Vol. CXLIX.] Part 886.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
HELD JULY 21ST, 1908, AND FOLLOWING DAYS.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE,
TAKEN IN SHORTHAND BY
Shorthand Writer to the Court.
POINTS OF LAW AND PRACTICE
OF THE INNER TEMPLE.
[Published by Annual Subscription.]
GEO. WALPOLE, 1, NEW COURT, LINCOLN'S INN, W.C.
THE ARGUS PRINTING COMPANY, LIMITED,
CORNER OF TUDOR STREET AND TEMPLE AVENUE,
On the King's Commissions 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, July 21st, 1908, and following days.
Before the Right Hon. Sir JOHN CHARLES BELL , Knight, Alderman, LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Rt. Hon. Lord ALVERSTONE , G.C.M.G. (Lord Chief Justice of England), and the Hon. Sir HENRY SUTTON , Justice of His Majesty's High Court; Sir J. WHITTAKER ELLIS , Bart.; Sir WALTER H. WILKIN , K.C.M.G.; Sir MARCUS SAMUEL , Bart.; Sir GEO. WYATT TRUSCOTT; Sir H. G. SMALLMAN; Lieut.-Col. F.S. HANSON , Aldermen of the said City; and His Honour Judge RENTOUL , K.C., His Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
BELL, MAYOR. TENTH SESSION.
LONDON AND MIDDLESEX CASES.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Tuesday, July 21.)
JOHNSON, George Frederick (27, clerk), who pleaded guilty at the April Sessions of house-breaking, larceny of goods, except jewellery, receiving stolen goods and former conviction of felony (see page 21), came up for judgment.
Mr. Bodkin now stated that prisoner had been sentenced on the previous Saturday at Guildford Assizes by Mr. Justice Jelf to eight years' penal servitude, and the man Delamere with whom prisoner was associated in these offences had previously been sentenced to five years' penal servitude.
Sentence: Three years' penal servitude, to run concurrently with the sentence passed by Mr. Justice Jelf.
Prisoner asked that while in prison he might be put to the trade to which he had been accustomed.
The Recorder said he had no power to make such an order.
NEDER, Oswald (35, porter), of German nationality, pleaded guilty of stealing 1 Post Office Savings Bank book, 1 suit of clothes, 1 pair of boots and other articles, the goods of Emil Tuffli; forging and uttering, well knowing the same to be forged, a certain request for the payment of money, to wit, a withdrawal notice, for the sum of £7 10s., with intent to defraud; forging and uttering, well knowing the same to be forged, a certain receipt for the payment of money, to wit, the said sum of £7 10s., with intent to defraud. The book was stolen from a fellow lodger where prisoner was lodging in Stamford Street.
Sentence: Nine months' hard labour; recommended for expulsion under the Aliens' Act.
ASPINALL, Percy John, otherwise Anthony Fitzgerald (26, joiner), pleaded guilty of stealing 1 Savings Bank book, the goods of Frank Osmond Gunnell; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain receipt for money, to wit, for the payment of £10, with intent to defraud. Prisoner has been convicted four times of
similar offences, and there is a warrant against him for defrauding the Vicar of Horselydown. The present case is robbery from a fellow lodger.
Sentence: 20 months' imprisonment.
DIBBLE, George Victor (23, postman) , stealing 1 post packet containing the sum of 2s. 6d. and other articles, 1 post packet containing a silver watch chain and other articles, 1 post packet containing 1 pair of sleeve links and other articles, the property in each case of the Postmaster-General, he being employed under Post Office.
Sentence: Nine months' hard labour.
HICKEY, James (36, clerk), pleaded guilty of feloniously demanding the sum of £1 in money by virtue of a certain forged and altered instrument, to wit, a forged and altered deposit book of the Post Office Savings Bank, knowing the same to be forged and altered, with intent to defraud. He also confessed to a conviction at Dublin Quarter Sessions of obtaining money by false pretences. Prisoner, who had been employed in the Post Office in Ireland, came to London in June, and on June 12 opened an account at the chief office of the Savings Bank with 1s. Next day he came back, and produced the Savings Bank book, in which he had entered above the 1s. the sum of £40 on the same date, and asked to withdraw a sum of money regardless of the fact that under the rules of the P.O. four days must elapse from the time of the account being opened. It being obvious to the officials that a fraud was being attempted, the police were communicated with.
Sentence, Eighteen months' hard labour.
CLARK, George Jesse (48, labourer), pleaded guilty of feloniously marrying Louisa Thompson, his wife being still alive. He also confessed to a conviction for felony at Marlborough-street in 1899. His wife became an inmate of Hanwell in 1905 and the bigamous marriage was contracted in 1906, after six months' acquaintance with the woman, prisoner describing himself as a widower. In answer to the Recorder, the woman Thompson said prisoner had treated her well. The prosecution was instigated by the police after prisoner had been arrested on a charge of stealing £150 in connection with his business of furniture removals.
Sentence, Six months' hard labour.
ERNST, William (22, labourer), pleaded guilty of being entrusted by John William Meux and others with certain money, to wit, £14 2s. 3d., in order to retain it in safe custody, did fraudulently convert the same to his own use and benefit. The money entrusted to prisoner was contributed in small sums by his fellow labourers with a view to the annual outing. When called upon to pay the railway fares he stated that he had gambled it away backing horses and was very sorry. The money was made good by prisoner's employers and Mr. Cluer, the police magistrate before whom prisoner was brought.
Sentence, One month's imprisonment, second division.
Sentence, Six months' hard labour.
DONOVAN, John (40, shoemaker), and JOHNSON, Edward (34, labourer) , indicted for robbery with violence upon John Wheeler and stealing from him the sum of 18s., pleaded guilty to robbery without violence. Many previous convictions against both prisoners for similar offences were proved.
Sentence: Each prisoner, Seven years' penal servitude.
Sentence, Four months' hard labour.
ROBINSON, Frank (22, newspaper cyclist), and DRAGE, William (21, baker), pleaded guilty of stealing one bicycle and one suit, the goods of Sidney Guenigault, and feloniously receiving the same, well knowing them to have been stolen; stealing one bicycle and one suit, the goods of Sidney Guenigault.
Drage was described by the police as a professioal bicycle thief, and was sentenced to Twenty months' hard labour; Robinson, against whom there was no previous conviction, was sentenced to Nine months' hard labour.
TIFFIN, George (24, labourer), pleaded guilty of breaking and entering the shop of Ye Mecca, Limited, in Gresham Street, and stealing therein the sum of 8s. 9 1/2 d. and one packet of cigarettes, their goods.
Prisoner, who was an old offender, was sentenced to Three years' penal servitude.
WILBOURNE, Charles, otherwise Charles Collyer (19, steward), pleaded guilty of stealing one suit of clothes and one pair of boots, the goods of Percy Henry Turton; stealing one bracelet and other articles, the goods of Albert James Pryor.
The robbery was effected at an hotel in Aldgate Street, and it was stated that prisoner lived by taking lodgings for the purpose of stealing. Several previous convictions were proved.
Sentence, Eighteen months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Tuesday, July 21.)
Sentence, Five months' hard labour.
Mr. Wilkinson prosecuted; Mr. Mackenzie defended.
FREDERICK FULLER , 222, Brunswick Road, Bromley-by-Bow, tram conductor. On June 20 prisoner was a passenger on the top of my car; it was either the 9.30 or the 10.50 journey. I went to him to collect the fare, one penny. He tendered half a crown; it was very light, and I tested it with my teeth and found it was a bad one. I asked him if he had any more like that, and I told him it was a bad one, and he produced a purse containing two half-crowns. They were both good, and I took the fare from one of them. I gave him the bad one back and his change. On the 23rd I again saw prisoner on my car at 9.30 a.m. He again went on the top. I went up for the fare, one penny, and he tendered me half a crown, which I saw was bad; it was very light, and I snapped it in two instantly in his presence. He produced a similar purse to the one he produced on the 20th; it contained two half-crowns perfectly good. I took one of them and gave him two shillings in silver and fivepence in coppers change. There was a detective-sergeant riding on the car at the time and I gave prisoner into his custody.
Cross-examined. I collect a large number of fares and see a great many people in the course of the different journeys in the car. Prisoner is not an uncommon type among Russian Jews, but I do not think I am mistaken about him; I took more than ordinary notice of him, because I thought he was going to try to do me. If four people were to come here and say that prisoner was not out of his house on the evening of the 20th at all, that would not make me alter my opinion, because I feel convinced he is the man that tried to pass the bad half-crown on the 20th, and I told him so on the 23rd when I broke the bad half-crown he tendered me. Besides the two good half-crowns in the purse there was a cheque also.
WILLIAM BROGDEN , Detective-sergeant, H Division. At 9.30 a.m. on June 23 I was travelling on the tramcar of which Fuller was conductor. I saw prisoner on the top. I heard Fuller say to him: "You are the same man that gave me a bad half-crown on Saturday night." Prisoner replied: "Not me," in broken English. I took him into custody and searched him and found one good half-crown and a two-shilling piece and fivepence in bronze. I took him to the station at Commercial Street, where he was charged with the two utterings; he made no reply. He was subsequently taken to Old Street, and through the interpreter he said, "I had the half-crown given to me on Sunday night at a wedding; I know who gave it to me." I took possession of the counterfeit half-crown on the car which Fuller had previously broken with his teeth. I produce the coin. I took it from the prisoner because Fuller had returned it to him.
JOSEPH STEINKELLER (prisoner on oath, through an interpreter). I live at 6, Marion Street, Commercial Road. I have been in this country about 15 months. On the afternoon of Saturday, June 20, I was in bed until six o'clock. I did not go out because we were expecting visitors. A few visitors came to us, and the housekeeper and his wife and we enjoyed ourselves; they stayed until about 12 p.m. Two of them came just before six and two of them came just after six. After the visitors left we went up to my housekeeper's rooms and had tea and stayed up till about one o'clock, and then we went to bed. The reason of the gathering at my house on the Saturday evening was because on the following day was the wedding of my niece, who was brought up in my place. On Tuesday morning, June 23, I had to go to Dalston, and I got on a tramcar. When the conductor came for the fare I took out half a crown and gave it him. He said it was no good, so I told him to try it; he tried the half-crown and broke it. Then I took out another half-crown and gave it him, and he gave me a ticket and two and fivepence change. I got the half-crown when I was sitting at a table at the wedding; somebody gave me the half-crown and asked me to give him smaller change for it; I remember this particular half-crown because it was a new one.
Cross-examined. Joseph Romanio gave me the half-crown.
DAVIS LABOUVITCH (through an interpreter). I live at 6, Marion Street. Prisoner has rooms at my house. On Saturday evening, June 20, prisoner had visitors; they remained till about 12 o'clock and prisoner was with them all the time.
Cross-examined. I saw prisoner from the time he got up until 12 o'clock; we were upstairs and downstairs all the time enjoying ourselves; there was to be a wedding next day.
Re-examined. Prisoner and his wife have been lodgers in my house for 15 months.
Cross-examined. My husband and myself were at the party and I saw prisoner the whole of the time till he went to bed about half-past twelve. It would take about 15 minutes to get to the tramcars from our house.
RACHAEL ROMANIO , 1 Wilson Street. I was brought up by prisoner. I am the lady that was married at the wedding that has been mentioned. I was at the party and saw prisoner the whole of the time; he never went out at all. I remember at the wedding prisoner giving Joseph Romanio, my husband's brother, change for half a crown.
Cross-examined. Joseph Romanio came round to change the half-crown because music was playing at the wedding and he wanted some small money to pay the musicians with, and I saw Joseph Steinkeller change it.
At this point the Jury stopped the case and found prisoner Not guilty.
Mr. Sands prosecuted.
