me about 5s. rent—I think she only lived in the house a fortnight, and that I did not receive any rent. She agreed to pay 5s. a week.
EDWARD CHARLES SMEETH , "Rising Sun" public-house, brother-in-law of licensee. I assist in the conduct of the business, and remember seeing prisoner on Friday, September 6. I bad seen him before, hut cannot place the time; he did from time to time use the house.
Dimmock also used it, and was there on that evening. She came before prisoner, who when he came in beckoned to her. She got up and went towards him, and they bad conversation and drinks, being there same little while. I did not see them go out. I saw prisoner again on Monday, September 9. Dimmock was there when he came in, and they left together. I could not remember whether Mrs. Lawrence or Mrs. Smith were there that night. Prisoner and deceases returned about 10.20, and remained till very nearly 12, leaving together. The deceased woman returned afterwards alone and rerosined till closing time. On Tuesday, the next night. I saw the woman again about 11.30 p.m. I did not see her on the 11th. I go into the bar generally about 8.15, and do not leave till 9.30 or 10, when I have my supper, and then remain till closing time. I have seen prisoner using the house, it may be for two or three years; also Dimmock. On the night of the 9th I saw Dimmock go through the private door in the bar which leads to a place of accommodation.
Cross-examined. I am sure it was the 9th when I saw her go through the door I cannot say whether she had done it before. The "Rising Sun" is a large house and a corner one. I have known a woman called Harvey and a man called Sharpies since this case has been on. I have seen them before. I could not say whether they were in the "Rising Sun" on Sunday, the 8th. I know a girl called "Little Annie," but do not know what has become of her. I also know a girl called "Little Nellie." The first time I remember speaking to Dimmock was two years ago. She did not tell me she was married to a sailor, or show me a bangle or anything of that kind. I know Roberts; have done since September 6; I also know Clark, his friend; have done for five or six months. He frequently used the "Rising Sun." I would not be sure whether Clark was at the "Rising Sun" on September 6. I saw both Clark and Roberta on the 11th, the night of the murder; they were there together. Roberta was in there a long time before Clark; he might have come just before five or half-past. I went away at eight and came back at 8.15 they were still there. I missed Roberts for a time, but could not say whether he went away. I may have seen him again just before 10. The two of them stopped there till just before closing time, and both went out together towards Euston Road. I could not tell which direction they took in Euston Road. They turned towards the right from the saloon bar into the main road. I am positive I did not see Dimmock there that night. Roberts was there on the Thursday. Clark was not with him when he came in. There was a bit of commotion that night consequent upon the news of the murder. The detectives were in and out all the evening. I have had a woman called May Campbell pointed out to me. She used the "Rising Sun"; I had not seen her for months before then. We were pretty busy on the night of the 11th. I do not know a man as being in the house on the 11th answering to the description of: "Age 26 to 30, about 5 ft. 10 in., fresh looking, smart respectable appearance, thick set, blue serge jacket suit, and bowler hat."
Re-examined. Roberts stopped in the "Riling Sun" on the 12th till the detectives came. They arrived about twenty minutes alter.
Police-constable HORACE BROOKER , 8 Y R. I was at Kentish Town Station on Sunday, October 6, in charge of prisoner from two o'clock till 10 at night; he was in the cell cell of the time, being taken out at different times for identification. About 9.15 prisoner said something of which I took a note, "Why it it they want me out so many times?" I said, "It is to see that you are the proper man that they know." Shortly after he said, "If it comes to a crisis I shall have to open out."
Cross-examined. I know he did say that.
JOHN WILLIAM CRBTREE . I have no fixed abode at present. I was living at 1, Bidborough Street about May twelvemonth. I purchased the lease of that house. Previous to my going there Phyllis Dimmock stayed there as well as alter. The other people were respectable people. While living there I have seen prisoner there. I once say him coming down from the first floor towards the cellar; in fact, I saw him on several occasions. One night as I opened the door I met Wood in the passage and he passed down into my kitchen, and while I was putting my bicycle away Dimmock followed him down and got hold of his arm and wanted something from him. What the something was I do not know. I said, "What it all this bother about?" Dimmock says, "Give it to me." With that prisoner said, "Oh, she is only a common prostitute, and you know so." With that he went through my door up the area steps. He used to stop there on several occasions. On another occasion I was called up into the bedroom early in the morning, and Phyllis was in a nude condition except for a sheet thrown over her shoulders. This would be before seven in the morning; about half-past six. Dimmock asked me when I wet going out would I take a silver cigarette case and pawn it for her. Wood was there in bed. She gave me the case, and I said to Wood, "Is this yours?" He said, "Yes." They then asked me to hand it back and never mind pawning it, and I gave it to Wood. Wood remained in bed. I afterwards went to Manchester Street, and Dim mock also lived there. That would be about the latter end of June last year. On the Saturday after we moved I saw prisoner there. On a subsequent occasion I saw Wood at the corner of Gray's Inn Road and Manchester Street, and saw him again in the "Pindar of Wakefield." One day prisoner came to Manchester Street while Dimmock was at Portsmouth, and asked for her. I told him she was not in, and he asked me when I expected her. I did not know. When she came back he came to the house again. I was convicted for keeping a brothel at Manchester Street in July last year and sentenced to three months' imprisonment. I came out on May 24, as I had had a ticket to serve. After that I went to 30a, Argyll Square. In May this year I was sentenced again for keyring that house at a brothel, getting four months. The sentence expired about ten days ago.
Cross-examined. The first time I went to prison was for horse sealing. I got three years' penal servitude. I think I tell the truth sometimes. I try to. I have lived 56 years and have only been in prison three times. I do not know that my state of mind has been inquired into. I am sober; I have never tasted liquor in my life. Most emphatically I swear that I have seen prisoner in my house—with at a shadow of doubt; in Bidborough Street and Manchester Street; last May. June, and July—always in the evening. It may have been after seven or eight, or nine. The man has been there so often that I could not give the exact hours. He was a constant visitor. I made two statements to the police while I was in Pentonville. As to why the police came to me, that is a question for them. When they came to me I was frightened out of my life, because I though' they were coming to me for the murder; and what they said to me I did net believe at the time. I did not know when the girl bad been murdered. The police have a certain way of going about; they do not tell the truth always when seeking information. They tell lies to get at the truth of things; that is my experience. I have not made a statement I cannot substantiate. From what the police told me I realised Dimmock was the woman who was murdered. I do not know who has called me as a witness. I was not called before the magistrate The description of the man, I suggested might have committed this murder is right. The man referred to is Sortie, but he is not that man (prisoner). Scottie is not "Scotch Bob"; there is another one, a motor driver. It was not my business to find him out. "I know that Scottie had threatened Dimmock on many occasions, several times had beat her and knocked her about, and on one occasions he took her purse from her when he spent the night with her. I have heard him say he would do her in, and that he would cut her throat as she had ruined him for life by giving him the disease. I have heard her speak of the sailor named Biddell, and when she went to Portsmouth the man I have described called at the house, and, finding she was gone, got very angry, swore about her, and threatened to do for her. He wanted to go to her room, and when I would not let him he got a razor and opened it, took his handkerchief from his pocket, wrapped it round the handle of the razor, and, waving it. said he would do her in yet," etc. That is correct. I was talking to that man last Saturday week. "I frequently heard him asking for money, which she always found for him." That is correct. The statement is correct all through. (Witness's statement was read.) I did what I could to assist the police to find the murderer; it was not for me to suggest anything. In my statement I referred to Wood as a man who used to be friendly with Dimmock from what my wife had heard, and that I could tell something about him. I recognised his handwriting on the burnt fragment instantly. I pointed out its peculiarity to Inspector Neil. The police came and took me to Highgate Police Station to identify someone; I did not know where I was being taken. I taw prisoner among other men. I said the man I had referred to was not there, but that there was a
man who knew Dimmock. I was under the impression that Scottie was the man who committed the murder, and I was disappointed; but I recognised Wood instantly.
Re examined. I had an appointment with Scottie last Saturday week, when I came out of prison. He said to me, "Jack, you are a fine fellow, trying to put a halter round my neck." I did not tell the police about him; I do not know how they got to know. I am not a tout for the police. When I went to the police station I looked for Scottie, as I thought. Wood was the sixth man in the line. I was asked to put my band on the man I said I knew to be an associate of Dimmock, but I refused at first; eventually I did. I had had a number of letters in my possession addressed to Dimmock; that is how I recognised Wood's writing. I could give a copy of his writing now if I had a pencil and paper. The sample of writing produced is what I gave to the police; written by me. There is a peculiarity about the "g." Statement produced was signed by me. (It was stated that the witness had been called before the coroner for the defence, but was not called at all before the magistrate.)
Further cross-examined. I remember the furniture being removed' from 27, St. Pancras Buildings by Dimmock. I did not see who was moving it. It was on a Saturday; I could not give the date. I did not know Dimmock when she lived in St. Pancras Buildings. I never threatened Dimmock in my life.
ALEX. MACKIE , kitchen porter, at present living in Rowon House. I was not in London in September; I left in September, 1906. returning last Monday, December 9. I knew Dimmock. On September 11 I was at Portpatrick Hotel, Portpatrick.
Cross-examined. I was known as Scotch Bob. I knew Harry She repels and Fred Harvey. I do not know anybody called Scottie. I did have a rash on my face at one time—pimples. It was worse on the left side and was the result of an illness contracted in Glasgow. I saw in the Glasgow papers that Scotch Bob was supposed to be connected with Dimmock. I thereupon came to London and was advised to go to the police. At first I said I had bad no connection with Dimmock.
(Mr. Marshall Hall submitted that the prisoner ought not to be put in peril by going before a jury, on such evidence as had been heard. Mr. Justice Grantham said that be could not say there was no case.)
(Tuesday, December 17.)
Inspector NEIL , recalled. The police made inquiries at the Lock Hospital, Dean Street, Soho, in reference to thie case. We traced a man said to be a Pullman Car conductor. We also found a man who attended at the hospital for the purposes of injection. There were-no finger prints on the tumblers at the rooms Shaw sod the deceased occupied.
GEORGE WOOD , compositor. Until lately I resided at 12, Frederick Street, Grays Inn Road, and am now living with my son Charles. I have been in my present situation 26 years, and was previously in a situation for 23 years. I am a widower, and prisoner, Robert Wood, is my son. I have a son called Charles and another called George James. Charles is prisoner's full brother and James is his half-brother. I never knew prisoner to be impeached for anything. On September 9 I had to leave my work in the forenoon on account of gouty eczema. On the following day, Tuesday, I consulted a doctor who gave me a bottle of lotion to a, ply to the diseased foot. On Wednesday the bottle was accidentally upset, and the contents went on to the hearthrug in my bedroom. Myself and stepson slept in the back room and prisoner sleep in the front room. There is communication between the two by folding doors. During this week I had my son Robert's clock in my room, my own clock being defective. The prisoner's usual hour for going to business in the morning was five minutes to eight. He was within six or seven minutes' walk of his place of business, and he was due there at eight o'clock. He used to come into my room for the clock at night Dime. I do not know whether he did so on the Monday in that week, but on the Tuesday and Wednesday he did, I know. I am able to fix Wednesday night particularly because that was the night the bottle was upset. On that night, to the best of my recollection, Robert came in for the clock at midnight. I was in bed, and James also. James had come home about half-past 11. Robert would come into my room from the street door. The folding doors would be blocked with furniture. Alter saving a few words Robert went into his room and locked the door. My foot was very bad that night, and I did not sleep until the dawn, and if my son Robert and got up that night, unless he had been preternaturally quiet, I should probably have heard him. I do not think I heard any movement in his room prior to the dawn. I heard him moving about 20 minutes before eight o'clock. It does not take him long to dress. James gets his break fast ready for him in my room, and prisoner comes in to have it. When I saw him a breakfast that morning he did not seem i-n any way per turned or nervous. He was in his shirt sleeves and slippers, and was cheerful; he is always of a very cheerful disposition. He has always been a good-iterated son to me. I first heard my son's name connected with this crime on Friday evening, October 4. About 11 o'clock that night Inspector Neil and two police officers called at the house. They told me not to be upset, but my son had been arrested on the charge to murdering Emily Dimmock. Inspector Neil said he must ask me some questions and make a search. I gave him even' facility. It is a long time since then, and I really forget what was said, but I know I remembered Wednesday, September 11, on account of the upsetting of the bottle. Inspector Neil did not ask me to make any statement. The officers searched my son's room. My son's overcoat was not hanging behind the door when they made the
search. As to Neil's statement that he took the overcoat off the door and laid it on the bed, there was no overcoat on the door; there was a vest, a pair of trousers and jacket There are only two little noble to hang them on. On the next day, or the neat day but one, police officers came and asked for the overcoat. I explained to them that the drawers had been examined the night before, and one of the officers said, "We are looking for something else now." One of them went up the chimney with his arms and he examined the chimney in my room as well. Shortly afterwards they left. I did not notice thaw they took anything with them. On the Sunday night, October 6, a police officer came for the overcoat. When they came on October 4 I saw the overcoat in a drawer. On the Sunday night James gave them the overcoat, and I did not see where it was taken from. My son's habit was to take to his overcoat late in the season. He very seldom used it during September. There is a peculiarity about prisoner's left hand. The little finger is crooked, and there is a soar on the third finger, the result of a burn when he was a baby. His stepmother died in February of this year. Since then he has been particularly attentive in looking alter me. There is no marked peculiarity in his walk. He is a very neat walker. I have had 18 children. None of them has any physical peculiarity.
Cross-examined. I cannot fix the date when Robert's clock was first brought into my room. On Monday, September 9, I was at home and the clock was brought in for my convenience. I remember well the visit of the police on the evening of Friday, October 4. I may have said to Inspector Neil that my son, alter returning from business and having his tea, would go out again, and, as a rule, would look in and say, "Good night" before retiring to rest, but I Could not speak to any particular night that my son was at home in the week of September 11. I think I first mentioned about the liniment being upset at the coroner's inquest on October 28. I do not remember having said to Inspector Neil on October 4, "My son comes home and goes out again and comes in at all times." The inspector may have asked if I remembered at what time my son came home on the night of September 11. I did not say I could not speak to any particular night as I was asleep. I think my son's clock was brought in on the Monday. I think it possible that anyone might get into the front room occupied by my son without anyone in the back room hearing. I do not know that any time my son has brought anybody home to No. 12, Frederick Street. My son James's overcoat was not hanging on the peg of the door of the room in which prisoner slept. I have been troubled with eczema for 20 years. I had been suffering from it Acutely prior to September 9. It kept me away from my work for 10 weeks.
Re-examined. My suffering had become so acute that I was unable to continue my work on September 9. The doctor who attended me was Dr. Humphrys, of Caledonian Road. When the conversation took place with Inspector Neil on October 4 Neil had a book in his hand, but it is impossible for me to tell what he put down.