Detective JOHN COURSE , L Division. I was with Sergeant Beard in plain clothes in Cornwall Road, Stamford Street, about one o'clock on the afternoon of June 29. I saw prisoner with two other men, one of them called English. I saw Hathaway take something from his right vest pocket and hand it to English. They walked to the top of Duke Street and Sergeant Beard and I caught hold of them. Prisoner struggled very violently and I had to throw him to the ground, and I called to the crowd which had gathered for assistance, telling them that he had got counterfeit coins. During the struggle he forced his hand down and took a handful of something that looked like money from his right vest pocket; he also had something in paper in his mouth. I forced two half-crowns out of his hand, and he scattered some among the crowd. He called out, "Do not let him have my money; look after me, Ted." I saw a carman pick one up and a boy another; I am sure there were five in addition to these two that I took from him; I am almost sure these are bad. I took him into custody. He said, "I have cheated you, you f—r; I have got no counterfeit coins; you ought to have got the others; they have got them." On the way to the station he said, "Now, don't be wicked and I will tell you how to catch those people that do make them." He was searched, and I found 5d. in his back trousers pocket. I afterwards found close to where the struggle took place the piece of paper now produced; it appears to be folded as if it had had money wrapped in it. When charged with having been in possession of seven counterfeit coins he said, "Seven—I never had any"; when asked for his address he first said he had no fixed abode, then he said he lived with English, the other prisoner, and subsequently he said 77, Blackfriars Road. I went there and found he did not live there. I subsequently went to a house occupied by Mrs. Small in Ethel Street. She showed me a first-floor back room, which I searched. I found a file with metal substance on it, some lamp black in a tin, and two tins containing chalk. I also found this saucepan, which is burnt at the bottom, and in the dustbin in the yard I found a large quantity of plaster all broken up into small pieces similar to the piece I produce. Sergeant Beard gave me a piece of metal which fits exactly into the ridge at the bottom of the saucepan. The things produced are the sort of things that are used in the making of counterfeit coins.
To Prisoner. I did not rush at you with force in Stamford Street so that we both fell to the ground. When I took you to the station I did not charge you there and then. It was about one or a quarter-past when I took you to the station; it was not just after 12; you were there about an hour and a half before you were charged; possibly it was 20 minutes past four before you were put in the dock and charged. You were not charged at once because we wanted to go and find some of the coins that you had thrown away. I did go to Stamford Street and find the piece of paper I produced; it was in the gutter; that was about three-quarters of an hour afterwards. I
went to your place and searched the room at eight o'clock the same evening and found the articles I produced, the lampblack in a little dubbin tin, the chalk, the file, and so on. The lampblack was produced at the police court. I found it on the mantelpiece; this is the tin it was in; I did produce this tin at the police court. I also found the saucepan; I did not take it to the station, because I did not think it necessary at that time. The piece of metal Sergeant Beard gave me fits that saucepan. I do not know whether it would fit any other. I did search your room thoroughly; I did not find the piece of metal, there. I found the saucepan in the fender.
(Wednesday, July 22.)
Sergeant JOHN BEARD , L Division. Before the struggle in which prisoner and English were arrested, I saw the former take out of his pocket a coin which appeared to be a half-crown and hand it to another man, when Sergeant Course arrested Hathaway and I English. Subsequently on July 2 I went to 28, Ethel Street, Lambeth, and was shown into a room by the landlady, Harriett Small, and there I found in a cupboard a piece of metal with traces of plaster of paris upon it; upon the washhand stand I found some sand and was handed a piece of metal by Mrs. Small (produced). On the 4th I again attended and was handed a metal saucepan with metal adhering to it and burnt, and amongst some coal in a locked room I found a number of pieces of burnt plaster of paris, in one of which was the dove-tailed mark of a mould, so made to fix into another mould; those things I handed to Sergeant Box.
To Prisoner. I found the pieces of plaster in the locked front room, and was told you occupied the back, and that the coal had been taken from your room and put in there. The saucepan was in the fire place, and I took possession of it as evidence against you. It was probably overlooked by the detective who made the first search owing to his inexperience with regard to searching coiners' premises and not knowing what they used. The saucepan appears to have been used without water, and the metal adhering to it is similar to metal I have seen in other melting pots.
ANNIE FOSTER , wife of Henry Foster, 72, Stamford Street. At one o'clock in the day on June 29 I was sitting in the hall looking out of the door and saw the traffic stop and a crowd collect. I went out to see what was the matter and saw some person struggling with the prisoner—probably Sergeant Course. The man was on the ground and I saw him drop several coins which looked like two-shilling and half-crown pieces, but whether they were good or bad I don't know. I had my foot on one, but a boy when I moved my foot picked it up and took it away. I also saw a boy take something out of the prisoner's hand.
To Prisoner. At the police court I said that I saw a man take something out of your hand and your left-hand pocket. That was when you were got up from the ground and were being taken to the
police station, three or four officers were taking you, but I am not aware that a constable was holding you. I do not know who the man was who took the something from you.
HARRIETT SMALL , widow, 28, Ethel Street, Lambeth. I let part of my house to my daughter. I know the prisoner. About five weeks ago he and a woman, who was supposed to be his wife, and a little boy came to lodge at my house under the name of Smith; they stopped there till June 29. They occupied the first-floor back room, which was furnished. Smith frequently had callers, particularly the man English, who used to call every morning and see Smith downstairs, but more frequently he would go up to his room. I remember the police officer coming and searching the premises, and after that somebody came and asked for Mrs. Smith, and saw her. Mrs. Smith then brought some rubbish down and threw it into the dusthole, and then went out in a great hurry; after that, with the exception of a short time in the evening when she came back, I have seen nothing more of her, from which I concluded her husband was locked up. Sergeant Course came the same day and found some things amongst the ashes. On April 1 my granddaughter was sweeping Smith's room and found a piece of metal underneath the skirting near the washstand. She brought it down to me and I gave it to the police officer. There was a cupboard in the room, and I took out from it some coal and wood and put it in the lower front room, and afterwards the officer went and searched amongst that. The saucepan (produced) is my saucepan which I lent them to cook their food in. I have had it many years.
Cross-examined by Prisoner. I took the coal from your cupboard down to the front parlour to take care of it, because your missus said that you would come back later on and fetch it. The officer could not have said that he found the coal in the front room upstairs.
MARGARET LENHAM (10 years old). I am the granddaughter of the last witness and reside with her. I remember prisoner residing at my grandmother's house. Two days after Smith left I was sweeping his room and found a piece of metal under the skirting board by the washstand in the first-floor back furnished room, and the spoon (produced) on the floor.
WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , Inspector of Counterfeit Coins, H. M. Mint. The two coins shown to me are bad. Certain articles have been produced to me, viz., a spoon, with traces of metal adhering, evidently used for pouring metal into a mould, a piece of glass with marks of plaster upon it, and used for making moulds with, a piece of metal which seems to have fitted into some pot, a file with piece of metal upon it, some lampblack, and other articles used by coiners.
Cross-examined by Prisoner. It is almost impossible to say whether there has been molten metal in the saucepan, as there was no metal adhering to the bottom. You may not know what I mean by lampblack, which is used to give tone to the coins, and other substances may be used for the same purpose. We generally, however, in these cases find lampblack.
SERGEANT BEARD , L Division. I was with Sergeant Course on June 29 in the Cornwall Road and saw English in company of Hathaway, who has just been convicted. Having suspicions of them we followed them, and Sergeant Course proceeded to arrest Hathaway while I went after English. I laid hold of him, but he broke away, and after pursuing him through several streets ran him to earth in a stable in Blackfriars. He then said without my speaking to him, "I have not got any counterfeit coin." I found, however, a bad shilling in his vest pocket, and said I should take him to Kennington Lane Station. He then became very violent, and I had to threaten to use my truncheon, though I had not got one. I then got assistance and took him to the station. There he refused his address, but upon my saying I knew it he gave me 222, Southwark Bridge Road, which was a place where he occupied two rooms with his mother. I afterwards went to 28, Ethel Street, Lambeth, and found the articles which have been produced in the charge against Hathaway. Before I and Sergeant Course proceeded to arrest the men I saw Hathaway take something out of his pocket and hand it to another man. It appeared to be two shillings or a half-crown. I then saw English take something out of his pocket, show it to Hathaway, and then put it into his pocket and walk away. Nothing was found in his pocket but a shilling, but he threw away something while he was being pursued.
To Prisoner. It was a fact that Sergeant Course and I followed you into Stamford Street in a cart, and I first laid hold of you in that street, but you broke away and ran off. When we were following you we were afraid we should be seen, and finding a van proceeding in our direction we asked permission of the carman to ride in the van, so that we could keep you under observation without being seen. When we arrived along side you, we jumped out and arrested you. But for the assistance of the carman the probability is that we should have been seen and could not have arrested you.
Sergeant JOHN COURSE , L Division. On June 29 I was in Cornwall Road with Sergeant Beard, and after watching them for five or 10 minutes Hathaway handed something to English. I then arrested Hathaway after a struggle, during which I saw some coins in his hand, which he threw away amongst the crowd. I went to Hathaway's room that same night and found articles such as coiners use, which have been produced.
HARRIETT SMALL , widow, 28, Ethel Street. I let the first-floor back room of my house to Mr. and Mrs. Smith about May 10 last. I now know Smith by the name of Hathaway, who has been found guilty of having counterfeit coins in his possession. I have seen the young man in the dock almost every morning. He used to call for the prisoner Hathaway and either go up with him to his room or go away with him. I remember June 29, the day of the arrest, when they both went out together. I afterwards showed the room Smith occupied to the officers.
To Prisoner. You may not have seen me before, but I have seen you many times; every morning almost; and many times you have walked up and down our yard, the two of you together.
To Prisoner. I go to school and come home about 12 o'clock in the day. I go back to school at a quarter to two, and saw you during the interval when I was at home.
Sentences: Hathaway, five years' penal servitude; English, 15 months' hard labour.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE SUTTON.
(Wednesday, July 22.)
BLAKE, George Alfred (52, carpenter) , was charged on coroner's inquisition with the manslaughter of Harriet Blake. The Grand Jury having ignored an indictment for manslaughter, no evidence was offered on the inquisition and a verdict of Not guilty was returned.
Mr. Eustace Fulton and Mr. Laurie prosecuted; Mr. C. F. Gill, K. C., Mr. Curtis Bennett, and Mr. Huntly Jenkins defended.
Inspector HENRY FOWLER , W Division. On May 17 I saw prisoner detained at Clapham Police Station. I said to him, "I am a police inspector; you will be detained here until the result of the examination of Mr. Wood, who is now in St. Thomas's Hospital, is known." Prisoner said, "Is he shot?" I said, "Yes." He said, "That's a bad job. You know, he and others have persecuted me for the past seven years; I have recently lost between £30, 000 and £40, 000 through them, and only last week they threatened to put the brokers in and sell me up. I went to the house peacefully this morning, when I was told he was not in, and the door slammed in my face; this all comes through relations marrying to each other." Later in the evening I formally charged him with attempted murder; he made no reply.
Cross-examined. I have made inquiries as to prisoner's history and have had interviews with his brother Alexander; prisoner has been under the special observation of the doctor in prison.
THOMAS JABEZ WOOD , 73, Rodenhurst Road, Clapham Park. Prisoner is my brother-in-law. I last saw him, previous to May 17, about seven or eight years ago. On May 16 I received from him the letter produced. (A rambling letter.) I did not reply to it. On
Sunday morning, May 17, I left home shortly after 12, going across Clapham Common to meet my wife coming out of church; I was with Mr. Herbert Betts; on our way we met Mr. Davis. While we were talking to him I felt two blows on my back; I did not realise what had happened till I looked over my shoulder and saw prisoner firing a revolver; I dodged round some railings; I saw him point the revolver at me again and fire; he did not again hit me. The coat produced is the one I was then wearing; it has two shot holes at the back.
Cross-examined. I have known prisoner about 15 years. Originally he was in a good position and attended satisfactorily to his business. His wife died about 10 years ago. After that there was a change in his conduct, and he has since been going on very strangely and has been a source of great anxiety to everybody. His friends have tried to get him to see a specialist, Dr. Savage. One of prisoner's ideas was that my wife was out of her mind; another that my sister would carry death with her into any house she entered. He used to write letters of an extraordinary character to different members of the family. For some years I have not considered him a responsible man. His idea that I have been persecuting him is an insane delusion.
FRANK A. DAVIS . I was with the last witness on the occasion mentioned. As I was shaking hands with him I heard a shot fired; Wood started to run away and prisoner ran after him, shooting as he ran; he fired three or four more shots; he was distinctly pointing the pistol at Wood. I ran after him and eventually I caught him, just after he threw the pistol away. He said, "You need not trouble, I will not give any bother." A crowd collected, and he said, "If you knew all you would sympathise with me; this man has robbed me of my daughter."
JOSEPH SELBY , labourer. On May 17, about 12.30, I was about 400 yards from the church, when I heard the report of firearms; I turned quickly round, and immediately there was another report. I saw Wood running down the footpath towards me, followed by prisoner. Prisoner was firing as he went As he was about to fire he steadied in his pace, and pointed the pistol at Wood; the fifth shot he fired with the pistol leaning on some railings. When I got up to him he threw the revolver at my feet, saying, "There you are, I am done with it; this is all over family troubles." I picked up the revolver and handed it to the police.
Cross-examined. Prisoner appeared to be in a state of great agitation. At the police-station he was in a state of collapse.
Sergeant A. MANSELL , 71 W. I was on patrol duty on Clapham Common on May 17 about half-past twelve, when I saw a crowd by the parish church. I went up and saw prisoner sitting on some iron railings. Several people called out "A man has been shot." Prisoner said to me. "All right, I won't run away; I have been persecuted for the last seven years by this man; thank God this is the end; I
fired to frighten him." I took him to the station, where he was searched. There were found on him five loaded ball-cartridges, which fit the revolver handed to me by Selby. The revolver contained five discharged cartridges.
Dr. ALFRED BRADFORD , St. Thomas's Hospital. I saw Wood when he was brought in on May 17. His clothing was bloodstained. There were two wounds on his shoulder; one was simply a contusion, the other penetrated the skin. He was X-rayed. A bullet was located in the region of the shoulder blade, and afterwards removed. Judging from the position of the bullet, I should say the shot had been fired from a distance of four or five yards from Wood.
ALEXANDER BETTS . Prisoner is my brother. Up to about 10 years ago prisoner was an active business man, taking a great interest in his affairs. Then his first wife died, and a great change came over him. His condition has been a source of great anxiety to all the family, and we have tried to get him to see a specialist. He had the idea that his daughter's mind was affected; also that his second wife carried death into any house she visited; also about his death taking place at a particular time; he ordered his coffin for a particular date. (Witness detailed other delusions.) He has written me some extraordinary letters.
Mr. Gill was proposing to read some of the letters, when prisoner interposed. He said that he had already been charged in respect of these letters and had been bound over, and it was unfair again to bring them up against him. This was a deliberate conspiracy on the part of the witness and others to have him (prisoner) declared insane. The witness himself had been insane, and ought not to be allowed to give evidence. As to any medical evidence that might be called, prisoner asked that he might have the opportunity of calling independent specialist witnesses. Dr. Scott had been written to by prisoner's brothers out of spite and malevolence, to try to induce him to declare prisoner insane. The letters now proposed to be read were written years ago, since when he had done a vast amount of business, up to quite recently. The attempt to make him out insane was most wicked. He should ask permission to go into the box to establish his sanity before the jury.
Examination resumed. I have no hostile feeling whatever towards the prisoner. (A number of letters were then read.)
Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. I have no particular knowledge of the history of our family; we are an exceedingly nervous family, and I must admit that I myself once had a nervous breakdown.
Dr. SCOTT , of Brixton Prison. Since prisoner's admission to the prison on May 18 I have had him under close observation; I have had several conversations with him, and have seen a number of letters written by him, also an account written by himself of his family history. I have had a long experience of cases of this sort. One of the commonest delusions where people's minds are affected is that people are conspiring against them; that is one of prisoner's delusions. Another is that his health is much worse than it really is. He is
peculiar about food. The letters of his that I have read indicate delusions. In my opinion he has probably been insane for some years, and I do not think he is yet of sound mind.
To Prisoner. You did tell me that you considered all your children ware of very weak mind and unfit to take proper care of themselves; I did not consider the reason you gave for that opinion a satisfactory one. In the event of first cousins marrying, and both being tainted by drink, their offspring might be affected. If there is a family taint, when two near relations marry the taint is likely to be stronger in the progeny than in the case of marriage into another family. As to you being particular about your food, I do not say that there was anything very extraordinary about your asking me for brown bread instead of white. I got regular daily reports from the warders about you; the reports are not here; they did not influence me very strongly. When I express the opinion that you have been insane for some years, I cannot specify how many years; I cannot say two or 20; I should think more probably seven or eight than two or 20. I do think that for the past eight years you have not been capable of managing your business. I hear what you say about having regulated a business employing 100 people, with several branches, and that you have laid out a large building estate; I do not know the facts, but I have been told that your business has gone to ruin. Your brother Alexander told me he had had a nervous breakdown; I have heard statements to the effect that be was under care a year or two ago, that he had the delusion that he could not sleep in a bed for fear of being killed in it, that he would not travel by train, and so on.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. There was nothing in my examination of the prisoner to lead me to suppose that he did not know that he was firing the pistol when he did so, or that he did not know that if he hit the man with the bullet it would wound him. I think he had delusions as to his relatives, and that largely influenced him in firing; I do not think he realised as an ordinary sane person would the serious character of his offence.
Prisoner said he wished to go into the box to be Cross-examined on the question of his sanity. He admitted the shooting, and that it was a most serious offence, and he felt his position acutely. How he came to do the act heaven only knew. He was brokenhearted, broken down by the cruel, wicked treatment of his brothers. Still, that was no excuse for firing, and he would have to bear whatever punishment might be meted out to him. But he protested against the accusation of insanity. He was then sworn, and Examined by Mr. Gill. A great deal of my trouble was in connection with the loss of my daughter. She had many habits and ways that were not normal, and I suggested that Dr. Savage, a specialist, should see her. Instead of allowing that, they persecuted me, slandered me everywhere, and were continually sending writs and sheriffs to me. It is ridiculous nonsense to suggest that I myself once suggested that I should go into an asylum. I challenge you or the prosecution to bring into the box anyone who has known me and known the way I have carried on business during the last few years, to say that I am insane.
Verdict, Guilty of unlawful wounding, "simply acting under the excitement of the moment." Sentence, Twelve months' imprisonment.
Mr. W. Clarke Hall prosecuted.
Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.
McBRIDE, John Francis (17, labourer), pleaded guilty of feloniously administering to Agnes McCarthy a certain, poison with intent to kill and murder her; feloniously assaulting Agnes McCarthy, and occasioning her grievous bodily harm.
Mr. C. J. Salkeld Green prosecuted.
Police evidence gave prisoner a very bad character. He was sentenced to Nine months' hard labour.
Mr. Eustace Fulton prosecuted.
Police-constable BENNETT, 497 Y. On June 28, about 4 p.m., I was in Caledonian Road, and was called to Roman Road, Barnsbury. I there saw Davey lying on the footway on his back, bleeding from the nose and head, and unconscious. Prisoner was standing by his side. He said, "I have done that; I struck him on the nose with my fist." Prisoner appeared to have been drinking, but he was not drunk. After I had arrested him he said to me, "We had a quarrel; he pushed me; I tried to get him home; he refused to go either way; I caught hold with my left hand of his collar, and struck him in the face with my right hand, but I did not with to do him any harm."
WILLIAM WILTSHIRE , 36, Derinder Street, N. On June 28, about 3.30, I was on a 'bus in the Roman Road. I saw Davey and the prisoner walking along arm in arm; both were drunk. I saw prisoner's hand swing round and hit Davey on the nose. Davey was more drunk than prisoner; prisoner was helping Davey along. Davey fell, and prisoner tried to help him up; he found he could not do so, and let the man go again. When he fell (the first time) Davey fell on his back, and his head struck the pavement. When prisoner let him go, the man again struck his head on the pavement.
To Prisoner. I did not see Davey strike you first.
To Mr. Fulton. When prisoner found he could not pick the man up he walked away three or four paces and I stopped him. I said, "See what you have done." He said, "I am sorry; I could not help it; I did not know I had done that."
GEORGE BRACE , 327, Caledonian Road. On June 28, about half-past three, I was standing in Roman Road, when I saw these two men coming along. Suddenly Davey fell on his knees; he was drunk. Prisoner picked him up and then gave him a blow on the nose; Davey fell backward and struck his head on the kerb. I did not see Davey strike prisoner at all.
ALBERT TURNER . 20, Cumberland Street. I was standing talking to last witness, and saw the two men coming along; both were drunk; Davey was the worst; prisoner was leading him along. Davey stumbled and fell on his knees; prisoner helped him, and got him on his feet. He then held Davey with his left hand and struck him a blow on the nose with his right hand; Davey fell on his back. Prisoner tried to help him up, but could not.
ADA WOOD , 2A, Roman Road. As I was standing at my door I saw the two men coming along. Davey was very drunk; prisoner was not so drunk. I saw Davey slip on his knees; prisoner picked him up and hit him in the face, which knocked him backwards. Prisoner tried to pick him up again, but he himself made a stumble and Davey again fell on his back. I went across to them and sponged Davey's face, but he only just moved his head. I said to prisoner, "You have no right to do that when a man is so helpless." He said, "I have done nothing; I am trying to be a mate."
Dr. JACKSON, the medical gentleman who attended the deceased man and was to speak to the cause of death, was called, but was not in attendance.
There being no other evidence for the prosecution, his Lordship pointed out that, in the absence of the medical evidence, the case was incomplete, and on this suggestion the Jury returned a verdict of Not guilty.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Wednesday, July 22.)
SMITH, Cuthbert (31, no occupation), pleaded guilty of forging a certain request for the delivery of goods—to wit, a book containing 12 banker's cheque forms, the property of Vesey George Mackenzie Holt and another, with intent to defraud.
It appeared that prisoner had passed a number of cheques from this book, which had been obtained by him in the name of Captain Tyler, who had an account with Messrs. Holt and Co., of which fact Prisoner had become cognisant while he was serving in South Africa. It was stated that prisoner was the son of a wealthy man in India. He was taken from the ranks of the Imperial light Horse and given a commission in the East Yorkshire Regiment in 1900. He was promoted to lieutenant in 1903 and resigned in 1907. He then went to Nigeria, where he represented a company, subsequently returning to England. Since then he had uttered cheques all over the country, forging Captain Tyler's name. There were 32 such cases. In August, 1907, prisoner had opened an account with the Bank of Nigeria, which account was closed in January, 1908. Since then he had passed cheques on that bank in addition to the above.
Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.
PRINGLE, Henry (62, postman), WARREN, Horace Charles (25, Postman) ; both conspiring, combining, confederating, and agreeing together by false pretences and subtle devices falsely and fraudulently to acquire and obtain to themselves and in pursuance thereof unlawfully did obtain of and from Charles Fensom the sum of £5 2s., his moneys, with intent to defraud. Both conspiring, combining, confederating and agreeing together by false pretences and subtle devices falsely and fraudulently to acquire and obtain to themselves and in pursuance thereof did obtain of and from Charles Fensom the sum of £17 10s., his moneys, with intent to defraud. Pringle pleaded guilty.
Mr. Forster Boulton, M. P., prosecuted.
CHARLES WILLIAM FENSOM , turf commission agent, Enfield. I have known Pringle for fifteen or twenty years, but do not know Warren. This year I started an account with Pringle by post. I knew he was an auxiliary postman. He was also cleaner at a bank. He made the bets with me in the ordinary way. The envelope and slips produced are in Pringle's writing. I received them at 7.30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 20. On Wednesdays at Enfield there was no delivery from about 12 to 7.30. Slip B is "2s. on Primer each way, any to come Blankney." Primer got a place, and Blankney won at 10 to 1. The result was that I paid Pringle 27s. On slip C Victoria May was backed at 10 to 1. That horse won, for which I paid 25s. Another horse, St. Wolf, which he backed, won at 25 to 1. I paid 48s. on that. The total came to £5 2s. for that day. After that I made a communication to the Post Office On June 3, Derby Day, I received a letter (produced) at 7.45 p.m. The envelope is in Pringle's writing. The betting slip is partly in his writing. It backs several horses, including Signorinetta, 4s. The result was that all the horses named either won or got a place, and Pringle won £17, which I paid by the cheque produced. My suspicions were aroused by the fact that he always won on Wednesdays.
WILLIAM HENRY GRIGGS , inspector of postmen, Enfield Post Office. Warren has been postman at Enfield since 1895. On Wednesday we have no delivery between 11 a.m. and 6.30. The letter produced, stamped 2.30, to have been properly stamped, ought to have been posted before 2.30. If it had been posted after 2.30 it would bear "3.30." Warren was on duty at the office on May 20 from 1.30 to 2.45, sorting and stamping letters. At 2.45 all the men left till 7.30 in the evening. On June 3, having received a communication, I examined the letters addressed to Mr. Fensom. There were thirty-nine, and the overseer, who was with me, marked them in the corner. There was none in Pringle's handwriting. The envelope produced was not one of the letters we saw. It is in Pringle's writing, and bears the stamp, "1.30, June 3." At 6.30 in the evening Warren came on duty, and I saw him with Pringle about 6.30 in the yard. When they saw me they came back into the sorting-room, and there I saw Warren giving out parcels to the men, which was not part of his duty. This would take him near the pile of letters addressed to Fensom. I was watching him, and thought I saw him put something down on the heap. About twenty minutes afterwards I went to the pile of letters. By that time all the postmen had gone out. I then followed postman Cutten, who had got Fensom's letters. He had about 50, and about 40
bore the afternoon stamp. The letter D (produced) was one of them; it has not got the mark. The bottom part of slip E is in Warren's handwriting, the top Pringle's. Slip C is also in Warren's writing.