JAMES GEORGE WOOD , 18, prisoner's stepbrother. I generally come home between 10 and 12 at night. I sleep in my father's room and my brother Robert sleeps in the other room. I remember the week my father stayed away from his work. I remember my brother's circle being Brought into my father's room on the Monday afternoon. On the night of September 11, when I came home, I saw some wet on the carpet. I went to bed after I had had some supper. I remember my brother Robert coming in later and winding the clock He made some cheery remark, said "Good night" and took the clock with him into his own room. He went in from the door leading into the postage, the folding doors being blocked with furniture. I generally sleep well. I could not swear positively that my brother did not get up and go out. I heard my brother lock his door and walk across the floor. I cannot swear positively that I heard anything more. I next saw my brother at about five minutes past seven on the following morning. At five minutes to seven I called him by knocking on the folding doors. I have got the break fast ready since my mother died. We have breakfast in the back room. My brother came in to breakfast. He had no coat on. He left for work about 15 minutes to eight. Prisoner has treated me much better than a brother, and I agree with my father that he is of kind and affectionate disposition. I first heard my brother's name associated with the tragedy on September 30. I was not present when the police came on October 4. My father's statement that he was then alone in the home is, so far as I know, accurate. I used to keep my overcoat in my own room. On the Sunday night (October 6), when I came home about 11 o'clock, Inspector Neil was standing facing the door waiting for me. Roberts overcoat was not hanging behind the door of his room. My own overcoat was hanging behind the door of the other room. I did not see Robert's overcoat that night. I was at home on Saturday morning when the two officers came and searched the chimneys and the chest of drawers. Another officer came on Sunday night and asked if I could give him my brother Robert's overcoat because he was cold. I gave him the coat, which I got from the chest of drawers. On the night of September 11 I had been to the Islington Empire Music Hall. That was the night the lotion was upset.
Cross-examined. It was on September 30 that I first had any intimation of my brother Robert being connected with the crime. It was then he told me about the letter which had been sent to the General Post Office. I saw mention of the postcard in the newspapers on Sunday, September 29. I showed my brother the newspaper and pointed out that the writing on the card was like his. He admitted that it was, but showed no sign of uneasinets. On the following day he told me about the letter to the General Post Office and said it had been written after consultation with his brother Charles.
Mr. Justice Grantham said he did not understand why the letter should have been sent to the Poste Restante. If prisoner had wished
to make any explanation it should naturally have been sent to the police.
Witness. The letter was addressed to prisoner's brother Charles. Prisoner said he did not want to get mixed up in the affair. The letter was sent as a matter of good faith as showing that my brother did not want to get out of sending the postcard. He explained to me the circumstances under which he had written the card, that he had me the girl on the Friday evening in the "Rising Sun" that a boy came in with picture postcards and asked him to buy some and he said, "Do not buy those common things; I have some better ones in my pocket which I brought from Bruges," and he took one out and the girl admired one of them in particular and asked him to write something on it and he did so. Not having a stamp he pat it in his pocket, and on Saturday, while going to the Gas Company's office in Own den Town, he met Emily Dimmock and she reminded him about the postcard; however, he put it in his pocket again and forgot it until the Sunday, and he posted it some time on the Sunday. He did not tell me that Friday, September 6, was the first time he hud seen her. We had a lengthy conversation—something like 20 minutes. I had not the date of the murder in my mind on October 4 when the police officers came. I had not in mind at that time that my father was ill on that day, nor was the accident to the bottle of liniment present to my mind, nor that my brother came in and fetched the clock. I recalled these, incidents and fixed them as having happened on the night of September 11 on the following morning (October 5). My father was sitting thinking that morning and he said to me. "It was on September 9 that I came home." He attached great importance to the knocking over of the lotion, and said it was on the Wednesday night. I paid no particular attention to the matter then, but I recalled the incidents some days afterwards. When the police were here on October 4 I was asked specifically whether I could remember Wednesday, September 11. I said then I oould not distingcish any particular night. I do not remember being aaked what time my brother came in on September 11. I was examined before the coroner on October 28. I may then have said I could not remember anything about September 11. I was rather flurried before the coroner, it was the first time I had been in Court in my life. I oould speak to my brother coming home to tea on the night of the 11th because he never misted that. I attach no particular importance to my father's efforts to revive his memory, as I expected to see my brother walk home on the Sunday afternoon. It was not until October 8 that my memory revived in regard to the incidents of the evening of September 11. I began to think. I did not tell the inspector on October 4 that my brother sometimes came home after I was asleep. I never noticed thar it was my brother's habit to carry his injured hand in his pocket. I think if my brother had not come in on any night I should have missed him. I cannot remember that I ever went to sleep without hearing whether my brother had returned home. I did not purposely remain awake. I am generally writing or reading till very late. I
was thinking of going into the Civil Service and I sat up very late over my books, and when he came in he used to say sometimes, "Do not burn that gas there all night." I never knew of his bringing any one home to No. 12, Frederick Street to sleep.
Re-examined. On the night of October 4 I was on able to say definitely without consideration what my brother's movement were on the night of September 11. On the Saturday morning my father was sitting with both hands to his head thinking terribly and he said, "I think I can recall that night. I was at home here on the 9th and I got the lotion on the 10th, and on the 11th I remember upsetting it." When that was said it tallied with my own recollection, and I have no coubt it had taken place my father said, but as I say I did not take any notice of it at the time, because I expected my brother would walk in a free man next afternoon. On September 9 I was at Sadler's Wells music-hall. On the Tuesday night my brothers Charles and Robert came in together and I went half-way home with Charlet, a thing that had never happened before. That night is, therefore, fixed in my mind. On Wednesday evening, as I could rot find any of my friends I went to the Islington Empire. When I came in I turned up the gas, and on glancing round I noticed some water on the cirpet, which my father accounted for by the upsetting of the liniment. At the time the letter was sent to the Poste Restante my brother had not been charged or arrested. My brother told me he was anxious not to be mixed up with the affair in any way whatever.
CHARLES WOOD , prisoner's brother. I am married, and live at 143, Museum Street, Bloomsbury. My age is 32. I am a printer's reader, and have been for 14 years in one employment. My brother's general reputation is exceedingly high and he is kind, considerate, and affectionate. On Saturday, September 29, I saw in the "Daily Chronicle" a reproduction of what is now known as the "Rising Sun" postcard. My brother freely avowed having written the postcard and told me how he came to meet the dead woman. On Tuesday, September 10, prisoner spent practically the whole evening with me. I met him in Theobald's Road at the back of Gray's Inn. From there we went to the John Street public library, and he afterwards accompanied me to a barber shop and then to my house, where we had some supper. He stayed there some little time, and afterwards I accompanied him home to see my father, who had been taken ill on the previous day, and my step-brother James walked part of the way home with me. When I saw him on September 28, and we had a conversation about this postcard, I told him the only proper thing to do was to acquaint the police with the circumstances. I knew of his association with Ruby Young. My brother assented to my suggestion that the right and proper thing to do was to communicate with the police, but we were in a state of hesitancy and could not make up our minds that we should go to them that night. Two things influenced my brother's mind: One was the state of my father's health, who was suffering rrom a complication of gouty eczema and ulceration. We decided to wait until the next day, and on the Sunday we met again. My brother
was very averse to publicity, and finally I proposed that I should write the statement that hat been read, and that for greater honesty of purpose it should lie out of our hands. The writing of the letter was obviously not intended to assist the police, but was simply to put on record facts that had come to my knowledge. The letter was signed by myself, my wife, and the prisoner, and was as follows: "43, Museum Street, London, W.C., Sunday, September 29, 1907—We, the undersigned, make this statement and place it in the charge of the Poste Restante at St. Martin's-le-Grand in order to safeguard our good faith in the matter should our course of action be impeached. We, the two first signatories, are aware, from his own free avowal, that the postcard signed 'Alice,' published in the newspapers of September 28 and 29 by desire of the, police in order to obtain information in the 'Camden Town Murder' case, is in the handwriting and was written by Robert Wood, of 12, Frederick Street, W.C. We, jointly, are anxious to assist the police in every way possible, but we are also anxious to avoid the publicity and personal trouble occasioneded by an immediate communication. Having regard to the unreliability of the newspaper theories and comment, and being absolately satisfied as to Robert Wood's bona-fides and that his contribution to the matter own aid but little, we consider it wise to await the results attained at the adjourned inquest on September 30, and while trusting that the intervention of Robert Wood may thereby become unnecessary, at the same time we determine, should no satisfaction arise from the inquest that Robert Wood shall make his avowal to the authorities immediately.—(Signed) Chatties Oarlyie Wood, Bessie M. Wood, Robert Wood." My brother's habit with regard to his injured hand it to retain his glove when perhaps other people would remove it He has a delicacy about it. It is an abominable lie to say that he has a swaggering fail He has no peculiarity which would attract the attention of a casual observer seeing him for the first time.
Cross-examined. My brother would sometimes carry his injured hand in his jacket pocket, but I do not think I can recall any instance when I have seen him so walking. On September 28 my brother told me that Mr. Tinkham had recognised the handwriting of the facsimile of the postcard published in the paper. It is not correct to say my brother made a statement; it came up in conversation. I was under the impression that the writing might be my brother's. I cannot recall the details of the conversation, but the effect of it was that there was only one thing to do—that he had better go to the police and let them know of it. He said he had seen the deceased woman on September 9. I never conversed with him about Ruby Young. He never wavered in his determination to go to the polios. He left about seven o'clock on the Sunday night and returned at 9.30. He did not tell me how he had employed the interval. The plan was not subsequently changed, the determination to go to the police remained; it is postulated in the statement, but it was post-poned.
I did not know that my brother had ceased his association with Ruby Young towards the end of July. I knew of his association with her in a vague way. I knew he had met her on October 3 because she called at my house subsequently. I know where the "Rising Sun" is very well. It would be about 25 minutes' walk from the public library in John Street. That was the nearest I and my brother were to the "Rising Sun" that night. My memory was revived as to these incidents in consequence of Mr. Arthur Newton's request for information.
ARTHUR ARMITAGE HUMPHRYS , physician and surgeon, 98, Caledonian Road, gave evidence as to supplying Mr. George Wood with some lotion for the treatment of gouty eczema and ulceration of the leg on September 10. Witness saw Mr. Wood again on the 16th, when he stated that he had had an Accident with the bottle, and witness thereupon gave him some more.
JOSEPH WILLIAM ROGERS , 12, Frederick Street. I am a jeweler and have known Mr. Wood and his family for about a year. I have seen prisoner going in and out on several occasions. I occupy two rooms in the basement immediately beneath those occupied by the Woods. I suffer from bronchitis, which interferes with my getting to sleep, and I rarely go to bed before two o'clock in the morning. I belong to an angling society, and, like all fishermen, take a keen interest in the sport. Once a month we have a price outing. We meet to weigh in our fish for prices on the Sunday night, and on Monday night we meet for the business of the club. There was a fishing coutest on the third Sunday in September, in which I was going to take part. I use for bait, amongst other things, lob worms, which you can only get at night, and I put them into scour four days before I go out. On the night of Wednesday, September 11, I was out gathering worms as usual. I had just put them into the shed, and, just as I was shutting' the door, I taw prisoner come up the steps, take the key out of his pocket, open the door, and come in. That was about half-past 11 or 20 minutes to 12. When I heard that this was an important date I made a communication to Mr. Wood and afterwards to Mr. Newton, the solicitor. I attended at the inquest as a witness and was very much aggrieved on public grounds that I was not called.
Cross-examined. It was on Sunday, October 6, that I heard Wood was locked up. The preparation of my bait takes four days. Some people keep their worms in scour five or six days, but I like worms fresh because they are more likely to catch fish. Some people keep them a week or a fortnight, according to their own liking. When I was told that Wood had been locked up I said the murder could not have been done by him because I knew he was at home. I have lived in the same house with prisoner for 12 months. I was at home on the 4.1th because my little girl was ill, and that is the reason I did not go out that night. I get the worms from the garden in front of my house, and I had not to leave the premises to get them.
stated that there were two clocks which recorded the moment at which the current was cut off, and produced a chart showing the time at which the current was turned off on the night of September 11 and 12. The switch controlling the current to the electric standard in St. Paul's Road was turned off at 4.37 a.m. The maximum error in the clocks was three minutes, and, allowing that three minutes, the current would have been turned off at 4.40 a.m., and that was the latest time at which the lamps could have been alight. It was quite impossible that they could have been alight at 4.55 a.m.
WILLIAM WESTCOTT , ticket collector, King's Cross Station, City and South London Railway. I have lived at 26, St. Paul's Road for five years. No. 29 is about 260 yards away on the opposite side of the road. I generally leave for my work at five minutes to five in the morning. I am supposed to be at King's Cross at five o'clock. My first collection is at 5.38 or 5.40, and, as a matter of fact, I am never there absolutely at five o'clock. A man named Varney, who is in the employment of the London and North-Western Railway Company, lived with me at that time. He is now stationed at Wolferton, but was then stationed at Euston. In the week from September 9 to September 14 my time for leaving the house would be about five minutes to five. There is an electric light standard opposite the house. I fancied when I came down the steps I saw a figure going up towards the "Murray Anna," Brewery Road. There is a passage that leads to another house at the back, and we have had people after the pigeons and poultry before. I could not identify the man. I looked across and thought to myself, "Somebody after the pigeons." I pulled the door to, went down the steps, and looked round, and as I looked round the man turned and walked off. I saw in the paper the description of a man who had a peculiar swing in his walk. I am conscious that I have had a swing in my walk, because they say it is good exercise. Except for that statement in the paper, my attention would not have been called to this matter at all. I have on now the coat I was wearing that morning. (Witness turned up his collar, put on his hat, and gave an illustration of his method of walking.) I have come forward perfectly voluntarily and made a communication to Mr. Newton and had an interview with him and yourself last Sunday.
Cross-examined. It would take me from 20 to 25 minutes to walk from my house to King's Cross. If we get there at 5.15 they book us down as having been there at five o'clock. I should not pass No. 29. As soon as I leave my house I turn down College Street.
FRANCIS GEORGE VARNEY , in the employ of the London and Northwestern Railway, now stationed at Wolferton, gave evidence as to calling the last witness in the week of September 9 and 14, and said he had noticed Westcott's peculiar walk.
character was excellent, he was steady, reliable, industrious, and had good abilities. He was always cheerful and light-hearted, and the reverse of morose and sullen. He had constantly seen the prisoner walk, and there was nothing in his gait which would rivet the attention of a casual observer, nor had he any peculiarity of the right shoulder. He was due at business at eight o'clock in the morning.
Mr. Marshall Hall said he had 65 witnesses, all employed by this firm, and he was prepared to call every one of them to say that prisoner had no peculiarity in his walk.
Sir Charles Mathews said he would accept the statement that the employees of the firm had never noticed any peculiarity in the prisoner's walk.