Cross-examined by Warren. It was earlier than quarter to seven when I spoke to Pringle in the yard. I could not say if Cutten was on duty when you came on.
JOSEPH GEORGE STEVENS , Confidential Inquiry Clerk, Secretary's Office, G. P. O. In consequence of information received, I saw Pringle on June 11, and afterwards Warren with Pringle. I told them they had been engaged in betting transactions with a bookmaker. Warren made no answer. I then said, "You are aware that, as Post Office servants, you are liable to dismissal for betting?" Warren said, "I didn't think the rule meant betting like this; I thought it meant gambling." I told him that Pringle had confessed that they had sent the slips after the race had been won in covers which they had previously stamped. I showed him two of the slips. Warren said, "I won't dispute his statement or say that it is right; I promised faithfully I would not say a word to anybody." I asked him if he stamped both the envelopes before the races and retained them till the evening. He said, "Yes, I did stamp those envelopes early and kept them till the evening." He said he got the results on May 20 from the evening paper, but on June 3 they were given to him that morning at the Great Eastern Station. He said. "I wrote out the slips at six p.m., and put them in the envelopes, which I fastened up and put among other letters on the stamping table." In answer to me, he said, "I had my share of the bets on May 20, but the bets on June 3 were not mine, and I should not have kept the money. I did it for a friend; I should have given him the money when I got it from Pringle." I said, "Who is the friend?" He replied, "I promised not to say." He then signed the following statement: "I have heard Pringle's statement read over. I did not think the rule against betting meant betting like this. I thought it meant gambling. I won't dispute his statement or say it is right. I promised faithfully I would not say a word to anybody. I did stamp both the envelopes early and kept them till the evening of each day. I copied the results on the slip of May 20 from the evening papers, but the winners on June 3 were given to me that morning at the Great Eastern Station, and I wrote out the slip about six p.m. on the evenings of May 20 and June 3 and put them in the envelope, which I fastened up and then put them amongst other letters which were on the stamping table at the head office."
To Prisoner. You did not seem deaf or unable to understand my questions.
Sergeant WILLIAM CECIL ROBERTS , G. P. O., said that he was present when Stevens put questions to prisoner in a voice which prisoner could hear, and that he heard prisoner's answers. He afterwards took Warren and Pringle to Enfield Police Station, where he charged them. Warren made no reply.
To the Judge. Prisoner did not say to Stevens that he could not understand his questions.
HORACE CHARLES WARREN (prisoner, not on oath) addressed the jury at length, saying that he started this business by getting winners for Pringle from a young man he knew, and one evening Pringle asked him to give him a letter back which he had posted to Fensom, but he (Warren) would not do it. That was at the beginning of the flat-racing season. He then related how he stamped the letter and put it on the stamping table on June 3. He did not stamp the letter on May 20, nor copy any horses from the newspapers, only from slips that were handed to him.
The manager of Lloyds Bank at Enfield said that he had known Pringle for about 10 years, and he had been employed as cleaner at the bank for 17 years; he had found him most exemplary in character. He received 10s. a week from the bank.
Sentence: Each prisoner, nine months' hard labour.
The Recorder said he thought that some steps should be taken by the General Post Office to acquaint bookmakers with the rule against betting in the postal service, because the experience in that Court was that most of the cases from the Post Office arose through difficulties men got into over betting, rather than drinking.
WILLIAMS, George (55, coachman); MACKRILL, Alfred (27, labourer); SMITH, William (26, labourer); BROOKS, Charles (22, labourer); Smith and Brooks being found by night having in their possession, without lawful excuse, certain implements of house-breaking; Smith and Williams burglary in the dwelling-house of John Compston and stealing therein two overcoats and other articles, the property of the said John Compston; Mackrill feloniously receiving one of the said overcoats well knowing it to have been stolen. Smith pleaded guilty of the burglary; Brooks of being in possession of housebreaking implements.
Mr. H. F. Cornes prosecuted.
LILY PRATT , parlourmaid to Mr. Compston, 59, Christchurch Road, Streatham, said that on the night of June 23 she locked up, and next morning found the morning room had been broken into through the window and two overcoats stolen (produced). A ladder was left out-side the window. Some silver articles were also taken, value £17 10s.
FRANK BUTLER , assistant to Matthews and Jenkin, pawnbrokers, said that one of the overcoats in Court was pawned with him on June 25 for 10s. He did not recognise the man. After giving evidence at the police-court he heard Williams say he had pawned it.
Detective-sergeant JOHN BEARD , L Division. On June 25 at 10 a.m. I was in St. George's Road, Lambeth, when I saw Mackrill and Williams in the "George" with two other men. Williams had this cost (produced) on his arm, and was showing it to Mackrill. They then all came out into the road. Mackrill stood examining the coat. Then the other two men went away. I then told Williams I was a police officer, and asked him where he got the coat. Mackrill said, "I have
only been with him five minutes; ask him about it; I don't know where he got it from. Williams offered it to one of the other men, but he would not take it, and said, 'You keep it for the present." Williams said, "Now you've got it, find out where it come from." I took him to the station and another officer took Mackrill. On the way I asked Williams for an explanation. He said, "I don't know where it come from; find out." Mackrill said, "I have told you the truth." I then found in the jacket pocket of the coat a pocket-book, in which were two pawn-tickets, one relating to the other overcoat.
Detective-sergeant CHARLES HAWKINS , L Division. When told the charge Mackrill said, "I was never there." Williams said, "I plead guilty to pawning the coat, and the other coat I had given to me." When the charge was read over, no reply.
Before the magistrate Williams said, "About 1.30 on June 25 I met prisoner Smith. He asked me to pawn a coat. I consented. I pawned it. He said I might have the ticket, and gave me the coat." Mackrill said, "I am innocent."
The Recorder said there was no case against Mackrill, and directed a verdict of Not guilty.
Verdict, Not guilty.
Against both Brooks and Smith previous convictions were proved, the former having had 3 1/2 years' penal servitude for burglary. Smith had had many convictions. It was stated that in the district of Streatham there had been a number of burglaries, and that people had been practically in terror of these men. Since their arrest the complaints had ceased.
Sentences, each Seven years' penal servitude.
SCOTT, John (32, musician), and BRADLEY, Frederick (30, carman) , both forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain authority for the payment of money, to wit, a postal order for the payment of 11s. 6d., with intent to defraud.
FREDERICK W. JOYCE , Gloucester Road, Peckham. I am a member of the Royal Standard Benefit Society, and on June 21 I sent a letter to the secretary, Mr. Osborne Croft, enclosing postal-order 11s. 6d. I addressed it to Great Queen Street, instead of to 40, Great Ormond Street. I next saw the postal-order on the following Saturday, when the detectives brought it to me. I had never seen prisoners before.
ANDREW BROWN , manager of the "Sugar Loaf," 40, Great Queen Street. I know Scott as a customer and musician. Not long ago he asked me if he could have a letter addressed to him at my house, which I allowed him to do. On the Friday following, I could not say the exact date, a letter arrived. I did not know Scott's name, and I asked him what name the letter was to be addressed to. He said some such
name as Croft or Crift. I do not understand him very well, as he speaks broad Scotch. I said, "Is that one," showing the letter. "Aye," he said, "that's the one," and put it in his pocket. He had a woman with him. I do not know Bradley.
To prisoner Scott. I believe you said something to me on the Monday about meeting a Scotchman, and that you had played to him, and he had promised to send you a sovereign to take you to Scotland. I do not know that you said that possibly there was a mistake in the name, when you put the letter in your pocket.
ARTHUR GLADWIN , clerk in charge, Lamb's Conduit Street Post Office. On June 27 Bradley brought a postal-order in and signed it "W.O. Croft." I asked him if that was his name; he said yes. I told him he was not W. Osborne Croft. He then said he was doing it for a friend outside. I told him he had no business to sign it, and that he had better wait. I then sent someone to Mr. Croft's, office. In the meantime I saw Scott standing outside. Bradley said that was his friend, so I called him in, and asked him how he became possessed of the order. He said it was left at the place where he had his letters addressed. He then showed me the envelope. The messenger from Mr. Croft's having returned, I showed him the letter, and he said it was from one of their members.
To Scott. You came in at once when I beckoned to you. You said that if I liked to send for the police, you were quite entitled to the order; that somebody had sent it to you for money that was due.
JAMES COX , 2, Shadwell Street, Middleton Square, chief clerk Royal Standard Benefit Society. On June 27 I was sent for to Lamb's Conduit Street about a postal-order. I saw the signature on it was not Mr. Croft's, and asked Scott how he came possessed of it. He said he had been in the habit of having letters left at 40, Great Queen Street, and that he was expecting some money in a letter, and he had asked his friend (Bradley) to come up and sign it. Bradley gave no explanation.
Inspector OLIVER MILLARD , E Division. On June 27 I arrested the two prisoners. Scott said, "I was expecting a letter to be sent to 40, Great Queen Street. I am no scholar, and thought it was Scott not Croft, and asked Bradley to sign the order for me as I can't write." Bradley said, "He asked me to sign his name for him. I didn't know I had done anything wrong." When charged he said, "Lam innocent of it."
Detective JOSEPH JOSLIN , E Division. On June 27 I saw prisoner at Gray's Inn Road Police Station. Scott said, "The letter was given to me by Mr. Brown at No. 40, Great Queen Street. I asked him (Bradley) to write my name on it, as I could not write myself. I asked Mr. Brown a fortnight ago if he would take any letters in for me." Bradley said, "I know nothing about it. He asked me if I would go and cash it for him, and he would stand me a drink and give me 6d." Part of the note produced Scott said he had written.
To Scott: I found no writings of yours when I searched you. The note referred to was written in the post office.
The Recorder said there was no case against Bradley, and directed a verdict of Not Guilty.
JOHN SCOTT (prisoner, not on oath) said he was an itinerant musician, from Edinburgh, and on the Monday night before Ascot he was playing at Victoria when he met a Scotchman who became friendly, and who promised to send him some money to take him to Scotland, for which purpose witness gave him the address of 40, Great Queen Street. When the letter came he, not being a scholar, thought Croft was like Scott, and that the man had perhaps made a mistake. He kept the letter till Saturday when the woman he was with asked him what he had done with it. He then pulled it out of his pocket and found the order inside. Afterwards he met Bradley and asked him to sign it as he could not himself. The going to the post office and the cashing of the order he admitted, but there was no intention of felony or theft in his mind.
The Recorder remarked that it was an unlikely thing for a Scotsman not to be able to write.
Verdict, Not Guilty.
SARAH DODD , 6, Crescent Place, Caledonian Road. On Friday, June 26, about 11 at night I was walking up Caledonian Road, when at the corner of Caledonian Crescent I saw prisoner and another boy. I walked down the Crescent towards my home, when suddenly I felt something hit me in the arm. At the same time I heard a report. I had my little boy's hand. I saw blood running down my arm, and said to a girl I knew, "Oh, Dolly, take my milk," which she did, also my little boy. I went to a friend's place and fainted away. I remembered no more till I was coming out of the Royal Free Hospital.
JOSEPH SMITH , 6, Addington Square. On June 26 at 10 to 11 in the morning I was with prisoner. He was playing with a revolver (seven chambered). He fired three shots, then another one which shot the woman. He shot her accidentally. It was Dolly Pateman he was going to shoot. He told her he should do so. We walked off after the shooting.
ANNIE PATEMAN , 4, Caledonian Place. I am known as Dolly. On the morning in question I was at the corner of Caledonian Road, when I saw prisoner with a pistol. I have known him about three weeks. Smith was with him. I told him to put the pistol away. He said, "Do you f—g well want it through you?" I said, "No; fire it at the stones." He said, "The stones will fly up in the air." He then
twisted it round towards my stomach, but it would not go off. The third time he walked a couple of yards away and it went off. I then found that Mrs. Dodd was hit. I went with her to the hospital. I did not see the others any more.