HABIT SHARPLES , commission agent. I made a statement to the Treasury on September 14, 1907, in company with Frederick Harvey. On Sunday, September 8, I was in the "Rising Sun" about 10 o'clock with Frederick Harvey, and we stayed till about 20 minutes to 11. I knew the deceased woman a a a Phyllis Dimmock. She was there that night. She was in company with some gentleman wearing a blue suit. I could not describe his face. He was a smart-looking chap. It was not the prisoner, but a smarter-built chap. He had on a bowler hat, and I should say his height was 5 ft. 9 or 10 in. I stood alongside to him in the bar. I saw Dimmock again on the night of the 11th about 10 minutes past 12 between Osculation Street and Charlton Street. She was in the company of a man who resembled the man I had seen her with the night before, who stood head and shoulders taller than the prisoner. I raised my hat as I went by. This was in the Euston Road. I have no doubt whatever about the time. I heard of the murder the following afternoon, and subsequently made the statement to the police. I saw a photograph of the deceased woman at the Kentish Town Police Station, and satisfied myself that it was the same woman. Everybody knew her as Phyllis.
FREDERICK HARVEY , music vendor, gave evidence as to going with the last witness, and making a statement to the police at Kentish Town Police Station. Deceased was well known to witness by sight. He saw her in the "Rising Sun" on the night of Sunday, September 8, with a man who was a stranger, and was not the prisoner. Until he got to the station he did not know for certain that the woman who was murdered was Emily Dimmock. The inspector on duty showed him her photograph. He had last seen her on the Wednesday night just after midnight, accompanied by a biggish, wellbuilt man of about 5 ft. 10 in. Prisoner was not the man she was with.
Mr. Marshall Hall. I am going to ask you one question before I go into detail. Did you kill Emily Dimmock?
Prisoner: Of course, not. I mean it it ridiculous.
Mr. Marshall Hall. I wish for a direct answer.
Mr. Marshall Hall. I do not wish it to he said that I did not put the direct question. I put it.
Prisoner. No. I made her acquaintance in the "Rising Sun" on the Friday mentioned in my statement, which is perfectly true. I have heard the evidence of the man Crabtree. It is utterly false; in fact, it is dastardly. I hope God will destroy me this minute if I ever knew Crabtree or have ever been in his house. I live within a stone's throw of the "Rising Sun." I knew Ruby Young when she was living in Liverpool Street, but I did not know that Phyllis Dimmock lived nearly opposite. On the Friday night deceased asked me fore penny for the gramophone, and I gave her one. I paid for drinks. Later a boy offered some postcards for sale. They were of a very common, inartistic kind. I produced some more artistic cards from my pocket, and Dimmock chose the card which has been produced. She said she collected them, and asked me if I would send it to her, and write something pleasing on it to give it interest. I signed the card with the name "Alice" at her request. She said that was the name of a friend. I saw her again the following night in Great College Street, as I was on my way to the Gas Company's offices in Camden Road. On the Sunday night I did not see her, but on the Monday night I saw her for some tune in the "Rising Sun." The man Roberts was there. Mrs. Smith and Mrs. Lawrence were there also. We had drinks and were all very friendly. I did not take Dimmock to the Holbom Music Hail that night. I had a sketch book, and she amused herself looking through it She had some intelligence, and I may say that appealed to me. I did not hear Dimmock say that we bad spent the evening in the "Adam and Eve" public-house. I have never seen Dimmock in the "Pindar of Wakefield." It would be some time after 11 that I left the "Rising Sun" on the Monday night. She called my attention on the Saturday night to the fact that I had not sent the postcard. I posted it on the Sunday night, I think, in the pillar box in Museum Street, alter I had left my brother's place. On the Tuesday night I was not in the "Rising Sun" at all. I was on my way to Red Lion Street to see about some ink for a style pen when I met my brother in Theobald's Road. After we had been to the public library and to the barber's, I accompanied him home and had supper, and he afterwards came back with me to Frederick Street to see father. I did not go out again after that. On the following evening, September 11, I was in the "Eagle" public-house with Dimmock, whom I met in the Camden Road. Lambert came in, and I introduced her to him as a "merry girl friend." I only knew her a a Phyllis, and did not mention her name. I addressed the postcard to "Mrs. B. Shaw" at her dictation. A little
later Lambert went away. I cannot say exactly how deceased was dressed that night, but she looked very neat. I did not notice whether her hair was in curling pins. I left her in the "Eagle" public-house, I suppose, at about 11 o'clock, and walked straight home, arriving between half-past 11 and 12. I went into my father's room, as he had been seriously ill, and when I left him I took the clock which had been put in his room for his convenience during the day. I did not leave the house again that night. There is nothing to fix in my mind that I wound up the clock except that I did so regularly. My brother mentioned to me about the lotion, and I believe there was an odor in the room, but I took very little notice. I had been home to tea that night and went out at my usual hour, about half-past six. I went to my work the following morning a few minutes past eight o'clock, wearing the navy blue suit I had worn all the summer. All my life I have had my clothes from one tailor, and he has a record. I was not at that time wearing my great coat, which I suppose would then be folded away in a drawer. To my knowledge it was not hanging behind the door on October 4. I pot it away at the commencement of the summer, and at this time it was still warm. I had no overcoat on on the night I saw Lambert. The weather was fine and I had no need of it. I was at work all the Thursday. On the Friday something was said to me about an unfortunate woman having been killed. I had never been to 29, St. Paul's Road, in my life. When I read the announcement: "Mysterious crime. Woman found murdered at Camden Town. A terrible tragedy was discovered yesterday morning at 29, St. Paul's Road, Camden Town, the victim being a young woman of 23 years, Mrs. Shaw, who had lived at that address for some months"—it did not strike me that that was the same person and address I had sent a postcard to. I took little notice of that. When I saw the word "Phyllis" in inverted commas I was startled. That was the next day. I did not see the "sailor costume" portrait in the paper until the following Sunday. It was an enlargement from a placard and blurred, and I did not recognise it I cannot say exactly when I made up my mind to try and induce Ruby Young to say falsely that she was with me oh that night. I suppose the telegram would be sent with the object of inducing her if possible to prove an alibi for me with regard to that night. Is it not natural that I should do so? Is there not a certain amount of disgrace attached to it for a young man? I am sure it must appeal to the average man that he would like to steer clear of it. I was anxious, if possible, to conceal the fact that I had been with her on the Wednesday night and to get straight away from that association. What Ruby Young has said is quite true, that I asked her to say that she was with me from half-past six till half-past 10 that night. My father had no knowledge that on the three occasions I have spoken of I had been in public-houses in the Euston Road, and that was what I was afraid of him hearing. My father knew of Ruby Young, but I did not mention her to him very often.
He had seen us together and knew of her existence. As to Ruby Young's statement, that she broke off with me because she was jealous of my having taken a woman named "Pansy" to my father's house for a fortnight, that is absolutely untrue. The rooms were my father's. It is also untrue that I took Ruby Young to Frederick Street for the night. She has been to my room, but never stayed the night. In the state of my father's health I was anxious to spare him any publicity. I met Ruby Young on the 20th and arranged to take her to the theatre on the 23rd, and we did go to the theatre. We went for a walk and I suggested that she should say that that walk was the walk that we took on the night of September 11. She knew the neighbourhood better than I did. I went to see her on Sunday, 29th, the day after I had seen the reproduction of the postcard. When I saw the reproduction I recognised at once that my handwriting must be known and that if was impossible any longer to conceal the fact of my acquaintance with the deceased woman. On the 29th the arrangement was made with Ruby Young that she should say she was with me on this particular night under the circumstances of union she has told us. When I was arrested on October 4 I made the statement which has been put in, which is a mixture of the statement I am making now and the statement as arranged between me and Ruby Young. With the exception of the false alibi for the Wednesday that statement was true. It is true that I rang Lambert up on the 'phone and said I would come and see him that morning and that I rang him up again to say I would come in the evening, as I could not come in the morning without the permission of the proprietors. It is perfectly true that I asked him to leave the girl out of the question. That was also with the object of covering up my doings on the Wednesday night. I was anxious to cover up that Wednesday night because I had my people to consider and I had myself to consider, knowing that Dimmock was associated with the "Rising Sun," which I may say has rather a bad reputation, without wishing to hurt the feelings of the proprietor, and to be associated with witnesses in the case of that kind was very unpleasant to me. I did not say to the policeman that if it came to a pinch I should have to open out. That is most unfair; I never said that. That has hurt me more than, anything; it is hitting below the belt. It is most untrue. I have heard what my brother Charles has said stout sending the letter to the Poste restante. I was advised to go to the police, but declined to do so, and so this letter was written. It fixed the date on which I had made the admission of writing the postcard. It was not thought the letter would be of any use to the police at all, but it was written as a guarantee of good faith. As a matter of fact I have never been able to give to the police any information with regard to the actual commission of the murder. I did not know her acquaintances. I was a stranger to the people in the bar. With regard to the charred fragments of the letter, I had never seen them until they were shown me three or four days ago. I admit that the writing on them is my writing, but the whole thing seems confusion.
With regard to the faint blue lines on the paper, the only similar thing I have that I can call to mind is a tiny add eat book amongst say papers at home. It may have been a leaf from that. I have not had asocial to it since I have been Arrested. Anyhow, these fragments did not form part of a three-page letter. I have never written a three-page letter to deceased. Having carefully considered the matter I am unable to give any explanation of the charred fragments. It is a jumble. It is not a letter. The writing is in all directions. I do not know how that fragment came to be in the fireplace, where it is said to have been found by the police. The only thing I can connect it with is odd sketches and little things I was doing. As to the suggestion that it is a portion of the letter deposed to by Roberts, I never wrote to Phyllis making an appointment to meet her in the "Eagle" tavern. I never sent to this woman a letter through the post—only a postcard. I have never signed "Bert" in my life. I am always called "Bob."
(Wednesday, December 18.)
Cross-examined. Yesterday was the first time I made an admission in public that I was in Dimmock's company on September 11—I have nor spoken in public before. I did not mention it to Ruby Young nor to my brothers Charles and James, nor to Tinkham. I had nothing to fear from publicity being given to my association with her. Naturally it looked very bad that I was so late in her company the night she was killed. The "Rising Sun" postcard is on its face a letter of assignation. It is written by me signed in the name of "Alice" and addressed to the woman in the house in which she lived and where she was killed. It was hardly an appointment; there was no seriousness attached to it. Prior to September 6 I had never seen Phyllis Dimmock in my life. I did not say on Friday, September 6, to Smith, "Have you seen Phyllis?"—that is a mistake. I did not beckon to Dimmock. The postcard was lightly penciled out in the "Rising Sun" on my sketch-book, while sitting by her side, and retained by me. I had no fixed intention of posting it. I intended that I might look in by the way at the "Rising Sun." I was there about an hour on Friday. I went there about 10 p.m. and left about 12; I was in Dimmock's company practically all that time. I did not go to the "Rising Sun" on Saturday, but met Dimmock quite accidentally in Great College Street. I was in the "Eagle" with her that evening. I have been in the "Eagle" about once before. I do not use the "Pindar of Wakefield." The only occasion I recollect being there was before Christmas, 1906, with Tinkham. I have been in the "Adam and Eve," and was there for about an hour with diseased on the Saturday. I did not see her on the Sunday, but late that night I posted the "Rising Sun" postcard. I cannot recall when I actually lined it—completed it—possibly on Sunday. I posted it after I left my brother's house very late that night or the
early morning. On Monday I got to the "Rising Sun" at nine p.m. or a little later—I did not keep any appointment—it may have been a little before nine; I cannot pledge myself it was not between eight and 8.30. I paid for a drink for Lawrence and Smith. There was no discussion as to where we should spend the evening. I may have gone with Dimmock for an hour—I cannot say where we went—it was no: to the Holborn Empire. I may have called in at the "Adam and Eve." I could not say when I left the "Rasing Sun"—each idle hours are carelessly spent. On the Tuesday I was not near the "Rising Sun" at about seven. I did not write a letter to Dimmock or make an assignation for Wednesday, September 11. My father came home ill from his work on the Monday and went to the doctor on the Tuesday. Taking the charred letter it may begin" Will you"—there is "ill" and "y" and "are." I cannot say what it means, it is too much of a jumble. It could not have been the "Eagle"—I did not know the name of the "Eagle." I wee in there on September 7 with Dimmock. It is a well-known corner public-house, out I did not know the name of it on September 10. It is nearly two miles from where I live. It is near to St. Paul's Road and is opposite Camden Town Station. There are many other public-houses about there, but I do not know their names. This is not a letter of assignation written by me. It is unusual for me to make appointments. I may have mentioned my father's health to Dimmock. I did not write to her at all except the postcard. It is easy to write a story round the words in the charred letter—it is imagination purely. I never wrote to Dimmock. I wrote many things in her presence—I did not send anything to her—I wrote amusing phrases and sketches. With regard to this letter, I can make neither head nor tail of it. I do not know that I gave her anything. She had many little things that I had written, many things from my pocket. She looked through my letters and papers—say sketch-book and cards. This may have been written in her presence while sitting at the bar with her at the "Rising Sun" when I first met her or afterwards. (To the Judge.) I had never seen her before Friday, September 6, to my knowledge. I addressed this postcard to her, "Phillips darling" One did not have to be long in the "Rising Sun" to know her name; she was being spoken to across the bar. She was a well-known person there. As to celling her "darling," these things are written to please, I suppose. (To Sir C. Mathews.) On these Wednesday I left work at the usual time and went home to tea as usual, end was at the "Eagle" with deceased about nine or after nine. I met her in the Oamden Road, not far from the "Eagle," and was with her at the "Eagle" until about 11—I could not say if I left there about 10, but I think later then that Lambert was there shortly after we got there about 9.15. I introduced her to him as a friend. I may have mentioned the name of "Phyllis"—that is the only name I knew her by. I knew that Shaw was the name she passed by, but I was under the impression that Shaw was an old gentleman. When she asked me to write in a woman's name—she
spoke of an "old man," or some such remark. She looked very daintily dressed to me—I noticed nothing peculiar about her dress or that her hair was in curling pins. She may have mentioned that she had had to come out in the condition in which she then was. I do not remember my attention being drawn to her dress. I believe Mr. Lambert has given his evidence very honestly. I think it was after 11 when I left the house. Miss Raven is quite inaccurate when she says about 10. I left Dimmock in the bar of the "Eagle." Raven is wrong in saying we left together. There is a corridor that leads to the door—I believe Dimmock rose from her seat fend bade me "Good-bye" in the corridor. I do not remember if Raven served me. On leaving I went straight home. I pledge myself I left that woman in the "Eagle" public-house. I only knew where she lived from the address on the postcard. I did not know she lived close to the "Eagle." I have never been home with her to the house, 29, St. Paul's Road—I do not knew the house. I was not there on the early morning of September 12. She told me that she collected postcards; she spoke very intelligently about them; the did not mention an album; I never saw it. My overcoat was at home in a drawer—I had not started wearing an overcoat this year. When Moss told me of the murder it is very likely I said, "Yes, and what wonder when one considers with whom they go home," but I do not remember. I did not realise that it was the woman I had been with until afterwards when I saw the name "Phyllis"—that would be on Friday, September 20. I saw the picture of her in the sailor's dress on the Sunday on the placard—I knew it was a photo of the murdered girl, but I did not recognise the dress. I paid little attention to it until the reproduction of the postcards—that alarmed me a little, I admit I remember telephoning to Lambert and saying, "I can clear myself" or words to that effect—that I was all right as far as I was concerned, but that it was a serious matter, and I naturally so regarded it. I cannot tell you the dates—probably the walls of Brixton have had some effect. I admit wiring to Ruby Young—it was not unusual for me to wire to her. I saw her the same day and asked her to say what would take me away from the association with Dimmock—to cover the Monday and the Wednesday. The Monday was because I had been drinking with the girl on that day. I wanted to keep clear of the whole thing. You may put it that it was my intention to deny that I was in the woman's company on the Monday. I had to admit to Ruby Young that I knew the girl. I dared not mention much to her. I admitted to her knowing Dimmock on the Friday, Saturday and Monday and stated that Friday was the first meeting and Monday the last. Young is wrong in saying that our friendship had ceased from the middle of July. I met her on August Bank Holiday and I had been to her place after my holiday. She has seen me speaking to other girls, her own friends, and has got huffy. There was no special disagreement. I know Pansy Ruby Young visited her. She may have stayed away from me, but not for long enough for me to notice. I have known Ruby
Young for three years or more, and intimate relations have existed for the whole of that time. I have not seen so much of her this year since she moved to Earl's Court, hut the relation has been of the same character. A long time after I knew her—about a year after—I learnt the calling she was following and it vexed me very much. I liked the girl and I tolerated it. There was no question of marriage between us, except shortly after I met her; that was her idea. I gave her a ring this year—in the spring, I believe—not as an engagement ring or as a profession of intended marriage. It was a ring which belonged to my stepmother who died in the early spring. Ruby. Young wished for it and I gave it her. She may have read more into it, but I said nothing about marriage. I did not present it to her. No suggestion of marriage was made at the time. On September 23 I took Ruby Young to see "Miss Hook of Holland." I had not been with her to a place of amusement for a long time previous. I seldom went to music-halls. She accompanied me on most occasions. Up to Saturday, September 28, I was attending to my work diligently, going and leaving at my regular hours, calm and in good spirits—I was not really alarmed about the murder, it was only the association. On that morning Tinkham produced the print of the "Rising Sun" postcard and said, "You wrote this, 'Bob'—he knows my pencil work well. I do not remember what Moss said, but very likely he said, "That fellow can draw, Bob"—he was sitting at my elbow. I told my brother Charles exactly whet happened—that I had seen Dimmock on September 9. I was quite willing to go to the police, bu: it meant interfering with my business, associating me with low characters, etc., etc., and there was the effect on my father, who was ill. My brother thought it best for me to go to the police and I assented on the Sunday. I told Ruby Young of that intention, but that I was going to call at Museum Street first to decide finally. That was when I arranged the details of the alibi. The letter to the Poste-Restante was written that night by my brother and posted when I left my brother's place. My brother might have got it back, but I think he is more honourable. I was in the mire, he was helping me—not shielding me. I think Tinkham was a little alarmed about me and I gave him to understand that things would be all right; I think I said that the letter had gone to the authorities—conveyed that the information had gone to the proper quarter—that I had confessed to being the writer of the "Rising Sun" postcard. I think I saw Ruby Young on October 1, 2, and 3, and asked her to keep hex promise. I was arrested in her presence on October 4, and may have said, "Be true," meaning her to fulfil the promise as to these alibi. I dictated the statement given by the police—some of the words are not mine, but I do not quarrel with it—I read it, corrected it, and signed it. I emphatically deny that I ever said to Police-constable Brooker, "If it comes to a crisis I shall have to open out," or any such words. I am surprised at hearing that from a fellow being. It is undoubtedly false—with what object I cannot say.