MARY MAYFIELD , house surgeon, Royal Free Hospital. I examined Mr. Dodd on June 26 and found a small punctured wound in the outer side of her right forearm. On the next day I extracted a bullet. The wound is not quite healed. She was not kept at the hospital.
Police-constable JAMES BUTT , G Division. I saw prisoner at the station and told him he would be charged with wounding Sarah Dodd. He said, "Yes, but it was an accident. I sold the revolver to a man in Drury Lane for 4d. early next morning." I had arrested him on the 30th. When charged he made no reply.
Miss MAYFIELD, recalled, identified the bullet.
HARRY JARVIS (prisoner, not on oath), said that he did not intend to do any harm. He was at the canal bathing when he picked the revolver up. He put it in his pocket and forgot all about it till night-time. Then he took it out and started playing with it. He did not know it was loaded. He only fired it once.
Verdict, Guilty of unlawful wounding.
It was stated that prisoner belonged to the Somers Town gang of lads who employed their spare time in faction fights with others. The Recorder said that people ought not to be allowed to sell these pistols to lads. Prisoner in May last was charged with assault, but the prosecutor did not turn up; he was then fined 40s.
Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Wednesday, June 22.)
Sentence, Fifteen months' hard labour.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Wednesday, July 22.)
HAYNES, Charles Frederick (32, carman) ; attempting violently to assault Mary Ann Dowsett and to ravish and carnally know the said Mary Ann Dowsett; indecently assaulting and ill-treating Mary Ann Dowsett.
Verdict, Not guilty.
SHELDRAKE, William (39, wheelwright) ; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, an endorsement on a certain order for the payment of money—to wit, a banker's cheque for the payment of £2 10s., with intent to defraud.
Mr. Mahaffy prosecuted; Mr. Burnie defended.
CORNELIUS WALKER , 74, Summerstown, Wandsworth, tar traveller—On May 18 prisoner, whom I knew, arranged to make the end carriage of a van for me. I was to supply him with materials. At 9 p.m. he brought bill produced from Wood and Sons. He wanted the whole £7. I gave him cheque produced for £2 10s., payable to Wood and Sons, and he gave me receipt produced. I afterwards saw the London and South-Western Bank and heard something. I next saw prisoner at the police court. Prisoner was to buy the whole of the materials, but I gave him the £2 10s. to get the felloes and stubs. He was to go on with the work and I to give him the rest of the money as he proceeded.
Cross-examined. Prisoner's receipt is, "Received of Mr. Walker £2 10s. to pay for his stuff for end works on van.—W. Sheldrake. On account of my contract." (To the Judge.) He came with a bill from Wood and Sons and I gave him £2 10s. to pay for the last three-items, by cheque payable to Wood, so that he could get on with his work.
JOHN HENRY SMITH , clerk to Wood and Sons, Brandon Street, Walworth, ironmongers. On May 18 or 19 prisoner bought timber—such as felloes, spokes, and ironwork, for which I gave him invoice produced. Part of the goods were sent to Snelling's yard, Wandsworth, to be paid for on delivery, and were returned. I had no cheque. Cheque produced is not signed by me or by my firm.
Cross-examined. The endorsement of the cheque is, "Messrs. Wood and Son," and then "Wood and Son." It is not an imitation of my firm's signature.
MORRIS PIGNEGUY , cashier, London and South-Western Bank, Earlsfield. On May 20, cheque produced was presented to me by prisoner, endorsed "Messrs. Wood and Sons." I said, "It is irregular. Would you kindly sign again, if you are a representative of the firm." He said he represented Messrs. Wood and Sons and signed it again in my presence, "Wood and Sons."
Cross-examined. He may have written the first endorsement in my presence, and I asked him to endorse it again. Both endorsements are manifestly in the same handwriting.
Detective WILLIAM HIRD , V Division. On Sunday, June 28, I saw prisoner at Bow Street and read the warrant to him. He said, "I did not endorse any cheque." He was afterwards charged and made no reply. (To the Judge.) He knew what the word "endorsement" meant.
WILLIAM SHELDRAKE (prisoner, on oath). I live at 100, Keswick Street. I undertook to do the work for prosecutor. On the Saturday before May 18 he asked me to come and see him on Sunday, which I did. I gave him a price of £12 for making the wheels and end work of the van. I told him I had no money for material, and he said he would give it to me when he knew how much it would cost. On Tuesday I saw Smith at Wood and Sons', who made out a bill for the approximate price of the iron and woodwork, some of which had to be specially made. I ordered the goods to be sent to Snelling's yard at Wandsworth. They were to be paid for on delivery. Woods do not take cheques. I have dealt with them for years. I took the bill to prosecutor on that night, and at my request he gave me a cheque for £2 10s. He said, "I have left it open for you to go and draw it" as I told him Woods did not take cheques, or would not deliver until the cheque was passed through their bank. I gave receipt to prosecutor in my own name. I regarded the cheque as belonging to me. The next day I went to the bank; endorsed it "Messrs. Wood and Sons" inside the bank. The cashier told me to endorse it without the "Messrs." He never asked me if I represented Wood and Sons. On that day I and my wife had a few words; I had a drop of drink and I went away for a few days for fear I should have murdered her. I came back on the Sunday and was in Bow Street talking to a friend of mine when I was arrested. I was away about five weeks. It was through this disturbance that I did not execute this contract. Prosecutor was in no hurry for it. He told me so. I have done work of this kind for many years. I have never left a contract before in this way. I have always had a good character.
Cross-examined. The cheque given me was for the spokes and felloes. I did not understand that Wood and Sons had to endorse it. The cashier never said, "Are you a representative of Messrs. Wood and Sons?" He ought to know me better, considering I have changed cheques for other people there. I have not done any part of the work because the prosecutor never gave me a chance.
Verdict, Not guilty.
Verdict, Not guilty.
Mr. N. Anderson prosecuted.
LAWRENCE HORNBY , private, 5th Battalion Middlesex Regiment, quartered at Mill Hill. On Wednesday, July 1, 1908, I was out on leave and was returning to barracks at 11.45 p.m. Passing Mill Hill Station, opposite the public-house at the Triangle, walking in the middle of the road, prisoner rushed out and hit me behind the ear.
He was accompanied by three other men, who pushed me down; my belt and tunic were undone, and, as the others held me, prisoner took 3s. 6d. from my inner pocket. I am sure it was the prisoner who struck me and put his hand in my pocket. They let go and doubled towards Mill Hill Station. I ran in the opposite direction to the barracks and reported the robbery. The next day at the police station I identified prisoner amongst 10 other men. I have no doubt he is the man.
Cross-examined. At the barracks I said I knew one of the men, but I did not know his name. I said he was a tall, darkfaced man. When prisoner attacked me he wore a dark suit, bowler hat, and a coloured muffler. I had seen prisoner once before at the barracks. I am sure he is the man who robbed me. (To the Judge.) I had not been drinking that night at all. When I identified him there were one or two tall men there; prisoner was the tallest of the lot.
Detective FREDERICK LUXTON , X Division. On Sunday, July 5, about 7.50 p.m., with Detective Pyke, I saw prisoner in Barracks Lane, Finchley. I told him I was a police officer and that he answered the description of a man wanted for assaulting a young private in the 5th Battalion Middlesex Regiment in Mill Hill Lane on the night of July 1. I had warned him that I was a police officer—in fact, he knew my colleague, Detective Pyke. Prisoner said, "I do not know anything about it, but if that is the case I shall have to go with you." He was taken and put up with 11 other men of as nearly similar height and appearance as we could get them. Of course, it was impossible to get men of his height. He took the position he thought proper. Prosecutor was called in and immediately identified the prisoner by touching him on the shoulder. He was charged and made no reply. I found on him 5s. in silver and 7 1/2 d. in bronze.
Cross-examined. The attack was reported to me on July 2. I had no idea it was the prisoner. I am a stranger to the district. Prosecutor gave a description to Pyke, and, on seeing prisoner, we both thought he answered the description.
(Thursday, July 23.)
A previous conviction was proved.
Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE SUTTON.
(Thursday, July 23.)
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Travers Humphrey prosecuted; Mr. Charles Doughty defended.
ADA MANTLE . I am 18 years old. I now live with my father at Lillie Road, Fulham. I was for three years on and off in prisoner's service. She kept a boarding-house at 14, Nevern Place. Kensington. I knew Sarah Livingstone; she was about 78 or 80 years old; she lived at 14, Nevern Place the whole time I was there; she was a cook in the kitchen. At Christmas last I went to prisoner as a servant; besides Livingstone there was then there also Miss Mason, the dressmaker. I did the cooking, or helped Livingstone to do it; Mason used to help wash up and do the beds upstairs. There were eight or 10 boarders. Livingstone was very ill and complained of pains in her back; she had bad legs and could hardly move about; she had varicose veins. She slept in the kitchen, on bits of carpets on the floor. Prisoner knew of her condition, because prisoner's daughter brought a bottle of lotion for Livingstone and prisoner told me that it came from the house of her husband, Dr. Blackburn, at Kennington, and she saw Livingstone use the lotion on her legs. The floor of the kitchen was board; Livingstone had nothing on her at night except an old coat and some old blankets; she would rest her head on the stone of the gas-stove. Her body was in a filthy condition; her head was very verminous. She never took her clothes off; she had not got any others. There was a filthy smell in the kitchen from Livingstone and from the eight cats that used to be there. All the food was cooked in this kitchen. I have heard Livingstone ask prisoner for clothes, the prisoner replying that she could not have any until she went into the infirmary. Prisoner paid Livingstone no wages, only one penny or twopence occasionally; with that I would go and get her tea and sugar, sometimes half a pint of beer. For breakfast she used to have a slice of dry bread dipped in bacon fat and a little tea; for lunch, bread and butter and scraps of cold meat; for supper, sometimes (not often) a small piece of bread and butter and some tea. My wages were 5s. a week, and I used to buy some food for myself and share it with Livingstone. After a fortnight there at Christmas I left and went to work at a dining-rooms; I still used to call and see Livingstone; she seemed to be getting worse all that time. On Good Friday I was out of work, and at prisoner's request I re-entered her service; there were then in the place, besides Livingstone, Mason and William Stevenson, a waiter. Livingstone was very much worse. By Easter Tuesday she could not walk at all; she could not get to the water-closet; she used to sit in a woodenbottom chair, without any arms, all day and all night. I slept in the kitchen also, on the floor. There was no chamber for Livingstone's use, and when she had to obey the calls of nature she did it in the chair; I used to clean it up. Prisoner knew all this; she was frequently in the kitchen, and she put down carbolic fluid and chloride of lime because of the smell. Livingstone used to complain of pains in her back and side and legs to me and also to prisoner; prisoner would reply, "You ought to go to the infirmary"; Livingstone replied that she would like to go, but had no clothes to go in. All this time her flesh was filthy, as black as the grate; her head and body were verminous, and the clothes she had on were dirty and verminous.
I only knew her to be washed once; that was ten days before her death; prisoner asked me to wash her, and I did so. On that occasion I said to prisoner that Livingstone ought to see a doctor and go into the infirmary. Prisoner said that she (prisoner) had been to the infirmary for a doctor and the doctor had said he would send for her the first fine day. As a fact, no doctor came till I fetched one. I remember saying to prisoner that I thought Livingstone would be better if she was lying down on a bed; prisoner's reply was that if she lay down we would not be able to get her up again. On the morning of April 29 Livingstone was very bad; she was still sitting in the chair. Prisoner got her an iron bed-chair to sit in; there were no cushions, but bits of oilcloth and papers. Prisoner said that if she put anything else Livingstone would spoil it, as she made such a mess on the floor. I asked prisoner if I could put up the chair like a bed, so that Livingstone might lie down. She said no, if we were to lay her down we would not be able to get her up again. In the evening I noticed that Livingstone was much worse; her jaws were dropped and her eyes sunk in; and when I spoke to her she did not answer, and she got very white. I went home that evening and told my father how bad she was. That morning I had spoken to prisoner. I said that Livingstone was worse and ought to have a doctor, and asked her if I should go myself. She said no, I need not trouble, as she would go. My father and I in the evening went to the police-station and reported the matter. We were referred to the relieving officer. We Went to the infirmary and the porter said it was too late. We then went to the house of the relieving officer, and he sent us to Dr. Gregory, the medical officer. We went to his house and he was out, and we left a message. On the morning of the 30th, at seven, I went back to work at prisoner's house. Prisoner did not know that I had been to the police-station. Dr. Gregory and the relieving officer called. Prisoner opened the door to them. After a while I was called up. Dr. Gregory asked me if it was I and my father who had called at his house the previous night. I denied it. I heard prisoner tell Dr. Gregory that Livingstone had been ill, but was better, and had only got a cold. On the Sunday before her death Livingstone became unconscious. Prisoner came down to the kitchen to cook some pastry. I told her Livingstone was unconscious. She said, "Nonsense, she is only putting it on." From that time Livingstone seemed to get worse every day. Prisoner saw her every day. Early in the morning of May 7 I noticed that Livingstone could hardly speak. She said she was dying and asked me to fetch Mrs. Blackburn. I went up to the dining-room and told prisoner. She said, "It's nonsense; don't talk like that." She went downstairs and saw Livingstone, and asked her if she wanted another drink of milk. Livingstone said yes, and prisoner fetched it and then went upstairs again. She did not come down again till eleven o'clock, when Livingstone was dead. When the death was ascertained prisoner told me to make haste and clear up the kitchen, as she could not have a doctor come in and see it in that filthy condition. She went out to fetch a doctor and came back about twelve. She asked
me to wash Livingstone. I told her I could not, as I felt too bad. She then asked me to get water and she would do it herself. She washed the face and hands and feet and put flour on them, and put a pair of white stockings on, first cutting the bandages off the legs. These bandages had been on a long time and were all mouldy. The clothes were cut off the body and a clean chemise put on. A mattress was put across two boxes, and the body was lifted off the chair and put on this, with a clean sheet underneath and a covering of a clean sheet and a counterpane. Prisoner noticed the smell, and kept on putting down carbolic fluid and chloride of lime. I told prisoner that if there was an inquest she would get into serious trouble, as me and Stevenson would have to attend. She said that would be all right, as her husband would give the death certificate. I have only seen Dr. Blackburn at the house once. So far as I know he never saw Living-stone. At four in the afternoon, on the day of the death, Dr. Farr came. I do not think he had been to the house before at all, while I was there. He looked at the face of the body and spoke to prisoner about a death certificate. He told her that Dr. Blackburn had been attending Livingstone and he would give the certificate. At half-past four I left the house, as I was poorly. I went to a doctor and was found to have measles. I went to the infirmary, where I stayed till May 25. The day before Livingstone died prisoner told me that she had been to a second-hand shop in North End Road and bought some clothes for Sarah (Livingstone) so that she might go to the infirmary.
Cross-examined. I first went to prisoner three years ago, when I was 15; it was my first situation. I stayed with her two months and was well treated. Between that time and Christmas of last year I had gone back to her four times. The fortnight I was there last Christmas was the first time I found anything to complain of. Living-stone and I were both kept short of food. I have heard Livingstone complain to her friend Miss Adams, not to prisoner. Livingstone complained of being short of food long before Christmas; she was always complaining. I believe she had been with prisoner four years before I first went there; when I first went she was able to do her work in the ordinary way. I do not know whether she had a bad leg or varicose veins then. She could not then have gone to the infirmary, because she had no clothes. She used to go out occasionally. I do not know that she pawned clothes; the pawn tickets produced I have never seen before. I never saw her take clothes out of the house. I still say she could not have gone to the infirmary; she had clothes, but they were all dropping off her, showing her bare flesh. It is not the fact that at that time she used to sleep on a bed in the kitchen; I do not know that she set her bedding on fire. She always slept on the kitchen floor with no carpet or cushions. She told me that prisoner said she would not give her a bed to sleep on; I never heard her ask. She told me she had never known what it was to lie on a bed since she had been in prisoner's service. I never heard prisoner tell Livingstone that she ought to go to the infirmary and offer to pay for a cab to take her there. I did not hear Living-stone
reply that she would not go to the infirmary, because if she did they would give her a bath; she always said she would go if she had clothes to go in. I do not know what object prisoner could have had in wanting to keep Livingstone in the house, but she did not seem very anxious to get her to go into the infirmary. Livingstone was certainly of no use as a servant. I suppose prisoner did not want her to go to the infirmary while she was in such a filthy condition, because she said "it would show her up." That is not an expression arranged between me and Stevenson; it is what prisoner said herself. I told prisoner that if there was an inquest there would be trouble, because Stevenson and I would have to attend. I said that because Stevenson and I were fellow-servants at the house; Mason was another fellow-servant. I did not mention her because I did not think of it. I had not been talking things over with Stevenson. Stevenson had had his wages reduced, and I had had mine reduced—we were both indignant about it. At Christmas time Livingstone could just wash her face; others had to help to keep her clean; she smelt horrible. At Easter she was worse; she was not able to go to the w. c. at all; I did not help to keep her clean; she smelt too horrible for anybody to touch her. Prisoner never accused me of stealing a ring or other things belonging to her daughter. She never suggested such a thing as this never happened; it is not this that has made me bitter against her; I have no bitterness against her. Livingstone was an old woman of nearly 80, a very small, thin, shrivelled up old woman. When I used to help wash her she cried out with pain; she could not bear anyone to touch her. On the Wednesday or Thursday after Easter I stayed up till 12 at night washing her. Stevenson and Mason helped me to lift her off one chair to another. When, on April 30, Dr. Gregory and the relieving officer called, the doctor asked me if it was I who had called at his house the night before, and I said I had not been near his house. That was untrue; I said it because Dr. Gregory was cross; I do not say that I said it because I was frightened of losing my situation &c. I did not want to leave just then. At that time I knew the old woman was dying downstairs; I heard prisoner say that she only had a cold; I did not contradict it.
Inspector HENRY PATTERSON , F Division, deposed that on April 29, about 10.30 p.m., Ada Mantle and her father came to Kensington Police Station and made a statement as to Livingstone. Witness referred them to the relieving officer, Dr. Campian.
EDWARD THOMAS GREGORY , M.R.C.S., District Medical Officer of Health, Kensington. On the night of April 29 I was out; on my return I was told that Ada Mantle and her father had called and left a message with reference to the woman Livingstone. On the following morning I called at 14, Nevern Place, in company with Mr. Reid, the assistant relieving officer. The door was opened by prisoner; I said, "I have come to see Mrs. Livingstone"; prisoner said, "There is nobody here of that name; who are you?" I said, "I am the district medical officer, and this is the assistant relieving officer; I have had information left at my house that there is somebody here ill, of
the name of Livingstone, living with Mrs. Blackburn"; she replied, "I am Mrs. Blackburn; you mean the old woman in the kitchen; she has only had a cold, and is very much better." She then asked me inside. I said, "If this woman has nothing the matter with her, I should like to know who has given this information"; she said it must be one of the boarders; I said, "I have reason to believe it is your servant; can I see her?" Ada Mantle was then sent for, and I asked her if she had left the message at my house, and she denied it. I asked prisoner if I should see Mrs. Livingstone; she replied, "No, she is very much better; she has only had a cold; I am giving her milk and eggs." I then instructed her how to proceed in future should Livingstone require poor law relief, and left the house.
Cross-examined. I do not know that I discussed with prisoner about getting people into the infirmary; I do not think she said, "Tell me, can I send this old woman to the workhouse without her consent?" I did tell her that she could not send the woman against her will, but that was not in answer to any suggestion of hers; she did not tell me that the old Woman did not want to go; she did not say that the old woman suffered from varicose veins; when she told me that the old woman had had a cold I did not say, "You cannot send people into the infirmary for a cold." The cause of death was heart failure; it may be that medically ignorant people would be unable to diagnose such a case; a person may have a weak heart without knowing it. Bronchitis may cause weakness of the heart; to the medically ignorant person, a cough would be the most notable symptom of bronchitis; there would also be shortness of breath, wheezing, and expectoration; such symptoms would not, to a medically ignorant person, necessarily suggest a bad heart. I do now think that prisoner when she saw me knew that Livingstone was much worse than would be implied by "a cold" in the ordinary acceptation of the term.
CHANTRY GEORGE REID , Assistant Relieving Officer, Kensington, confirmed Dr. Gregory's account of the interview with prisoner on April 30; further, he stated that during this year no application for relief had been made for anyone at 14, Nevern Place, except the one by Ada Mantle and her father on April 29.
WILLIAM STEVENSON . I first entered prisoner's service in May, 1906, and stayed till November, 1907. At that time Ada Mantle used to come on and off; there was a German waiter there for two weeks; Mrs. Livingstone used to do the cooking; Miss Mason did the needlework. I looked after the rooms upstairs; I slept in the pantry at the back, close to the kitchen, on a camp bed. Livingstone, during the year and a half I was there, slept on the floor in the kitchen. I left in November, 1907, and went back in February of this year; between those dates I occasionally looked in to see Livingstone, taking her some tea and sugar. In February she was in very bad health, much worse than in November; she could walk about the kitchen, but not much; she could not get upstairs. She slept on a chair in the kitchen. She did not look very clean. She
complained of pains and varicose veins. My duties were chiefly upstairs, so that Ada Mantle was in the kitchen much more than I was. After Good Friday, Livingstone did not walk about or leave the kitchen at all; she sat in the chair all the time. We none of us had enough to eat; I used to buy food out of my wages. I gave Livingstone part of what I had, and Miss Adams came once a week and gave her something. A week before she died Living-stone was moved from the chair where she had been to a bedstead chair. She was very stiff, and every time I moved her she screamed out. On the bedstead-chair there was put a piece of oilcloth at the bottom. On moving her the smell was very bad. The last time I saw her out of the chair at all was a month before she died. No doctor was ever called in to see her. I spoke to prisoner about it. I said, "If you don't get a doctor while I am here, and Sarah was to die, I shall get into a row as well as yourself." Several weeks before the death I had spoken to prisoner, and said, "Sarah is getting very bad, why don't you send her to the infirmary, or something?" I have said, "shall I got?" and she has replied, "If it is necessary I will get a doctor myself." Eventually I got sick of the situation; there was too much work to do, and I gave prisoner a week's notice. I left the day before Livingstone died. During the last week prisoner gave Living-stone different food, patent groats, eggs, and milk.
Cross-examined. It is not the fact that prisoner turned me out of the house, or that I used filthy and abominable language to her; I went of my own accord. During my stay from May, 1906, to November, 1907, I had not been well treated. My wages were 7s. 6d. a week. I left of my own accord. There was too much work, too Many smells in the kitchen, and not enough to eat. The smells were then from the cats, not from Livingstone. I got a situation with a colonel. He gave me notice because I was not big enough. The very day I left him I went back to prisoner. I did not want to be out of work. I went back at 5s. a week wages. Prisoner said she would treat me proper in the future; she said she could not afford to pay me more than 5s. I know Miss Arnold, who was one of the boarders. Between the second and third hearings at the police-court I spoke to her about this case. I did not say that I was glad to get my revenge Mrs. Blackburn. I said she had had her turn on me, and I should like to have my turn on her. I have put down what I said in my book.(After referring.) I am wrong; this is about Mrs. Norris. I also spoke to a young girl named Rose, now a servant with prisoner. I did not tell her that she ought not to be in service there because her mistress would soon be in prison. I said, "Mrs. Black-burn will get into a row, and I should not stop there." I say that Livingstone was kept short of food Until three weeks before she died. she had two friends who used to come to see her. Miss Adams came once or twice a week and Mrs. Norris occasionally. Miss Adams offered to take her away for a week or two until she could arrange to go into the infirmary. That offer, so far as I know, was open until she died. I do not know why she did not accept it. Mrs. Norris used to tell Livingstone that she ought to go into the infirmary. On one
occasion prisoner offered to pay for a cab for Livingstone to go to the infirmary. I did not hear Livingstone say that she would not go because if she did they would put her in a bath. I did not hear her say that if she went to a doctor he would cut her about and hurt her. I cannot say whether she ever complained of having to sleep in the kitchen. So far as I could tell, prisoner was sorry for Livingstone, and the last week or so she did what she could for her. I used some times to sit by Livingstone's side and try to get round her. I would say, "Sarah, if I was you I would go to the infirmary, instead of having this kind of game here." She would simply say, "Shut up." She hated the notion of the infirmary.
(Friday, July 24.)
WILLIAM STEVENSON , recalled, further cross-examined. I got better food during my second period of service with prisoner than at first. Some food was kept in the dining room cupboard. I had not a key that fitted it during the first time I was in her service, but I found a key the second time. I did not take the key away with me when I left the first time and bring it back with me. It is not a fact that there were two chambers in the kitchen for the use of Living-stone. I never saw one. I never asked for one for her, nor did Mantle.