Re-examined. I should have put my own name to the postcard, but it was Dimmock's wish that I should not. She asked me to put something nice upon it. I told Neil before any mention or description of the card was made that the figures of a woman and child were drawn on the back of the card. I do not think I met Mrs. Lawrenes on Monday, September 9, at the "Rising Bun"—it was Mrs. Smith—Phyllis introduced me to her. It is ridiculous to say that the charred fragment is a portion of a three-page letter. Ruby Young's statement as to the arrangement of the alibi is not accurate—she has left out a good deal of the conversation. She suggested the programme. I was fond of Ruby Young. I have no ill-feeling against her
Verdict, Not guilty.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Thursday, December 12.)
GRANT, Charles (32, traveller) ; obtaining by false pretences from Bland Gardner Sinclair on or about September 12, 1907, goods value £12 17s. and goods value £12 5s.; on or about September 13, 1907, the sum of £1; on or about September 23, 1907, the sum of £1 10s.; and on or about September 30, 1907, the sum of £1 10s., in each, case with intent to defraud; forging and uttering an endorsement on a certain order for the payment of money—to wit, on a banker's cheque for £19 8s. 6d., with intent to defraud.
Mr. Wild prosecuted.
Mr. Forrest Pulton defended.
Mr. Forrest Fulton stated that he had had an opportunity of discussing the matter with the prisoner (who was not previously represented by a legal adviser), and who probably did not realise the position he occupied in law, and by his (Mr. Forrest Fulton's) advice the prisoner now withdrew the plea of "Not guilty" of obtaining goods by false pretences and pleaded "Guilty" as to that. The Jury then returned a verdict of "Guilty." The prisoner confessed to having been convicted of misdemeanour at Ipswich on January 3, 1907.
Inspector WARNER proved a previous conviction. I understand that he was 13 years in the Great Eastern Railway Company. He told me he was employed by the "Maximas" Company and that he left voluntarily to better himself.
BLAND GARDNER SINCLAIR . When I began to have dealings with prisoner I did not know that he had been convicted before. I did not inquire because he told me such a story that I was perfectly decived by him. He told me that he had a law case on with the "Maximas" Company through not being able to get his commission account. I got two references, but I only wrote to one of them.
Sentence, Eighteen months' hard labour.
Mr. Oates prosecuted; Mr. G. St. John MacDonald defended.
HERBERT ELFICK , print cutter, Mildmay Glub, Newington Green. I belong to an unregistered loan society formed by the members of that staff. I have belonged to the club about six years. The prisoner in the beginning of last year asked me how many shares I was going to have. I told him 12 shares, upon which I paid 6d. per share per week. At the end of the year, when the sharing-out day came, I ought to have received £12 4s.; but I have not received anything, nor seen the prisoner since. He occupied the positions of secretary and treasurer. His duties were to receive all contributions of the members and enter them on a card. He was supposed to lend the money received as contributions to the members of the club, and the surplus of it was to be put into the bank. My contribution of 6d. per week Mr. share would have amounted to £15, but I had had a loan of £3. There were no rules in the Mildmay Loan Club. When I first joined the club I was present at the messing when the prisoner was elected secretary. The arrangement was that the prisoner should bank the money at the Penny Bank, Hackney Road. One shilling in the pound per annum was charged on loans made to members. According to the books, which we found at the prisoner's house after he had absconded, he had 20 shares. The book produced is' in the prisoner's handwriting. Exhibit E is the prisoner's card. I do not understand this card at all. I understand it is the prisoner's writing. Exhibit F is in his handwriting. That apparently is an account of what was due to the various members.
Cross-examined. We had a meeting at the end of every year, when the prisoner always brought the balance to us, except the last time. The date of the meeting was fixed by arrangement among the members, of which defendant would give an intimation from his own house the week before Christmas met, when I called at his house with my last instalment. He had the books on the table when he took my money. I understand my own account in the book kept by the prisoner so far that he has got me down for a larger number of shares than I paid for. I am not a very good scholar myself. I cannot say whether the prisoner is. (A letter written by the prisoner from Brixton Prison, dated December 10, was read to show that the prisoner was an illiterate man.) The amount of £1 4s. 6d. added to the £15 would mean the amount of money that was due to me if I had not had any loan during the year. I suppose the £1 4s. 6d. represents dividends. (The further examination of the ledger produced, disclosed the fact that it was kept in a very irregular manner and was not comprehensible.)
Re-examined. The club was formed with the object of lending money only to the Mildmay Radical Club staff.
was the amount due to me. This amount was supposed to be accounted for by the prisoner, but I have not received a penny piece of it. On December 19 last, when the money was supposed to be given to the members, I went to the club in the hope of receiving it. When I got there the first intimation I had was that the prisoner had absconded. The prisoner not putting in an appearance I went, in company with another member of the club, to the prisoner's house, (and there were found the subscription cards and the book in which he was supposed to keep the accounts. We took the cards and the book back to the Mildmay Club. I did not see the prisoner again until he was arrested last week.
Cross-examined. I should think I have been a member of the club six or seven years. I believe there have been auditors in previous years, but there was no auditor called in of late years. I do not think I have seen any circular with regard to the auditing of any accounts. I had too much faith in the prisoner to take any interest in the management of the club myself. There was not an acknowledged assistant secretary; one of the members of the club used to assist the prisoner. I do not know all the members. I do not understand Lee's account in this book. I do not know what these blacklead figures refer to.
(Friday, December 13.)
The Judge expressed the opinion that the oak had not been properly got up, and the case was postponed till next day.
(Saturday, December 14.)
ALFRED VANNER , bar attendant, Mildmay Radical Club. Prisoner and myself have been barmen at the club for about nine years. During the past six years the staff had a loan club, consisting of about 30 or 32 members, all employees, of which prisoner was the secretary. I was a member from the commencement until 1905, when I drew out my money and did not join in 1906. During the earlier years, I think, there were written rules printed on the back of the cards. Members took shares and paid 6d. a share per week, paying the money generally on Monday night to the secretary (prisoner). Loans were made only to members. I know of no rule to prevent prisoner lending to others. Loans would be made by the secretary to members, so far as the money paid in permitted, to the amount of their shares at 1s. in the £ interest, repayable in weekly instalments of 1s. in the When there were written rules there was a rule preventing lending to non-members. On December 19, 1906, I assisted prisoner in making up the books and cards. (Cards and slips produced.) There are here 25 cards, which were handed to me by prisoner on December 19. He said, "Make out the slips as I call out." I then at his dictation filled in the amounts due to each member on the slip and put it in the card. For instance, I have Amplett's card here—
"Twelve shares, £15; interest, £1 4s. £16 4s. Loan unpcid, £4—£12 4s." £12 4s. is the amount to be paid out to Amplett. I filled up all these cards in the same way, prisoner dictating from the ledger. The money was kept in the Penny dank by the prisoner, and all the money was paid out at the end of each year. I to tolled up the sheet handed to me by the prisoner (produced), showing that £114 was due to members. I wrote that sheet from his dictation. It adds up to £176 17s. At about five p.m. on December 19 prisoner left the club. He came to the front of the bar, shook hands with me, and said, "Good-bye, Willie, I shall be able to pay the boys out at eight o'clock this evening." He was then going to the Penny Bank in Hackney Road. I with others attended at eight p.m., and the prisoner did not appear. To my knowledge the money was banked at Hackney Road Penny Bank in 1904. Ledger produced contains the accounts for 1906 at one end, and at the other, I think, those for 1904, as I see Nicholls's name, who was not a member in 1905:
Cross-examined. I believe Nicholls left for Australia in May, 1905, so that the other end of the ledger may be the account for 1905. I know the other pair refers to 1906. I was assisting prisoner, who was not well at the time, and copied blindly what he dictated to me. I cannot swear that there were written rules—there were only mutual rules between the members of the loan club. There was a meeting at the end of the year for sharing out. December 19,1906, was the sharing out meeting. There was no notice to attend, as we were all working in the same building. Some of the wives of the staff were members. I used to assist prisoner with the accounts at the end of the year for a couple of hours. At the end of the year the club ceased to exist, as no money remained, and we commenced' all afresh the next year. If a member had paid 15s. and had a loan of £5 he would settle it with his subscriptions, or, if he did not, it would be a bad debt and the members would have to go short. When I left them there was a slip for each of the carda, showing the amount due to the member. Looking at the card of Alfred Scott, it shows a balance due of £12 4s. I should not be surprised if the ledger showed it at £14 4s., and that the total worked out in the ledger to £6 12s. There may have been a loan granted. The defendant was entitled to quarter age of 3d. par share, per quarter for management, which was paid by each member on the quarter night. I have account that paid. 2s. was paid as bonus on each £1 share. The prisoner always paid us out at the end of every year. Prisoner was never allowed to make a loan to anyone except a member of the loan club. When he received the money he took it home and entered it on the carda. I heard prisoner was ill in August and September, 1906, and was at the Cottage Hospital, Margate.
Re-examined. It was prisoner's duty to keep the ledger. After he had absconded a moneylender came to the club and said he owed him money, but I do not know that prisoner borrowed it to pay the members out.
FREMLIN , recalled. I was a member of the loan club, though not on the staff. I am vice-president of the Mildmay Radical Club and was admitted to the loan club as a commercial traveller and an old member of the staff. Prisoner was allowed to lend moneys to members of the loan club to the extent of £1 per share.
Cross-examined. I have known prisoner about nine years. He has always borne an exemplary character, and I have the highest opinion of him. After he had absconded I learnt that he had borrowed money in 1905 to pay the members.
Detective WILLIAM FAWKES , K Division. On November 30, at five p.m., I arrested prisoner in Drury Lane. I told him the charge, and he said, "I am pleased it has come, as I think I can clear my character."
Cross-examined. He was employed as a dresser from May, 1907, at 25s. a week, and has borne a good character.
Detective-sergeant ROBERT SHARP , N Division. On November 30, at eight p.m., I saw prisoner at Stoke Newington Police Station. I read the warrant. He said, "Take the money away? I could not, as I had not any to take." When charged, he said. "I could not take the money away as I had not any. If I had had the money I should not have left the home where I had been 20 years." I started to search him, and he handed me statement G and said, "That is the account of the moneys I owe the members." The statement shows an amount of £114 5s. 3d. I found 15s. in silver upon him. On December 2, at North London Police Court, he said to me, "I know I told a lie when I told Mr. Vanner that I was going to the bank to get the money out, because I did not have any money in the bank that year. As fast as I got the money in I lent it out to member £5 at a time and never received a penny.
Mr. McDonald submitted there was no fraudulent intent shows.
Judge Rentoul: Prima facie there is fraudulent intent unless he can explain it to the satisfaction of the jury.
GEORGE ROUGH (prisoner, on oath). The loan club was started at the "Red Lion," Union Street, Borough, nine years ago, then takes to the "Black Bull," end then to the Mildmay Radical Club. I have been secretary since the commencement. I have been in the Mildmay Club 10 years, first as odd man and afterwards as under-steward. There were no meetings and no rules. There were rules printed on the old books belonging to the club held at the "Red Lion." I left my home because I had not the money and I could not bear to meet the members. I have lent all the money out to different people in the Last three years. December, 1905, I paid the members up, and I am now in their debt £114, including interest. Nicholls left England in Mav, 1906. I lent him two sums of £5, which have not been repaid. I lent Riddell £10; Williams £10—he is not a member—that is not in the ledger. I understood I had power to lend to any
member of the Mildmay Club. I lent Orates £5—it if not in the ledger; I lent Baker £3, Andrews £6, Fisher £2; a number of small sums of 2s. to 5s. to members of the Mildmay Club. I never took receipts. I used to put it down on paper and them enter it into the books—it was entered into a small book which is not here. Members of the club got the books from my house.