Cross-examined. There were not two kept in a cupboard in the dresser. I never asked for one. It would have been no use my asking, as prisoner would have taken no notice of me. It is not a fact that I left my father's house after Easter because he said he would not have me coming in late. I was there for six days. My father did not turn me out; he told me to find lodgings. At Christmas time he told me, if I could not come in at a proper time I should live out. I was late because I went to music-halls and that sort of thing. I came in about 11.30 or 11.45 p.m. I went to the second house at the music hall; I preferred that.
Re-examined. When I left my father's I shared lodgings with my brother's young lady.
Inspector WILLIAM DAVIES , M Division. On May 7, at 10.15 p.m., I received information of the death of Sarah Livingstone from James Mantle, father of the last witness. I went to 14, Nevern Place that night and saw prisoner. I asked her if an old lady of the name of Sarah Livingstone had died there that day. She said, "Yes." I asked her if she had had a doctor to her. She said, "Yes." I asked her who that doctor was. She said, "Dr. Blackburn, my husband." I asked to see him. She told me he did not live there, but at Kennington. I asked at that time if Dr. Blackburn would give a certificate of death. She told me that Livingstone had been in her service for a number of years and that she had been in a feeble state for some time, but that she had done very little work for some time. I
asked her why she kept her there and the said, "More to please the old girl than anything else, as she had an aversion to going into the infirmary." I informed the coroner's officer.
Cross-examined. I did not see the body. Prisoner answered all my questions readily.
CHARLES HOLLAND , 299 F. I act as coroner's officer for Kensington. I received information of the death of Livingstone on May 8 from the police at Kensington Police Station and went to see the prisoner at Nevern Place. I told her I had received information respecting the death. She said that the deceased had been under Dr. Blackburn's care for some time. I then asked her if she had a certificate of death and she handed me this.(Produced.) (Same read: "I certify that I attended Sarah Livingstone during her last illness, that such person's age was stated to be 80, that I last saw her alive on March 14, 1908, that she died on May 7, 1908, at 14, Nevern Place, S. W., and that to the best of my knowledge and belief the cause of her death was as hereinunder written. Cause of death, primary: cardiac disease; secondary: heart failure. Witness my hand this May 7, 1908, H. B. Blackburn. Qualification as registered by Medical Council, M. R. C. S., L. S. A." I told prisoner I should retain the certificate till I had presented the report to the coroner, which I did. I then asked to see the body. She took me to the basement and I there saw the body on a single bed in a small room close to the kitchen, with a sheet over it. The body was partially clothed. It had on a black silk bodice, one petticoat, and a pair of white stockings with the tops cut off. The body was very dirty and verminous, sad the smell was overpowering. I was shown in the kitchen a chair bedstead, and prisoner said that was the chair that the deceased had been sitting upon. It was then folded up. She further said that deceased had been in her service for about five years, that she had done odd jobs, and that she had not paid her any wages for some long period, except giving her a penny or two at a time; she said that was because deceased was addicted to drink. She said she saw her on one occasion the worse for drink when she fell down the area steps. I asked prisoner if deceased had any personal property, and she said that her wearing apparel was given to her by outside friends. I asked her if Ada Mantle had said anything to her about deceased's health, and she said all that she was told was that she appeared funny. I asked her if any medical man had seen Livingstone, and she said the parish doctor had called, but she knew what he had called for and she did not let him see the deceased; the reason was she had only a slight cold. I made a note of this conversation, but I have not the note here. The body was removed the next day by the coroner's order. I was present at the postmortem examination by Dr. Spilsbury.
Cross-examined. Prisoner told me that she asked Dr. Gregory if he could get the deceased into the infirmary and she said that Dr. Gregory's reply was that she would have to go at her own wish; that meant that the parish doctor could not make her go, nor Mrs. Black-burn. I did not bring my note, because it is made for the coroner,
and I did not think it was necessary. Amongst those notes there is the original note of what William Stevenson told me. The original notes are kept at the coroner's office. The coroner's instructions to me are, if they are required, it is for his Lordship to direct that they are to be used, and if so, to subpoena the clerk to produce them. I remember the coroner at the inquest asking Stevenson why he was telling another tale to what he had told me.
Re-eximined. I have not been asked before for my notes by any-body. (Witness was directed to fetch his notes).
BERNARD HENRY SPILSBURY . I am a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery and Pathologist at St. Mary's Hospital. By direction of the coroner I made a post-mortem examination on the body of Sarah Livingstone on May 11. I have my notes here. I found an exceedingly emaciated woman, abdomen sunken in and rigor mortis absent; externally there was extreme filthiness with caked faecal matter; the skin between the toes was filled with dirt and the toe nails projected half an inch beyond the extremities of the toes. The body swarmed with vermin and the odour was abominable. That odour was not due to postmortem decay; it was due to the putrid condition of ulcers on the body. I found eight ulcers; one was on the lower part of the back and one on the left buttock, which are commonly called bed-sores. There was one large ulcer nearly surrounding the left leg above the ankle, about four inches wide; that was very filthy. It was old in character; it had probably been there for at least three weeks, or it might have been a longer period; it may have been months. There was an ulcer on the left heel and one on the instep of the right foot, and two small ulcers above the right ankle. They were what are called varicose ulcers, due to disease of the varicose veins. The want of being cleansed very greatly aggravated them, but had they been dressed, then the best thing for her would have been rest. I found the ulcers covered with skin, and a white powder had been sprinkled over them, but there was no evidence of any cleansing or any surgical dressing ever having been applied. Varicose ulcers in themselves do not cause any serious injury to health if they are kept clean. The cause of death, in my opinion, was chronic blood poisoning, set up of the ulcers, leading to death from syncope. I found there was old disease of the heart muscle. The chronic blood poisoning was chiefly responsible for it: the ulcers caused blood poisoning, the blood poisoning caused heart disease, and the heart disease caused death. I found nothing else that would account for death. It is difficult to fix the length of time the heart disease had been existing. With an extremely old woman there is always a certain amount of heart disease or heart muscle degeneration. A bad atmosphere would tend to cause the ulcers to spread and by becoming foul they would set up blood poisoning. I should think for three weeks before death there had been no cleanliness of the deceased. I think for three weeks the whole of her evacuations had been accumulating. This is entirely consistent with her having sat in a chair for three weeks without moving and having passed her motions as she sat in the chair. It is usual to find wasting with an old woman of from seventy-five to
eighty years of age, but in this case the wasting was certainly extreme. I could not say that she had died of starvation, but when a person dies of starvation there is a wasting of the organs which I found here, also emptiness of the alimentary canal, which I also found here. In my opinion medical attention a week before her death would have prolonged her life, but I think it is very improbable that it would have saved it. There was a certain amount of chronic bronchitis: that is usual with old people. I do not think in this case that can be regarded as a contributory cause of death. One of the witnesses said that the deceased could not bear to be touched on her arms. That might have been rheumatism or nervousness, or an extreme degree of feebleness.
Cross-examined. I made my examination four days and six hours after death. People who die of blood poisoning decompose more rapidly than people who die from other diseases. The blood poisoning in this case was chronic, that is, it had lasted for periods of weeks, possibly for months. She may have suffered from ulcers for many years. Every time she had an ulcer it would tend to impoverish her blood. I cannot say whether the deceased, supposing she had had full possession of her faculties, was a clean person. Every time she had ulcers it would tend temporarily to weaken her heart, but it would recover its strength. I do not think she was in a condition, considering her age, that her heart might have given out at any time without some disease in addition that would have further affected the heart. It is possible that a shock may have caused her death, but it is not probable. To a non-medical person the bronchitis from which she suffered would be, apart from her weakness, her most noticeable ailment, and therefore it would not be misleading for a non-medical person to say she was suffering from a cold.
Re-examined. I do not think deceased can, on April 30, have appeared as a person who was only suffering from a cold. In my opinion she did not die from heart failure following chronic bronchitis.
Sergeant EDWARD WILLIAMS , F Division. On June 1 last I was at the Coroner's Court, Kensington, and there told the prisoner that I should take her to the police-station on a charge of manslaughtering Sarah Livingstone. She turned to her daughter, and said, "I have to go the police-station." On the way there she said, "This is all through being kind to keep her out of the infirmary."
Mr. Doughty submitted there was no case on which the jury could find a verdict against the prisoner; but his Lordship thought he could not keep it from the jury.
Mr. Travers Humphreys said that if the jury considered that at that time, although the prisoner was wrong in not calling in a doctor to see the deceased, yet that she acted in the mistaken impression that she had done all she possibly could in providing a cab to take the deceased to the infirmary, and that it was the deceased's determination not to go to the infirmary that prevented her going, it would be difficult to ask the jury to convict the prisoner of manslaughter, which was the only charge here.
Verdict, Not guilty, but deserving of severe censure.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Thursday, July 23.)
Mr. Faussett prosecuted; Mr. Sidney Williams defended.
JOHN HEYWOOD , 134, Pendevon Road, West Croydon, stock taker and gauger. On the night of June 21 I had been to the "Cecil Hotel" to see a friend of mine. I left there about 10 minutes past one and went to the Embankment, where I sat down, near St. Thomas's Hospital. There was an old man sitting at the other end of the seat with his legs wrapped round with some newspapers, apparently asleep. Prisoner and two other men came along from the direction of West-minster Bridge. Prisoner snatched a paper from the old man's legs. I got up to go away. Prisoner came up to me and wanted to know what the——my business was. Before I had time to reply I received a blow in the mouth which knocked me down. I had hardly time to pick myself up before I was knocked down again by prisoner. I got up and tried to defend myself, calling loudly at the same time for the police, but prisoner was too good for me and knocked me down a third time. Prisoner said, "I will give you—police," and tried to throw me into the river. He got me to the Embankment wall, and then the other two men claimed me. If he had wanted to heave me over, I would have had to go; I could not help myself. The three of them had a mill over my body for a minute or two. Then the other two men got me and put me on the seat again, at the same time saying to prisoner, "They call you the b—y mad sailor, and, God blind me, that is what you are." The three of them then moved a little away from the seat and talked among themselves for a minute or two. Then one of them threw my tobacco box to me saying, it was no b—y good to them. The box must have been taken from my pocket or have fallen out. It was empty when I got it back. I found my money was gone. It had been in my waistcoat pocket. I did not feel anyone take it out. I had the money when I left the Hotel Cecil. I gave the porter at the door 1s., and put the rest back into my pocket. After the men had gone. I went down the Embankment as quickly as I could, and near Lambeth Bridge I met a constable, to whom I related what had occurred. He hurried back with me, and when we came up to prisoner I gave him into custody. Prisoner was then talking to a woman on another seat. The old man with the papers round his legs had bolted off. Prisoner was sober. I do not recollect him making any statement.
Cross-examined. I had spent 17s. at the Hotel Cecil. I was going to spend the night with a Dr. Dadd in Kennington, as I was too late to get my train, which goes at 12.15. I was very tired and in pain, as I had not my truss with me. I am not aware that June 21 was the first quarter of the moon. It was quite light on the Embankment; the lamps were alight. I should not have chosen any dark place to sit down. As to the money, I did not realise my loss until
my tobacco pouch had been thrown at me. When arrested prisoner may have said, "Have not you made a mistake?" I started to run because I was anxious to get out of the neighbourhood, and when I realised my loss I was anxious to get a constable and shouted for a constable. I do not know whether the police have tried to find the old man with the newspapers round his knees. I have had no communication with the police about it. When I returned with the policeman prisoner did not make any attempt to run away; it would have been foolish for him to do so. The policeman's uniform would be distinctly visible. I was at the station when he was searched. He said, "You have made a mistake, governor." Fourpence-halfpenny was found on him. I do not think prisoner was the man who took my money, but I am certain he is the man who assaulted me. I think the money was taken from me in the struggle. One man had me round the shoulders.
Dr. CHARLES THORPE , acting divisional surgeon, Kennington Road Police Station. On the morning of June 21 I examined prosecutor at the station about two o'clock. Both his lips were considerably bruised, as if he had been struck in the face. One blow would have been sufficient to cause the injuries, but there might have been more than one. I also examined prisoner. On the knuckle of the right index finger there were slight abrasions, which might have been caused by some sharp instrument. He was sober.
Cross-examined. The abrasion would correspond to the marks made by teeth.