PRISONER (continued). I own I told a lie to Vanner when I said I was going to fetch the money from the bank. There was no money in the bank that year. At the end of 1905 I was £40 short, which I borrowed from two friends. I ran away from home because I was ashamed to meat my old friends of 10 years' standing without their money. (By the Judge.) All these people's money was lent out, but I can only prove it by my own word, except that I put the loans down in a book. Nicholls is not in England. I do not know where Williams is. The last I saw of Riddell was in a shop in Aldersgste. Besides making a loan to him, I stood security for a £10 loan to the moneylender I borrowed from, and paid it back as if I had had the loan myself. (To Mr. McDonald.) I had no intension to wrong these men. My brother promised to lend me £64, and another friend £20 or £25. I went to my brother on the Tuesday before paying-out day. He was in a most violent temper and said, "Go your own way; I have altered my mind; I will not do it. It is a pity you did not die in your fit at Margate." Two months after that my brother died in a fit. I had no one to turn to; I was ashamed and want away. I have never used a penny of this money for myself. I had £6 a month from the club, am a single man, and have very little expenses. I have never gambled to any extent. I always kept the cards at home, received 6d. a share weekly from the members, and entered it up at home. I lent Vanner's father £10, which he covered with his shares. In August and september I was very ill in the hospital at Margate, and suffered from fits. I could not say who collected the money after I got back. I have always had a dreadful pain in my head, and the least worry makes it worse. I think three persons gave me money they had collected—I cannot say how much. I have never received quarter age money. The members know that, and the balance-sheet shows it. I have always paid the members 2s. a share interest, and have made it up when short. There are two sheets missing from the ledger, on which I showed the loans made. (Harvey and Fremlin said that nothing had been taken from the ledger.) There was a loose copy supposed to be a balance-sheet, and showing the amounts due to the members which corresponded with the cards—someone has taken it out.
Verdict, Guilty; but guilt greatly contributed to by negligence of the members of the loan club. Sentence, One month's imprisonment in second division.
BEFROE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Friday, December 13.)
Mr. Sydney Williams prosecuted.
GEORGE JOHN SNEDDON , fireman on the London steamship "Maccora," lying at London Docks. On December 2, after 10 p.m., I was in Commercial Road and went into a public-house. Brown spoke to me and asked me what ship I was in, and I told him I was in a ship of the Currie Company. I asked him the name of the ship, and he said the "Nubian." I told him there was no such ship trading to London. He said there was and he would show it to me. I told him I did not want to go with him, and went into the urinal on the other side of the road. He followed me, and as I was going out he struck me a blow in the face and put me on my back. Then he tried to go through my pockets and take my money off me. I shouted for the police, and a constable came and caught Smith, whom, being dazed at the time, I had not seen. Another constable took Brown. I was not in liquor. I was dazed with the blow Brown struck me in the face.
To prisoner Brown. I did not strike you before you went for me. I did strike you after you had got me down and were trying to go through my pockets.
Brown said he had no intention of going through prosecutor's pockets at all. The story had been made up.
To prisoner Smith. I did not see you until the constable had you in custody.
Police-constable FREDERICK WATTS , 781, K Division. I was in the Commercial Road at 20 minutes to one on the morning of December 3. I heard a shout from the direction of Lowell Street. I went in that direction, and saw Smith standing at the entrance of the urinal holding Sneddon by the left arm. When he saw me he let go and tried to prevent me from entering. I could hear a struggle going on inside. I gave Smith into the custody of Constable Argent and, entering the urinal, found Brown holding prosecutor round the waist. They were both struggling violently. I took hold of Brown by the neck handkerchief and pulled him outside the urinal. As I did so prosecutor said, "That is right, policeman. This man (Brown) hit me and knocked me down and tried to take my money." Brown then became very violent, and prosecutor assisted me is holding him until assistance came. Prisoner said, "Let me go, you f—g bastard. I belong to the same ship as him." Prosecutor said, "No; you do not." Within 200 yards of the station prisoner again became very violent, and it took four or five men to get him to the station.
Verdict, Brown guilty of assault, with intent to rob; Smith, Not guilty. Brown bad been frequently connoted.
Sentence on Brown, Five years' penal servitude.
KINGSTON, Walter (22, salesman) ; stealing nine pieces of cotton prints, the goods of the Calico Printers' Association, Limited, his masters; stealing 10 pieces of calico print, the goods of the Calico Printers' Association, Limited, his masters; and LISENBAUM. Woolf (37, barber) ; feloniously receiving 10 pieces of calico print, the goods of the Calico Printers' Association, Limited, well knowing the same to have been stolen.
Kingston pleaded guilty.
Mr. Edward Boyd prosecuted; Mr. Ernest Beard appeared for Kingston; Mr. Huntley Jenkins defended Lisenbaum.
SIDNEY WALTERS . I am London agent for the Calico Printers' Association, who carry on business at Manchester, and have an office at 89, Watling Street, E.C. Kingston was in the employ of the Association from July, 1903, till last October, when he was arrested. On October 1 I took stock. Everything was then in order. On November 1 I again took stock, when I found that there were some 108 pieces of calico short. We have at Watling Street only two kinds of calico. The price of both is 3 1/4 d. per yard. It is made up in pieces of about 40 yards, and the price of a piece would be from 10s. to 12s. On November 14 I went to Manchester and returned on the 16th, when I missed 15 pieces of stuff. On November 14 I communicated with the police, and on November 20 Kingston was arrested. I have identified the parcel of calico he was carrying aa the property of my company. In consequence of a communication made to me by the police I went to 58, Salmon's Lane, Limehouse, alter the arrest of Kingston. I saw in the scullery three whole pieces of calico and portions of seven other pieces. The wholesale price is 3d. per yard, and the lowest wholesale price of a piece it 10s. Kingston has never accounted to us for any stuff he has sold to Lisenbaum. It is absolutely ridiculous to suggest that such calico as this could be sold at 2d. per yard.
Cross-examined. I identify the calico by the make of the cloth. I have had experience of it for ten or twenty years. I have not the slightest doubt about it. Kingston was taking part in the stocktaking. He was not asked for any explanation about it. As London agent I should be responsible for the shortage of the stock. I had no reason to suspect Kingston at the time. He thought it might have been a clerical error. He was, of course, lying about it as we now know. When he sold things he should enter them on a slip, and I should report to Manchester in the ordinary way by letter.
Detective-sergeant CHARLES CHAPMAN , City Police. Communication was made to me on November 18. On November 20 I was in Watling Street with Detective-inspector Lyell and there saw prisoner Kingston carrying a parcel. I arrested him and charged him with stealing it. In consequence of a communication he made I afterwards went with Mr. Walters and Detective Shuard to 58, Salmon's Lane, where Lisenbaum has a barber's shop. Lisenbaum was not there, but his wife came in while I was there. I searched the premises and found in the scullery the ten pieces of calico produced amongst some other goods, flannelette and different articles, which were obviously for his business in the street. A bundle of receipts was handed me by Mrs. Lisenbaum. Shuard went out with Mrs. lisenbaum and shortly after 12 returned with Lisenbaum to the shop. I told him I was a police officer and cautioned him. I asked him, "Is your name Williams?" He said, "That is the name I trade under." I said, "I have a man in custody of the name of Kingston for stealing calico print from 89, Watling Street He states he has stolen 50 pieces within the past six weeks, all of which he has sold to you, and when you first dealt with him you paid him 5s. a piece, and latterly 1s. a piece." Lisenbaum said, "That is not right. About six weeks ago I bought eight pieces of print and paid him £7 10s., for which I obtained no receipt. About a week alter I went again. I had 12 pieces, for which I paid £9. On Friday last, the 15th, I went to 89. Watling Street and bought of Kingston 15 pieces, for which I paid him £10. I always asked for a receipt, but he refused to give me one and told me he was the agent." I said, "These ten pieces found in your scullery have been identified as having been stolen from 89, Watling Street. I shall take you into custody and charge you with feloniously receiving them, well knowing them to have been stolen." He said, "I did not know it was stolen." I took him to the station and he was charged.
Cross-examined. All I found was the ten pieces. He voluntarily tola me about the others. Lisenbaum has been over here about 15 years, and, as far as I can ascertain, bears an excellent character. I found no other stolen property. He has, I believe, been carrying on a legitimate business as a general dealer, and I have been told he has a stall st. which he sells different kinds of materials. He threw no obstacle in my way. He carries on his barber's business in the name of Williams. His wife told me he did not trade under his name because it was so frightfully foreign. He has told me the truth from beginning to end.
Detective JOHN SHUARD , City Police, spoke to finding Lisenbaum on. November 20 at the end of Matlock Street, Limehouse, and, going with him to 58, Salmon's Lane, where he was interrogated by the last witness.
of the calico produced at 2d. a yard. The calico was not the only thing on the stall. There were other rolls of similar goods.
Cross-examined. Prisoner is related to me, in so far as he is my cousin's husband. I do not know if my husband has had dealings with him. I like to get the best value for my money. I know where his stand was. The transaction was done in broad daylight, without any concealment. Prisoner did not say I could have it a bit cheaper on account of the relationship. I thought I was paying a fair price. I did not know the price of these things exactly.
WOOLF LISENBAUM (prisoner, on catch). There has never been any charge against me. The hairdressing business getting bad, I took to hawking in the street. I came to know Kingston by going to his place of business in the City about 10 weeks ago. I asked him if he had any samples to sell. He said he had a lot of old clothes, and if I would call in a few days he would have them in the office. I called two days afterwards. He had then a long overcoat, a couple of old suits, and a pair of boots, for which he wanted 10s., and I gave it to him and took the clothes away. Next time I met him was in Cheapside, and he said, "I have got a job line of stuff for you to sell," and asked me to go to his office, where he showed me seven or eight pieces, which I bought for £7 10s. He told me the stuff was selling in the shops at present at 8d. per yard. I sold all that lot in ths street. I took it home in broad daylight on a 'bus. I sold it at 7d. per yard. It was very good stuff, and people were coming again. I asked him for a receipt, but he said he never gave receipts, though he received hundreds of pounds. He entered the transaction in a little book, which he took from his pocket. He said something about working on commission. In about a fort-night's time I again went up to Watling Street, and Kingston showed me different patterns. He let me have 12 pieces for £9. I asked him again for a receipt, but he said he was never troubled for receipts by anyone else and refused to give me one. I sent the goods home on this occasion by Messrs. Carter Paterson. I sold it a little cheaper at 5d. a yard, as he had let me have it cheaper. On a third occasion I received from him a postcard when I was in surrey, and I went to him again and bought 15 pieces, for which he charged me £10. That I also sold at 5d. a yard. Those are all the transactions I have had with him. He has always refused to give me receipts. It is not true that I have ever bought any at 5s. a piece or 1s. a piece. It is true that I sold to Mrs. Bullwinkle eight yards ax 2d. I let her have it at the reduced price because I had sold to her husband a short length of cloth for 4s., and I said I had overcharged him, and so let her have it cheaper. The account I gave to the police is true.
Cross-examined. Between the different purchases I had plenty of opportunity of inquiring as to the value of this stuff. It is my practice
to take receipts, to which I attach considerable importance. I always ask for receipts. (Witness produced a bundle of 152 receipts.) In that bundle there is not one for a payment of over £2. I do not agree, therefore, that the purchase of this calico, amounting in all to £26 10s., was a fairly large purchase. The man would not give me a receipt, but it will make a lesson for me next time not to buy 1s. worth of stock without a receipt. The fact of his refusing a receipt did not raise any suspicion in my mind. I do not keep books.
Verdict, Not guilty.
Sentence on Kingston, Four months' hard labour. An order for restitution was made.
Mr. Ernest Beard asked that the property found on prisoner might be given up to prisoner's brother, but the Common Serjeant said he had no power to make such an order.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Friday, December 13.)
Mr. John Harris prosecuted.
SYDNEY WILLIAMS , M.R.C. S. and L.R.C.P., 175, Barking Road. On November 28 I was a passenger in a motor-bus proceeding from Barking to Aldgate. The prisoner, I think, got in the 'bus at Stepney Station. I was on the near side, three seats from the drivers end. The prisoner was two seats from the driver, on the opposite side. I was wearing the tie pin produced, which is valued at £30. At Aldgate everyone got out of the 'bus except the prisoner and myself. He ought to have got up to get out just after me, he being the last to leave the bus. The prisoner pressed past me on the off-side and as he did so put his hand up as if to ward me off, and I felt a slight touch across my tie. Thinking that he might be going to join a friend I stood on the 'bus step to see if he joined a friend, and at the same time thought his manner peculiar; but as I did not see him join a friend I quietly walked to the corner of Jewry Street, about 20 vards, and when I got to the corner of Jewry Street he was running down that street. I caught him, and asked him for my tie pin. He said, "I have not got any tie pin of yours." I took him by the collar of the coat and sleeve and led him back to Aldgate, and handed him to the constable on duty at the top of Houndsditch. He was taken to the station, and the first search, turning out his pockets was unsuccessful. The charge was read, and he said he had not had the tie pin. He was first charged with stealing the tie pin before it was recovered. A further search was made, with the result that the charge was read over to him as having stolen a tie pin recovered.
It was found in his overcoat sleeve on the silk lining, tucker in across. He pointed to the detectives and said, "You thieves, you put it there." When I was in the 'bus he did not stoop to the ground at all.
Cross-examined by prisoner. As soon a a you got out in front of me I thought you had my pin, and I certainly did watch you You walked rawer hurriedly to the corner of Jewry Street. When I gave you into the custody of the constable you said nothing at all.
Police-constable GEORGE COLLISON , 956, City Police. On November 23 to November 28 I was on duty in Aldgate. Dr. Williams came up with the prisoner and said, "This man has stolen my pin." When I asked him for the pin, he said, "I have not got the pin." I was present when the prisoner was searched and the pin found. He said, "What are you doing, you thieves, you put it there."
Cross-examined by prisoner. When I asked you whether you had got She pin, you said, "I have not got the pin."
Detective-sergeant JESSE CROUCH , City Police. On November 28 the prisoner was brought into the Minories Police Station. He had been searched when I got there. I researched him. In the sleeve of his overcoat, about four inches up, I found the pin in question, which the prosecutor recognised as the one stolen from him. The prisoner said, "You thieves, you put it there."
Cross-examined by prisoner. The prosecutor was in the charge-room at the time that the pin was found.
PRISONEER (not on oath). I was a passenger in the same motor-'bus as the prosecutor. I did not know he was in the same 'bus, but when I was arrested then I got to know that he was there. At Aldgate, just as the 'bus was stopping, I stood up. I turned my head round And I saw something lying on the floor. I picked it up and walked outside of the 'bus. While I was looking at it the prosecutor came up to me and said, "I want my pin." When he said that to me I thought to myself that be might possibly have seen me picking the pin up and walking out of the 'bus with it, and he wanted to get the pin out of my hands.
Detective-sergeant CROUCH stated that he had traced the prisoner's antecedents, and that at the time he committed this offence he was then on bail, apprehended from Bow Street, as being a person attempting to pick pockets. He was a clever thief, working conveyances where the public travel, tube railways, etc.
Sentence, Eighteen months' hard labour, afterwards to be expelled from the country.
Mr. Whitely prosecuted; Dr. E. Lunge defended.
BERTHA SOKOSKY , 82, Lambeth Street. On the evening of October 30 I was in Commercial Road at eight o'clock. I saw prisoner there. He suggested that I should go with him. I had known him for a fortnight. The first time I saw him and he invited me to go I did go with him. He suggested that I should go into the public-house and have a drink with him. I said I did not want to. Then he invited me to go with him for a short time. I said I did not want to go. After that he said, "You will remember me," and used a very filthy expression in Russian language. Half an hour later I went away to see a woman, who walked on with me. The prisoner walked on and asked me whether I knew this woman. I said I did know her. Then she went away to the corner and he came in front of me and used a very filthy expression in the Russian language. When he used that expression he struck me with a knife. I had not seen the knife, but he struck me in the neck. There is a scar there now. After doing that the prisoner decamped. The woman that was near us came along and caught hold of him. I do not know her name; I believe she is a German woman. I was taken to the police station by the policeman and then to the hospital, where the wound was stitched up. When I next saw the prisoner it was on a Saturday evening. He came to me in Commercial Road, and said, "You prostitute, you are still alive." This was on a Saturday evening about three weeks afterwards. Rosa Silverstein was with me at the time. After the prisoner made use of that expression I went with this woman to the police station.
Cross-examined. When I was in the police court on the first occasion I said I did not know Miss Silverstein. She was with me—in fact, she went with me to the police station and interpreted for me. I know it was eight o'clock that the prisoner came to me in the Commercial Road, because I saw the clock at Gardiner's corner. It was about eight or past eight. From the Commercial Road I was going to Pennington Street, St. Georges-in-the-East, to go home. The first time I saw the prisoner was in the evening, I cannot say what time. He said to me, "My name is Morris." I first heard that his name was Grodinsky when he was at the police court. On the day the prisoner was arrested I was with Miss Silverstein and another woman who did not want to come forward and give evidence. After the prisoner threatened me again I ran to the police station with Rosa Silverstein. I am married. My husband gave the prisoner into custody. When the prisoner threatened me the second time I was speaking in Russian to him, but I spoke to Rosa Silverstein in Polish.
Re-examined. I am quite certain that the prisoner is the man who sobbed me.
DR. JAMES ERIC ADLER . M.R.C.S., M.R.C.P I was receiving officer on October 30 at the London Hospital, when prosecutrix was brought in. She was suffering from a small puncture wound on the right side of the neck, about half an inch or a little over in length, with a depth of three-quarters of an inch, or perhaps a little more. I
cleaned and explored it, and I found that the knife had gone in between the muscles. A pointed knife must have been used. In my opinion it was caused by the knife produced. There is & stain of blood on both sides. I put two stitches in her neck and sent her to the out-patient's department. When she was brought into the hospital I thought it was an ordinary penknife wound, but I heard all about it from the policeman who came.
Cross-examined. I wanted To see how it was caused. I asked her if she could a peak English, but she could not, so I tried her in German, and she could not speak that. I merely stitched the wound up and sent her to the out-patients' department. It was quite possible for her to walk from the spot where she was struck to the police station, and from there to the hospital. It is not consistent with what I aw to suggest that the prosecutrix had fallen on to the knife.
Re-examined. In order that the knife should stick in the neck some force must have been used.
ANNA RISER , 98, Whitfield Street, Tottenham Court Road, wife of John Riser. On the evening of October 30 I came just round the corner from Pennington Street to Virginia Street, at eight o'clock. I heard the church clock striking. The prosecutrix was at the corner. She was alone; I saw the prisoner speak to her. I could not hear what he said. I had not seen him before. After he spoke to the prosecutrix I looked after him, because he looked vary funny after me. I was just half-way up the street and I heard the prosecutrix scream and I ran back. The prisoner came round the corner. I caught hold of him and asked him what was the matter with the girl. He said nothing, but he was very excited. I said, "It was better for him to come back to the girl and I would call for a policeman." He then put his hand in my face and ran away—he pushed me back. I called for the police, and when I came back to the girl I saw two policemen there and plenty of other people. One policemen struck matches and the other took the knife out. The knife produced is the one. I saw that taken out of her neck. I had never seen either the prosecutrix or the prisoner before. I next saw the prisoner on the night that the police caught him. I picked him out at the station from a lot of other men.
Gross-examined. I did not see the prosecutrix stabbed. I had left them about two minutes when I heard the screaming. It was very dark indeed. When I left them there was nobody else about in the street. The streets there are very close to the docks. I was looking for some people because I lived there two years ago, at 29, Pennington Street. I could not say how long it took the policeman to take the knife out, because I was very excited to see the girl. The policeman took the knife out very quickly. I did not stop because there were about 20 grown-up people and children there. I first heard the prisoner's name when I got a paper from the police. On the night the prisoner was arrested I was looking for my husband—he is sometimes in Great Prescott Street, and some friends of the
prosecutrix told me that the prisoner was arrested. None of those girls were inside the police station. I know the occupation of the prosecutrix. These girls were of a similar class.
Re-examined. After I heard the screaming the usual kind of crowd collected. On that evening I gave a description of the prisoner to the police. On November 23 I went to the police station and identified him.
Police-constable WALTER BUNTING , 341, H Division. I was in St. George's Street on the evening of October 30 and I heard screaming about eight o'clock. When I got to the corner of Pennington Street I found the prosecutrix lying on the pavement with a knife sticking in the right side of her neck. She was lying on her left side. I pulled it out at once and took her handkerchief and made a pad of it and placed it over the wound. I asked somebody in the crowd to help me to assist the prosecutrix to her feet. I asked her whether she could walk, and she said, "Yes," and I then accompanied her to the station, where her wound was dressed by the assistant divisional surgeon. I afterwards took her to the hospital. I handed the knife to the inspector. When I heard a scream I went in Pennington Street, but I never saw anyone except a lot of children. There was not any crowd there before I arrived. It is about 400 yards from where the prosecutrix was stabbed to the police station. I never recognised Mrs. Riser until I saw her in the station. When I asked one of the crowd to help me with the woman, if another police officer had been there I should have asked him. There wise another officer there shortly afterwards, but not at the time the prosecutrix was assisted to her feet. There was no other officer there at the time I pulled the knife out. I asked someone to strike a match, but I do not know who struck it, as I was looking at the woman. I had not a lamp, nor had the other officer. The other officer ran back up into St. Georges Street again; he did not stop with me. I got to the woman after I heard the scream. The prosecutrix took hold of my arm and walked to the station. She went from the station to the hospital in a cab. The knife was sticking firmly in her neck. It was sticking out straight. She lave there, it might have been, a minute and a half before I got her on to her feet When I took the knife out of her neck somebody held the match. I thought the knife had gone right through the neck.
RACHEL SILVERSTEIN , 3, Backchurch Buildings, Backchurch Lane, furrier. On November 23, at 8.30 p.m., I was with Bertha Sokosky in the Commercial Road when prisoner came up, used very bad language, and said, "So you are alive?"—she would not be alive the second time he saw her. He spoke in Russian, which I understood. I took Bertha across to the police station, and as we came back prisoner was coming along with a detective under arrest.
Cross-examined. I have been working as a furrier at 20, Samuel Street. I knew it was half-past eight because I saw the clock at Gardiner's
I am celled "Rose." I knew Sokosky by sight. She had spoken to me the night before the stabbing. I have walked with her an hour at a time up and down the Commercial Road. I had not seen the prisoner before.
P.C. STEPHEN DAFT , 234 H. On November 23 prisoner was given into my custody in Whitechapel Road by a man who held him by the collar, and who said he was Sokosky's husband, and said, "This man has stabbed my wife in the neck with a knife. She is now at Leman Street Police Station." Prisoner said, "I cannot speak English." I took him to the station, and the charge was interpreted to him. He was placed among nine other men and identified by Mrs. Biter.
P.C. PERCY EDWARDS , 396 H. I interpreted the charge to the prisoner in Yiddish. He said, "I do not know anything about it. I was walking in Cannon Street Road when some pounces came up to me wish a knife."
Prisoner's statement: "I plead not guilty."
Mr. Lunge proposed to call evidence to prove that Silverstein never was employed at 20, Samuel Street. Objected to, and disallowed.
MORRIS GRODINSKY (prisoner, on oath). I am 19 years of age, come from Mischief, in Russia, and have been here 15 months. I am a wood-worker. It took me three days to find work. I have bean in constant employment since, and have been in my present place nearly a year. On the night of the stabbing I was in the Commercial Road when the prosecutrix came along to me and said, "Come along with me in a room." I went with her and she led me along some dark turnings. I asked her, "Where do you go with me?" She said, "Very well, come along with me." As I went along I was met by several men who at once started searching my pockets, the prosecutrix looking on. I said, "What are you searching me for?" One of the men took out a knife and said, "Give us some money or else we will stab you." I took the knife from him, ran and threw the knife away. As I ran a woman got hold of me. I pushed her away and ran on, asked my way to James Street, where a friend of mine called Shapsalapata lives. When I arrived there he said, "Don't be a fool, don't be frightened," and advised me to go home, which I did. On November 23 I went into the Whitechapel Road and was arrested. I had never seen prosecutrix before. I do not know the man who stopped me when arrested, but I have reason to believe he is one of the lot that attacked me. The knife produced is not mine. I never had one.
Cross-examined. I do not knew if that is the knife I threw away. I took it from the hands of the man who was searching my pockets and threw it away. I cannot say how far James Street is from where I was attacked; I was running and walking fast for half an hour. I have known Shapsalapata since I have been in London and have visited him once before. I do not know Mrs. Riser. (Riser stood up.) She is the women that tried to get hold of me. I have never seen her before. I did not go to complain to the police as I cannot speak English and I did not think of it. I live in Northampton Street,
Cambridge Road, a long way from where I work. I had been in Aldgate on October 30 to buy a rule for my work. Saturday, November 23, was my rest day and I went for a walk in Whitechapel Road. I do not know Rachel Silverstein and have never spoken to her or the prosecutrix. I suppose prosecutrix has got her to give evidence against me. I have never had a quarrel with either. I cannot say who stabbed the woman.
Re-examined. I was not afraid to go to Whitechapel Road as it is well lit up and there are hundreds of people there.
LOUIS SAMOVITCH , wood turner. Prisoner has worked for me regularly for the past 10 months from 8 a.m. to 10 p.m. He is Industrious and sober. I have never seen him with a knife, and I would not keep him a day if he had a knife in his pocket like this. He is a very nice fellow; very respectable. I am willing to take him back at any time. I never went to a room with prosecutrix. (The Foreman of the Jury staled that the Jury were of opinion there was not sufficient evidence to convict. Others of the Jury stated that they were not unanimous.)
BERTHA SOKOSHY . recalled. Prisoner has frequently met me. The first time he asked me to have a drink. He afterwards went with me to a room. He frequently asked me if I would go with him to Buenos Ayres—five or six times. I have seen him nearly every evening. He always spoke to me after the first time when I had been home with him.
SHAPSAIAPATA . I live in Birnie's Buildings, Broad Street, St. James Street, and am a presser in the ladies' tailoring trade. Prisoner has visited me twice—the last time five weeks ago, on a Wednesday, about nine p.m. His clothes were in disorder, he was excited, and had a red face. He made a statement to me, and I told him to go home.
Police-constable HENRY RICHARDSON . Prisoner has been in this country 12 to 15 months, and has been employed at 66, Chambers Street as a cabinet maker and for the past nine months at 277, Cambridge Road. He bears a good character as far as his work is concerned. I know nothing against him.
Verdict, Guilty; recommended to mercy. Released on own recognisances in £5 to come up for judgment if called upon.
BEFORE THE COMMAN SERJENT
(Saturday, December 14.)
HARRIS, John (29, labourer), and BARNARD, Herbert (25, painter) ; both conspiring and agreeing together to defraud divers liege subjects of His Majesty of their moneys; both obtaining by false pretences from Thomas Pritchard the sum of £2 and £4 5s., and from Frederick James Harland the sum of 30s. and 10a., in each case with intent to defraud; Harris stealing a bicycle, the goods of Benjamin Last, and feloniously receiving tame; Barnard stealing a carriage clock, three five-pound pieces, and other articles, the goods and moneys of Alfred Holder, and one chain and other articles the goods of Thomas Aney, and feloniously receiving same.
Mr. L. A. Lucas prosecuted.
(THE CHARGE OF CONSPIRACY.)
THOMAS PRITCHARD , bricklayer. I have been working in the same place as Harris up to the time he was arrested, about a couple of days since. I recollect being in Eleanor Road, Hackney, on November 6. Harris asked me if I wanted "a thing like this," at the same time showing me a chain, which he said I could have for 50s. I said I did not think it was heavy enough, and with that he took it across the road and gave it to Barnard, who came to me and said, "Go on, it is plenty heavy enough; you shall have it for £2." With that I bought it, believing it was a gold chain. It is marked 18 c., which I thought meant 18 carat gold. On November 9 I saw Barnard and Harris at the same place, Barnard showed me a watch and said I could have it for £5. I told him I could do with it. He said it was "good" and was stamped inside and out. I paid him £4 5s. for the watch. Afterwards I went into the "Prince Alfred" Harris asked me if I had got the watch. When Barnard was showing me the watch Harris was in the cabin where we go to have our meals. A fortnight afterwards Sergeant Pride came to see me and I gave him information about the watch and chain.
FREDERICK JAMES HARLAND , bricklayer. I live with Pritchard, and had been working with Harris for about three months before his arrest. Before November I did not know Barnard at all. On November 9 I saw him and Harris in Eleanor Road, after I had knocked off work. Harris asked me if I would buy a chain. He said it was good, and I saw it was stamped 18 c. I did not give him any answer, and he went back to Barnard, who came to me afterwards and asked me if I would buy the chain. I had another look at it, and he told me I could have it for £2 10s. After a little consideration I said I would give him £2. I gave him 30s. on account end 10s. the next day. Barnard did not say where he got it from end I did not ask him. About a week afterwards I saw Barnard' with another man named Blake. Blake showed ms a watch. I said I did not want it at present, so he went away and fetched Barnard. We had some conversation about the watch. He said he wanted £2 for it. I said I would not give £2 for it, and I agreed to give him 30s. I understood that I bought the watch from Barnard, but the other man brought it to me.
18 c., in the possession of Thomas Pritchard. On the morning of the 25th I saw Barnard in bed at 100, Wynford Road, Islington. I asked him what his name was. He replied, "Bennett" Detective Taylor came into the room and Barnard said, "There is a man who knows me," and Taylor said, Yes, your name is Barnard" I read the warrant to him. He made no reply. I had not known him before. Taylor proceeded to search the room and found a metal bracelet on the table. Prisoner said, "That is not marked. It is a 'dud,' and belongs to my old woman." It is of base metal. Hanging up over the mantelpiece I found the base metal watch produced, two base rings and another chain. One of the rings is stamped inside "18 c. gold." Barnard produced a receipt of the things from the Crown Emporium, Ludgate Hill and Cheapside. On the way to the station in a cab Barnard said, "They are marked 18 c, are not they? Do not forget that means 18 case. I know who has put me away. I will do him a good turn yet." The same morning, about 9.30, I saw prisoner Harris in the custody of Detective Taylor. I read the warrant to him. He made no reply. On the way to the station he said, "It is about a chain, is it?" I amid, "I have not mentioned anything about a chain." At the station when they were charged together, Barnard said, "You have got the wrong man." At the police court, during the cross-examination of Pritchard, I heard Barnard say, "I had to give a man the money to stamp it." Both Pritchard and Harland produced a watch and chain, which were attached to the depositions.
Detective HERBERT TAYLOR , J Division, spoke as to the arrest of Barnard and the finding of the base metal trinket and watch. Afterwards he arrested Harris at Eleanor Road. When Pride read the warrant Harris said, "Is it about a chain?" and Pride replied, "I have not said anything about a chain.
JOHN HARRIS (prisoner, on oath). The only thing that connects me with this conspiracy is this: On November 5, prisoner Barnard and another man, not in custody, whom I know as Blake, came to me and asked me if I would show my workmates the chain which Barnard produced. I said I did not mind showing it to them. I took it to Pritchard and Harland, who were both there together, and said the men wanted 50s. for it. They would not make any answer as to whether they would have it or not. I handed the chain back to Barnard and he afterwards approached the prosecutors with it. The watch I had nothing whatever to do with. Barnard had the watch in his possession and Blake was with him. Blake said to me, "What do you think of this? It is all right. Will you take it and show it?" I said, "No, I might drop it and you would look to me for expenses; you had better see him yourself." With that Barnard and Blake
waited for the two bricklayers to come up. I did ask Pritchard when he came in to the "Cat and Mutton" if he had bought it. I said,. "It looks a fine thing."
To the Jury. I did not receive any commission on the sale of the chain, nor was I promised any. I suppose they came to me because some time before they had offered me a silver watch and chain and asked me to show it to my mates. That was the introduction.
Cross-examined. I suppose I have known Barnard about four months. I only knew Blake by sight through him being with Barnard. It did not occur to me that I might be concerned in rather a dirty job. We were working in a pit in Eleanor Road where the County Council are laying a five foot sewer. I should not have seen my mates waste their hard-earned money if I had known it. They were earning good money in these sewers, £5 or £6 a week, and if they like to speculate they can do what they like with it. I did not inquire of Barnard where he got these watches from. I can see now it was rather a simple thing to do and I should not do. anything like it again.
HERBERT BARNALD (prisoner, on oath). About the 4th of last month I was in the "Swan," Islington, when a man named Blake came in who had known me well in Hoxton. I asked him where he had been to and he said he had just come out of doing three years' for burglary. I was wearing a chain at the time, and he said to me, "Why do not you have it done? I said, "What do you mean by done?" He said, "I will take it down and get it stamped." He took it deliberately away and asked me for 1s. 6d., which I save him. Three or four days afterwards I went with him into a public house and asked a man if he wanted to buy a chain. That was my first introduction to this game. We walked round until we came to this pit opposite the "Cat and Mutton." We each had half of the money.
Cross-examined. The chain Blake took to be stamped was my own chain. I paid 6s. or 7s. for it when I was in good work. I kept a greengrocer's stall. I knew the two watches were only cased in gold. You can get £5 or £6 for base metal watches sometimes on a racecourse. I know this was a dishonest transaction. If the prosecutors had asked, "Are they gold?" I do not suppose we should have said "Yes." We should have said, "No." If they bad asked what 18 c. meant, I should have said, "18 case," which, I suppose, means cased. in gold, rolled in gold.
Verdict, Harris, Not guilty, the jury expressing the opinion that he had been the tool and dupe of Barnard; Barnard, Guilty. Several previous convictions against him were proved.
Sentence, 14 months' imprisonment with hard labour.
(THE CASE AGAINST HARRIS OF STEALING A BICYCLE)
BENJAMIN LAST , 25, Richmond Road, Dalston, coachman. On November 1, I left my bicycle outside a shop in High Street, Kingsland. I remained inside the shop three minutes or four minutes. When I came out I found it was gone. I value it at £2 10s. I
know it by a braze underneath the handle bar. It has been roughly brazed in the joint. It was like it is now when I left it. There were no mudguards on it. There has been no alteration in it since I saw it.
To Prisoner. There was a lamp on when I left it.
Prisoner. There was no lamp on when I bought it.
Witness. I could not swear to the lamp. It is a very similar lamp to mine. I can swear to the bicycle out of a thousand.
SERGEANT PRIDE . On November 25 I went to where prisoner lives at 3, Ranelagh Road, West Ham. He was then in custody on the last charge. On going into the first floor back room I found the bicycle produced. On going into the ground floor front room I found two other bicycles. I conveyed them all to the Hackney Police Station, where I showed them to the prisoner and asked him to account for the possession of them. He said, "I gave £1 for that (prosecutor's) about a month ago down at the 'Cat and Mutton,' 35s. for another about three months ago, and the other is my own."
JOHN HARRIS (prisoner, on oath) said, with regard to the bicycle claimed by prosecutor, he gave £1 for it outside the "Cat and Mutton" on November 1. He also gave an account of his possession of the other bicycles and produced a receipt for one for £7 10s.
Cross-examined. My wages are £3 a week, and sometimes we get £4 or £4 10s. I mean to tell the Jury that I have spent some part of my wages on bicycles. I am a married man and have three children, and vary likely four by the time I get home. I was going to let my young brother have one of the bicycles.
Verdict, Not guilty.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE DARLING.
(Wednesday, December 18.)
DEHRING, Eliza (50, cook), pleaded guilty of conspiring with Elsa Hergt to use a certain instrument to procure the miscarriage of the said Elsa Hergt; also conspiring with other persons unknown to the police.
Sentence was postponed till next Session, with a view of prisoner giving aid in the detection of the other persons involved.
Mr. Travers Humphreys prosecuted. Mr. Curtis Bennett and Mr. Eustace Fulton defended. Mr. Arnold Inman watched the case on behalf of the New Speedwell Motor Company.
Hill I was standing next the conductor at the rear. It was a very foggy night, hat not so thick a it had been earlier in the evening. It was impossible for the car to go more than five to six miles an hour, at which rate we were, in fact, going. You could see a light about 28 to 30 yards on—electric or gas. About the time mentioned I saw a motor-car emerge from the fog about 10 yards behind me. I was facing the inside of my car. The motor passed on the near aide. It is difficult to give the exact speed at which it was going, but I have a good idea of speeds, and should say it wee going about 17 to 20 miles an hour. It was swaying to-and-fro, and I looked round the side, keeping it in sight until the crash came. I did not see any market van. There was another oar in front of us, and I shouted: "My God, he is into that other car," thinking it had struck the other ear, which was about 18 to 20 yards in front of us. I could see its light; it was soing about the tame pane as we. If there had been no fog we would have gone about eight miles an hour, as there is a down grade just there. After I heard the crash our oar stopped, and I rushed to the scene, where I found the motor-car had run into a market van. All the front of the motor was smashed and the body deranged; the offside front wheel was completely smashed. I found a man (Mr. Dear, whom I knew by sight) lying on the pavement with his feat in the roadway; apparently dead. Prisoner was then just crawling out of the motor-car. I could not any who had been driving the oar, hot I knew there had bean three men in it The third man, Mr. Barnes, was also on the pavement, and injured very badly. Prisoner did not appear to me to be injured. Deceased was carried over to the side of a shop, and the doctor arrived in a few minutes. I blew a police whistle, and a constable came up.
Cross-examined. Only a few seconds elapsed from the time I saw the motor-car till he crash came. It was more foggy farther bank to wards Kew than where the accident happened. I should imagine it would be about 40 yards from where I first saw the motor to where the accident was. At the back of Gunnersbury Bridge is the place where if a fog comes on at all it generally starts in that district If there had been no fog I should have seen the market van, but my attention was not drawn to it. I do not think: our tramcars carry very strong electric lights, they have a large number of them. To come out of a fog in face of a strong light helps a person to see better; some lights may produce a glare in the eyes, but not our lights. I did not hear any shout at the time of the accident. The motor-car had two seats in front and had a square carrying thing behind, not like an ordinary ear, as if it was intended to carry something. Where the motor man sat was intact, but the square part behind was knocked back about five inches. (Witness indicated the arrangement of the car.) The market van had the tailboard down, which would be lower than the front of the motor-car. The near-side wheel of the motor was intact, but the offside one was smashed.
Re-examined. The tailboard of the van was down on a line with the bottom of the cart, which would leave a space for the front of the
motor-car to go under. The tailboard would be about level with a person seated on the car.
ALBERT SPRINGTHORP , tram driver to the London United Tramways Company. On November 11, about 11.30, I was driving the second of two cars going in the direction of London. The first ear was about two cars' lengths ahead, about 22 yards. The weather was foggy, but not so bad as it had been earlier; you could see a light about 20 yards ahead. I saw a motor-car pass me on my near side; there were three people in it, and it was going at a speed of anything from 10 to 20 miles an hour. I was going from four to six miles an hour, and it flew past me very smart. I then saw it hit a wagon, which was alongside the first tramcar; the lights of the tramcar showed up the wagon. I stopped my tram at once and got out. We picked Mr. Dear (deceased) up and laid him on the pavement, and put another one who was hurt into my car, which had no passengers at the time. Prisoner was driving the motor-car. As near as I can say. Mr. Dear sat next to the driver. I did not know Mr. Dear nor Mr. Barnes.
Cross-examined. I suppose it is difficult to judge the pace of a car in a fog. The reason I judge the motor was going quickly was that he passed me quickly, when I was going from four to six miles. The wagon was not unlighted, because the tram's lights showed it up. You would have to be closer than 20 yards to see an unlighted object on a night like that. I was about 22 yards from the market van when I taw it. The tramcar in front was slowing down; it had not stopped. I have been a tramcar driver for three years. If a motor-car is coming towards you with a strong light it might dazzle you for the time being, but not with ordinary lights; our car lights are not strong enough to dazzle your eyes. The tailboard of the van hit Mr. Dear in the chest.
Re-examined. When I say the lights of the tramcar were shining on the van I mean the lights inside the car. As the motor passed me I told the driver to mind the wagon in front. Before I got "wagon" out of my mouth he ran right into the back of it. As he passed I thought where the deuce he was going to; he could have gone between the two of us, but he did not want to. I thought it was necessary to warn him; I could not say whether he heard.
HARRY CHAPMAN , conductor, employed by the London United Tramways Co. On the night in question I was in the rear of the first of the two cars mentioned, when I saw a motor-car passing the second tramcar—about 22 yards off, on the near side. I thought it was travelling very much too fact considering the weather, which was foggy, and the state of the road, which was greasy; I cannot say how many miles an hour. There had been no rain, but a heavy fog for several hours. I saw the accident indistinctly; as I looked round the thing happened. Our car was stopped at once, and I got out. The motor-car was broken, and lay by the side of my platform.
It had lights in front of it; two I believe; I do not think they were these specially bright ones.
Cross-examined. I could see the second ear plainly—a distance of shoot 20 to 25 yards.
THOMAS THATCHER , carman to Mr. Chitty, market gardener, Laleham. On November 11 I was driving a wagon to London, and shout 11.30 was in the High Road, Chiswick. I had two horses, and the van was loaded with potatoes and brussels. The tailboard was down level with the floor of the van. I was going close on four miles an hour, when I heard a crash and found something had run into me; the horses were driven on to the pavement. I had a light on the offside, out none on the back. I got down to pat my horses right. When I got to a milestone I found the axle bed had been splintered; it was a wooden axle. The arm of the off wheel was also bent; but I was able to get on to Covent Garden.
Cross-examined. The axle bed was cracked. I had close on 2 1/2 tons of stuff on the wagon. The wheel did not run free after it was bent. The reason the horses went on the pavement was that there was something in front of them. I was sitting on the fore ladder in the van. You can very easily fall off that, which I very nearly did when the collision came.
FREDERICK CHAPLES DODSWORTH , medical man, said he was called to Chiswick High Road on November 11 about 11.30 p.m. and found Mr. Dear on the pavement quite dead. He crane to the conclusion that the cause was concussion of the brain. Deceased's right arm was fractured, and there was an indentation on in the right temple.
P.C WILLIAM HUTTON , 615 T, deposed to finding deceased on the pavement in Chiswick High Road on November 11 about 11.30, after being called there. The doctor was attending to deceased. Witness told prisoner he would be taken to the station and subsequently charged, and the latter said, "All right, I am very sorry." At the police-station prisoner made a voluntary statement: "I was driving a motor-car in the direction of Chiswick at about the rate of 10 miles per hour. I kept down the near side of the road, and in trying to pass a tramcar proceeding in the same direction I became dazed through the glare of the lights of the trams, and I could not see the thing in front of me which I collided with, but I am very sorry for what has happened."
Cross-examined. I have inquired about prisoners license, which he has held for four years, and he has never been convicted of any offence under it.
P.C EDWARD DAY , 453 T, deposed to seeing prisoner at the scene of the accident on the night in question, when the latter said, "A tram-car was proceeding in the same direction, when I attempted to pass him on the near aide, and ran into the back of a vatu proceeding in the same direction. I did not notice the van till I was into it, as it had no light at the back." Witness said he then handed prisoner over to the other constable.
GEORGE CARPENTER (prisoner, on oath). I am caretaker and driver to the New Speedwell Motor Company, Limited; am married and have four children. I have my license still, and have never had any charge against me. On November 11 I was on duty at Olympia at the stand of my employers, leaving at 9.30. I then took a lad that I am in charge to home to Gloucester Road, and afterwards one of my mechanics to Bedford Park. I then brought the oar into High Road, Chiswick, and stopped at "The Emperor beer-house, where I met Mr. Dear and Mr. Barnes. We stayed in the house a few minutes, and Mr. Dear asked me to take him over to Brentford to a public-house there. I think he had some business there about a club. The motor-car had two seats in front, and the back part was for carrying articles. It was 10 to 12 horse power. I did not care about taking Mr. Dear, as it was not my duty to take the car any further; I ought to have taken it to the works at the back of "The Emperor." Eventually I decided to take them, and we arrived at Brentford safely. On the way there Mr. Dear was sitting by my side and Mr. Barnes at the back. It was a little after 10, I should think, when we left "The Emperor" and was foggy. I did not know the name of the public-house at Brentford at the time, but have heard it was "The Red Lion." We stayed there a few minutes, and then came back, but by a different way. We sat in the same way as before. Instead of going by the main road, through Kew, Mr. Dear being a lamplighter and knowing the neighbourhood well—said, "Do not go back that way; I know a better way than that; I will go the back way home; I know every inch of the way." It was still foggy. We went on by Mr. Dear's direction, and when we got to Lionel Road, Chiswick, it was very thick indeed, so I stopped the car; I could not see. I said I would not go another inch until I got down and had a look round to see which was the best way to go; I was rather afraid of going into the ditch. When Mr. Dear saw I was so determined not to go he took the lamp and walked with it and swung it in front of me. He said, "You follow the lamp; you will be all right." I got up and carefully followed him; very slowly, of course. We then got to the High Road, Kew; I do not know exactly where, but not very far. It was then clearer, and Mr. Dear put the lamp back. Mr. Barnes was taken sitting next me, and I told Mr. Dear to get into the back, but he sat down by Barnes's feet. The car has three speeds, and I now put on the second one, having been on the first speed previously. The maximum on the second speed is 14 to 15 miles an hour. When I overtook the first tram car I was going seven or eight miles an hour, and was still driving carefully. I did not hear anybody shout. I then reached a second tramcar, but saw no wagon. The first tramcar had a light at the back, and I could see nothing beyond that light. I did not see any wagon till we went into it and
smashed it up. I have two brakes on the motor. The top of the radiator was knocked back—that is, right at the front of the car. The offside wheel was broken, but the engine was all right.
Cross-examined. I was finished at Olympia about 9.30, except for bringing the ear back. I am caretaker at the works, and live there with my wife. I want to "The Emperor" for a glass of ale—mild and bitter. It was about as foggy at 10 as at 11.30. I had no right to take anybody on the car to Brentford. I was easily to go. We were all sober. We had a drink at Brentford. I don't know what Chef other two did at "The Red Lion," as I was at the door looking after the oar. Mr. Dear got in conversation with the landlord; I don't know what he said. We only had one drink. When we got into the High Road I daresay we could see a light at between 10, 15, and 20 yards' distance—the light of a tram at about 20 yards, I should say. I hare not driven on Chiswick High Road a lot; my work lay more City wards, but I drove every day on that road, sometimes at night. It is a common thing to find a market van on Chiswick High Road, going towards London, about 11.30 p.m. They do not have any lights at the back. On this night it was difficult to see such a van. You would have to be on top of it before you saw it. At the pace I was going I felt confident I was doing right. I do not remember thinking about finding one of these vans on this night. I am not sure what I said to the policeman in my statement; I was rather upset, and severely bruised and shaken. I do not remember the policeman writing the statement down. I do not think I was going 10 miles an hour. Probably the policeman is right in saying I said so. Ten miles an hour would not be a safe pace to go on that night. The maximum on the first speed is five or six miles. The reason I changed to the second speed in the main road was because the car runs much simpler on the second speed; of course you can go three miles an hour on the second speed. The car weighs about 15 cwt. A light blow might break the spokes of a wheel, as in this case; the spokes are missed of wood. It must have been a pretty hard thud when we went into the market van.
Re-examined. Fifteen hundredweight is vary light for a motorcar. The fog varied in thickness in the High Road, Chiswick.
HARRY BARNES , 33, Holly Road, Chiswick, corroborated prisoner's account of Mr. Dear's request in "The Emperor," and the journey to Brentford and back on the night of November 11. I should say we were going about seven or eight miles an hour when we came on the two tramcars; it was not more than an ordinary wagonette would go. If I had thought there was any danger I would have got out. I did not see the market van, nor hear anyone shoot. The light of the tram-car makes a gloom come over your eyes as you come by the windows; it dawdles your eyes.
Cross-examined. From the time of leaving "The Red Lion" till Mr. Dear pot out with the lamp we would be going at about seven or eight miles an hour, not more. I do not know much about motorcars.
I did not see prisoner touch the levers in (he car when we were coming back. I have had my share of the injuries, but I was not unconscious after the accident. I had not been for a ride with prisoner before. Anybody would have gone into the van the same way as we did; they could not have gone much slower. We were looking out at the time of the accident.
EDWARD LARKIN , market gardener, Notting Hill. On November 11 I was passing Gunnersbury Station about 11.30 p.m., when I saw the motor-car which met with the collision about five yards further on; it was going about eight miles an hour. It was foggy; you could see just, across the road. Prisoner is a stranger to me.
cross-examined. I volunteered to give, evidence at Acton Police court. I saw about the case in the newspaper. It is true that I said I was no judge of speed.
ALEXANDER BARTY , works manager, New Speedwell Motor Company, spoke in favour of prisoner's carefulness as a driver, and described the injuries received by the motor car: near side mudguard bent, radiator smashed, dash board smashed completely, offside wheel entirely smashed, the near one partly broken, and axle bent.
Verdict, Guilty, with strong recommendation to mercy on account of his previous character.
His Lordship said that prisoner was rightly convicted, and that he hoped that it would be a warning to other drivers to exercise cars, but that in the particular circumstances of this case he thought no further punishment need be given than eight days' imprisonment, entitling him to immediate discharge.
BEFORE THE RECORDER
(Wednesday, December 11.)
BARTLETT, Fred (28, stoker), and SCHOFIELD, Joseph (34, labourer); both breaking and entering a certain building within the curtilage of the dwelling-house of Harry Kipping, with intent to steal therein.
Mr. Warburton prosecuted; Mr. Joyce Thomas defended Bartlett.
HARRY KIPPING , 716, High Road, Leytonstone, greengrocer. On November 25, 1907, at 11.30, I fastened my stable and left everything secure. About 12.30 I was called by the police and found the stable door had been opened. There were three horses and harness. Nothing had been taken.
Cross-examined by Mr. Joyce Thomas. There are two doors to the stable, one into the mews and one into my garden. The first is always bolted, and was bolted and locked at 11.30; the other door it pushed to and something pushed against it. The roof of the stable
is nearly flat, and has a lot of old boxes and baskets on it. When I got to the mews Bartlett and the policeman and my brother were struggling.
Detective WILLIAM HYDE , J Division, stationed at Leyton. Plan produced is made by me and roughly represents the neighbourhood. On November 26, at 12.30 a.m., I saw the prisoners at the rear of 718, High Road, in the mews. Bartlett got over the wooden fence about 5 ft. 8 in. high, separating 718 and 716, High Road. As he got over some boxes fell down, and said. "Do not make a noise like that." I got the assistance of Police-constables Caldwell and Farnden. Caldwell caught hold of and said, "What are you doing up here?" He said he had come there to relieve himself. The stable door, which is looked, of No. 716, then opened, and Bartlett put his head out. I rushed to pull the door open, but Bartlett drew in, abut the door, and bolted it on the inside. Farnden showed his lantern through the top of the door where there is an aperture, looked over, and said, "There is a man in here"—we could see Bartlett running. I then got over the fence, over some boxes, and on to the roof of the stable of 716. I then saw Bartlett climbing on to the roof of 710 stable. There are some steps leading up to it. I shouted to Caldwell, and Bartlett then jumped about 12 ft. from the root of 712 stable into a van standing in the mews, where he was taken by Caldwell, who was with Harry Kipping. got away. I got off the roof, ran after him for 300 yards, knocked him down with a stick, and with assistance took him with Bartlett to the station. (To the Recorder.) Bartlett had got through the unbolted door into the stable, and had unfastened the other door. (To Mr. Warburton.) said, "It is all right, sir. We hive been having a sing-song, and I just came up there to make water." They were charged with breaking into the stable of 716, and in reply both said they knew nothing about it. Bartlett lives at No. 2, Grove Road, and a hour and a half before this, at about 11 p.m., we had seen him outside his house. He had a pony and barrow standing there, I said, "Whose lot is this?" He said, "The pony belongs to me and the barrow and harness belongs to Mr. Poole, of Stepney." He then backed the barrow into the mews and took the pony into the scullery of his house.
Cross-examined by Mr. Joyce Thomas. The mews is 9 or 10 ft. wide. Standing in Grove Road, looking up the mews, the first house on the right is occupied by Bartlett. His garden wall is about 6 ft. high, separating his garden from the mews. On the other side of the mews there is a wooden fence. When we saw the pony and barrow in Grove Road the light was out, and the policeman told Bartlett of it. We thought it was funny for a pony and barrow to be there, and kept observation in the mews. Boon after Bartlett and another man came out and went up the mews. When they saw the police-constable and me standing there they whispered; then Bartlett came up and said, "What have you got here—a filly?" The police
constable said, "No. What it the mutter with you?" and asked if it was his pony and barrow. He said it was. I said, "You have got no light on it." Bartlett said he could stop there as long as he liked. The constable said if he gave him any sauce he would take the pony and barrow down. Bartlett was very cheeky, and swore a lot Then the other man came out with a jug of beer and offered us some, which we refused. We walked away, and came back afterwards into the High Road. They watched us away. The mews is dark. The carts were standing beside Bartlett's wall. I saw the prisoners in the mews from Grove Road and gave the constables the tip. Then I saw Bartlett get over the fence and made a noise like knocking over some boxes. (To.) I first saw you in the mews—I do not know how you got there—you were with Bartlett when he got over the fence—about 100 ft. up the mews. When I got up to you I saw the door of the stable open.
JAMES KIPPING I live at 716, Leytonstone High Road, which is in the occupation of my brother, Harry Kipping. On November 26, at 1.30am., I was aroused by the police and found the door leading from the garden to the stable open; the door from the stable to the mews was bolted and locked. There were three horse, harness, and other property in the stable. At about 12 I had gone round with my brother and secured the garden door to the stable by placing things against it. There is no key to the door out to the mews, but it locks with a catch.
P.C JOHN FARNDEN , 416 J. On November 26, at 12.30, I was with two other constables when I saw a yard or so from the stable door of No. 716. The door opened about six inches and was suddenly pulled to and bolted on the inside. Bartlett then left the stable by the other door, ran on to the ridge of No. 712 stable and jumped into a van, where he was caught. I ran up to, put my lamp up in his face, and he knocked it in the road and ran away; he was caught by Hyde.
Cross-examined by Mr. Joyce Thomas. I saw Bartlett at 11 pm., when the pony-cart stood outside his house unattended. He backed the barrow into the mews and took the pony through his house. I remained on the look-out, and about 12.30 I saw Bartlett jump from the roof of 712 stable into a van. Before that I saw and Bartlett in the stable. They very likely got over Bartlett a garden wall into the mews.
P.C CALDWELL , 529 J. On November 26, about midnight, I saw the prisoner put the barrow in the mews and take the pony into Bartlett's house. Hyde and I went to the rear a 617, High Road, and saw Scholfield in the mews close to the door of No. 617 stable. I caught hold of him and said, "What are you doing here." He said he had come to make water and had fallen over the wall. I then saw the stable door open six or saves inches. I pulled towards the door and it was closed and bolted from the inside. Then Bartlett jumped from the roof of 712 stable into a van. He bad got up through the left and on to the ridge of 712. I caught hold of Bartlett by his muffler as he was getting out of the van and be hit me on the back with the right hand. then got away and was caught by another officer.
Statement of Bartlett. I would sooner leave what I have to say until later on.
Schofield. I will leave mine. I will say what I want at the trial.
FRED BARLETT (prisoner, on oath). On November 20, at 10 p.m., I met my wife at "The Star" public house and we left about 11 p.m. with Stanton and his wife and another friend and his wife, and we all went to my home. No. 2, Grove Koad. I bad my pony and cart, which I left out side. I afterwards walked up the mew and saw Detective Hyde and a policeman. I asked them what was the matter. The constable said I had no light on my barrow. I then lit the lamp. came out with a jug and a glass and offered the constable and Hyde a drink of beer. The officers walked down the road and we went in. We afterwards pushed the barrow up the mews and put the pony in the scullery. The pony is generally kept at Stepney, but it was too late to take it there. We had about five or six friends and Were having a sing-song., I had a very valuable dog and it barked. I and went out to see what the noise was, as we thought there was somebody about in the mews. I had no hat or coat on. I told to get over the wall, which be did, and the constable got hold of him the then climbed over the wall and jumped into a van, and the constable pot hold of me by the shirt and collar. I said, "What are you doing. You have made a mistake." He said "No I have not—I will give you a bit of Wonderland"—he told me he had been boxing up at "Wonderland," then struck out at me, and as he went to hit me he hit the rail of the van and hurt his hand. I never attempted to bite him. All the vane worthy the side of my garden wall. I never went inside the stable or got on the roof or into the loft of No. 710. It would be impossible for anyone to jump 12 ft. off the roof on to a van on the other side of the mews.
WILLIAM FARLEY , Winnington Road, Leytonstone, tessslated tile fitter. On the night of November 26 I was with Bartlett, and three or four others having a sing-song, and we had sat down to supper when the dog started harking. Bartlett went out in his shirt sleeves. I did not take notice whether he was wearing a hat.
Hyde, Farnden, and Caldwell were recalled, and all swore Bartlett had a coat on when taken to the station.
Verdict, both Guilty.
Bartlett admitted having been convicted at Maidstone, on October 22, 1903, of horse stealing. Three other convictions were proved.
Schofield admitted being convicted November 11, 1902, receiving five years' penal servitude for stealing lead. A large number of convictions were proved, commencing in 1888, the sentences amounting to twenty years. Sent nod, Schofield, six years' penal servitude; Bartlett, three years penal servitude.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Friday, December 13.)
Mr. Lucas prosecuted.
WILLIAM TILEY . On December 4, about 2.30 p.m., I was in my master's yard and I saw the prisoner and a friend of his have a barrow into the yard through the stable entrance and then into another gateway into Ormiston and Company's yard. I asked the prisoner who gave him permission to take the iron out of the yard. The prisoner told me be had bought it for 2s. He described the man he had bought it from in the Harrow Road, Leytonstone, and from the description he gave I knew it was not a man belonging to the firm. The prisoner and the other man were putting it on the barrow.
Cross-examined by Prisoner. You were with a man when you came into the yard. You took the boiler off the barrow to look for the man you said you gave the 2s. to. (To the Judge.) The value is about 7a. 6d.
FRANK PAVIE : I live at 179, Odessa Road. Forest Gate. On December 4 last I went into a field in Becontree Road and saw the prisoner there with an iron stove and boiler belonging to the firm of Ormiston and Co. I asked the prisoner what he was going to do with them. He said he bought them for 2s. I at once fetched a constable. The other man with the prisoner escaped. I left the burrow and the prisoner with the previous witness. I have never seen him before, but evidently he knew me, because as soon as I came into the yard he threw the things off the barrow. The prisoner could not get away because there was such a crowd there. (To Prisoner.) You stopped there all the time.
P.C. HENRY MAYS , 577, G. At 3 p.m. on December 4 I was at Harrow Road, Leytonstone. In consequence of what last witness said I went into a field in Becontree Road. I met the prisoner at the corner of Harrow Road, Leytonstone, walking very sharply away. He said he saw a man outside the oil store and gave him 2s. and he said he could go into the field and clear away all the tins; there was a stove and boiler there, and he thought there was no harm in taking it. I took him back. When I got there the other man had gone. When charged at the police-station he made the same reply.
iron?" I said, "Yes." He said, "I have got an old iron stove." I said, "It is worth a couple of bob to me," and gave him 2s. He said, "It is in that field at the bottom of the street." I went down to get it on my barrow. I saw two men in the yard. They said, "What are you doing with that?" I said, "I have bought it for 2s" I went out to look for the man and stopped there until a policeman came.
Verdict, Guilty. The prisoner confessed to having been convicted of felony at the Old Bailey on the January 12, 1903, in the name of William Mortimer. Other convictions were proved. Sentence, Three months' hard labour.