Constable ALBERT PAYNE , 263 L. On the morning of June 21 I was on duty in Lambeth Palace Road, about quarter to two, when Heywood ran up to me. I proceeded with him back along the Albert Embankment, and we met prisoner alone, walking in the direction of Lambeth Bridge. I stopped him and told him prosecutor accused him of assaulting him. There were two other men talking to a woman on one of the seats. Prisoner, in reply said, "You have made a mistake." I took him into custody, and on searching him at the station found on him 4 1/2 d. in coin. I examined his hands. There were blood-stained marks on the first finger of the right hand. I asked him how he came by them and he could give no account of it. It was on the way to the station that prosecutor first said he had been robbed of £4 2s. Prisoner was then charged with robbery with violence and made no reply to the charge.
Cross-examined. Prisoner in the first instance only complained of the assault, and when I stopped prisoner I told him he would be charged with assault. Prosecutor was apparently sober, not excited, but quite calm. He had been running, no doubt. We passed two or three persons before we met prisoner. Prosecutor looked carefully at them as we walked along, and finally identified prisoner. He failed to identify the other two men. There are about 19 seats between Westminster and Lambeth Bridges, and where we saw prisoner would be about 300 yards away from where prosecutor says he was assaulted. Prosecutor might have seen that there was blood on prisoner's hand before he charged him.
HARVEY HILLIER (prisoner, on oath). I live at 19, Portland Cottages, Wandsworth Road. I did not assault prosecutor. I am a gas stoker. At half-past one in the morning of June 21 I was coming along the Embankment going home. I was by myself. Prosecutor and the constable came up to me and charged me with assaulting prosecutor. I told the constable he had made a mistake, and that I had never seen prosecutor before. The constable then said I would have to go to the station, where I was charged with assault and robbery. Fourpence-halfpenny was found on me. I had a slight scratch on the right hand. I had had a little pimple which I had scratched. I saw a woman sitting on the third seat from Lambeth Bridge. Prosecutor said he had been robbed along the Embankment, but did not point to any particular place.
Cross-examined. I had been intending that evening to go to Canning Town to see a friend of mine, but when I got as far as Blackfriars Bridge I made up my mind to go back again, and was walking home when arrested. It was a fine night. I did not meet anybody on the way that I knew. I did not see an old man with newspapers round his legs.
Constable PAYNE, recalled. Before prisoner was charged I went down the Embankment with prosecutor to see if we could find the money. There were other people on the Embankment, the night being fine.
Verdict, Not Guilty.
UNDERWOOD, Septimus Rowland (35, "lawyer") ; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for the payment of £10, with intent to defraud.
Mr. Croom Johnson prosecuted.
ANNIE CARTER , 73, Penard Road, Shepherd's Bush. I know prisoner, who is an American and first lodged with me about two years ago. After that he left to go to America. I saw him on his return in January or February of this year. He stayed with me a short time and then went away again to return to America. I last saw prisoner on Saturday, March 14. On the previous day he had given me a cheque for £10, signed "E. A. Underwood," and asked me if I could cash it for him. I said, No, I could not. He told me he had got it from his brother at Aldershot. I told him I would try to get it cashed, and took it round to my grocer, Mr. Bates. He would always cash any cheques for me. He gave me £7 on the Friday evening and the other £3 on the Saturday morning. I handed the money to prisoner as I received it. When he left me on the Saturday morning I understood he was going away to America. He had a rug on his arm and some books. I did not myself have any of the £10.
To Prisoner. You stated when you came to live with me the second time that you had come over from America with the specific purpose of getting some more money from your brother to enable
you to carry on your business. You did not show me the draft produced. You told me that when you had finished your business you were going back. You told me your brother at Aldershot had refused to let you have any more money. I do not remember you telling me that he had treated you very badly. I did not see you sign the cheque you handed to me.
ERNEST A. UNDERWOOD , 34, Grosvenor Road, Aldershot, grocer and provision dealer. Prisoner is my brother and came to see me some time in March, after he had come back from America. He asked me to lend him some money. I told him I could not do so. I had a reason for declining. My attention was drawn to the cheque produced (dated March 11) about March 25 by my banker. It is not signed by me, but the signature slightly resembles mine. I bank at the London and County, Aldershot branch, but the cheque is on a Farnborough form. I had not authorised anybody to sign my name to that particular cheque. It is payable to my brother, and endorsed "S.R. Underwood." The order produced for two cheque forms to be handed to bearer, purporting to be signed by me, it also a forgery.
To Prisoner. I did not send you any money out to Canada, but I paid your passage out there. When you called at my house you did not show me a draft for £1,000. I instructed my bankers not to cash a draft which came through my bank before you came home. I was asked if I would meet it or knew anything about it, and I said "No." I told my bankers I would not be responsible for anything but what I wrote myself.
To the Court. The draft was drawn on me by my brother.
MICHAEL F. BATE , managing director of M. G. Bate, Limited, grocers, 76, Goldhawk Road. Shepherd's Bush. My manager received the cheque produced from Mrs. Carter. It was passed through our bank and returned marked, "Signature differs."
PETER GEORGE DIBDIN , refreshment caterer, 51, High Street, Aldershot, proved handing two cheques on the Farnborough branch of the London and County Bank to prisoner, who represented himself to be Mr. E. A. Underwood's brother, in exchange for the forged order which was contained in the letter. Prisoner handed witness two pennies to pay for the stamps.
GEOFFRY FRANCIS LOXDALE . solicitor, 13, Copthall Avenue. On June 29 prisoner called on me with the bill produced, drawn on a Canadian bank. He was a stranger to me. He told me he drew the bill himself. I told him I could not understand how it could be worth anything. I asked him if E. A. Underwood owed him money, and he said "No." I took it across to a bank manager, with whom I left it. I had already learned something of the £10 cheque transaction through a firm of solicitors with whom I was. I mentioned that to prisoner, and he said he had heard about it, and that was the first inkling I had that he was the same man. I pressed him as to what he had heard about it, but he would not tell me. I informed the solicitors, and proceedings were taken, which resulted in his arrest.
To Prisoner. You asked me if the draft was a document that could be collected, and I told you I did not think it was of any value.
Detective BENJAMIN ALLERTON , City Police. I saw prisoner on July 1 at Moor Lane Police Station, where he was detained, and charged him with forging the draft. I subsequently charged him at Shepherd's Bush Police Station. He said, "This is an impossible charge. The signature is my brother's." He wrote a statement in the cells, which I produce.
Sergeant ALFRED GODLEY , M Division, proved that on March 22, 1904, prisoner was sentenced to three years' penal servitude at North London Sessions by Mr. Loveland-Loveland for obtaining money by false pretences. He had advertised in various papers for travellers, and had obtained from £25 to £30 from each of a number of persons as security. He represented that he was managing a business in Clerkenwell Green, and when these persons got there they found there was no employment. Prisoner was released on July 5, 1906, and his sentence would expire on March 21, 1907. He was allowed to report by letter instead of personally at the police station, and so far as the authorities were concerned every chance was given him. He went to America and returned just before his ticket expired.
Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Thursday, July 23.)
Sentence, One month's imprisonment, second division.
MOORE, James (36, auctioneer and estate agent) ; having received certain property, to wit, the sum of £9 5s. of and belonging to Walter Bradshaw, for and on account of George Gibbons, unlawfully and fraudulently did convert the sum of £9 0s. 4d., part of the said property, to his own use and benefit; having received certain property, to wit, a valuable security, being a banker's cheque for the payment of £11 10s. of and belonging to Richard Baxter Vincent for and on account of George Gibbons, unlawfully and fraudulently did convert the sum of £11 4s. 3d., part of the proceeds of the said property, to his own use and benefit; having received a banker's cheque for the payment of £11 5s. of and belonging to Esther Ricardo for and on account of George Gibbons, unlawfully and fraudulently did convert the sum of £10 19s. 4d., part of the said property, to his own use and benefit; having received a banker's cheque for the payment of £8 7s. of and belonging to Esther Ricardo for and on account of George Gibbons, unlawfully and fraudulently did convert the sum of £8 2s. 9d., part of the said property, to his own use and benefit; having received the sum of £1 6s. of and belonging to Edmund Soman, for and on account of George Gibbons, unlawfully and fraudulently did convert the sum of £1 5s. 4d., part of the said property, to his own use and benefit; having received the sum of £1 6s. of and belonging to Edmund Soman for and on account of George Gibbons, unlawfully and fraudulently did convert the sum of £1 5s. 4d., part of the said property, to his own use and benefit; having received the sum of £20 6s. of and belonging to Edmund Soman, for and on account of George Gibbons, unlawfully and fraudulently did convert the sum of £19 15s. 10d., part of the said property, to his own use and benefit; having received the sum of 15s. of and belonging to Elizabeth Carlton, for and on account of George Gibbons, unlawfully and fraudulently did convert the sum of 14s. 7d., part of the said property, to his own use and benefit; having received the sum of 15s. of and belonging to Elizabeth Carlton, for and on account of George Gibbons, unlawfully and fraudulently did convert the sum of 14s. 7d., part of the said property, to his own use and benefit; having received the sum of £18 15s. of and belonging to Elizabeth Carlton, for and on account of George Gibbons, unlawfully and fraudulently did convert the sum of £18 5s. 7d., part of the said property, to his own use and benefit; having received the sum of £2 10s., of and belonging to Daniel Neale, for and on account of George Gibbons, unlawfully and fraudulently did convert the sum of £2 8s. 9d., part of the said property, to his own use and benefit; having received the sum of £1 4s. of and belonging to Daniel Neale, for and on account of George Gibbons, unlawfully and fraudulently did convert the sum of £1 3s. 4d., part of the said property, to his own use and benefit.
Mr. Graham Mould prosecuted; Mr. Eustace Fulton defended.
GEORGE GIBBONS , 107, East Road, Hoxton, bonnet shape maker. I first made the acquaintance of prisoner about two years ago, and appointed him my agent to collect rents for Nos. 15, 17, and 19, King's Road, Clissold Park, and Nos. 27 and 28, Queen's Road, Clissold Park, these premises being owned by me. I gave the prisoner a paying-in book, and he was to pay all moneys collected into the bank and render an account as soon as possible after the quarter-day. He had never paid any money direct into the bank, but had handed it to me and rendered an account. I also arranged that prisoner should pay all rates and taxes and outgoings for repairs in connection with my property. I received the first account and cheque to balance about May 4 or 5, 1907, and the second a few days after July 30. The last account I received was in respect of rents for August, September, and October, and in that statement two items were mentioned: "Neale's account to follow," and "Post-dated cheque, £11 5s., Ricardo, in hand." I received a letter at the same time stating that Ricardo's cheque was post-dated November 23, but
have received no further statement with regard to Neale's account, or with regard to any of my property, since about November 20, although prisoner still continued to collect my rents. I wrote several times for further accounts, but was unable to get them. I have not kept copies of the letters I wrote and am unable to give the dates. I also called on several occasions at his place of business and residence, but could not see the prisoner. I did get one reply to my letters, I think, on April 3, 1908, stating that he would call on that date, but he did not do so. He did call on Wednesday, April 8, about seven o'clock. I was ill at the time. I asked him why he had not been to see me before or render an account. He replied, "I was too much ashamed to come and see you." I asked him why he had not answered my letters, and he said he had made away with the money. I asked him how, and he said by speculation. I told him the amount was £70 and asked what he was going to do in the matter. He said he would let me have £25 on Monday and a statement, because I wanted to know how I stood. I received no money or statement, and that was the last I saw of him. On the following Wednesday I went round to my tenants and told them not to pay any more rents to the prisoner, and on April 15 instructed my solicitors to apply for the amount owing to me.
Cross-examined. I received the accounts regularly up to November and expected another shortly after Christmas, but did not see anything of the prisoner until April. I first became anxious about my account at the end of February or the beginning of March. I admit I instructed the prisoners clerk, or Mrs. Moore, that there would be another account to collect in connection with another house which I had just let. I did not make any serious attempt to see the prisoner alter business hours, but called at least half a dozen times during the day. I had an appointment on April 8 at six o'clock in the City, the date when prisoner said he would see me and had to send an express messenger down, as he did not turn up, to say I would see him on Saturday. I was not on friendly terms with him when he called to see me on Monday, and do not believe I shook hands with him. He did not tell me he had been very busy, but seemed thoroughly ashamed of himself, nor did he say he would pay me as soon as he got the account out. I did not tell him not to collect my accounts any more, because I still expected the money. When no money came I went to see my solicitor. My solicitor wrote applying for the money. Here was no reply, and the following week I saw my solicitor again and went with him to the North London Police Court. I applied for a summons, which the magistrate refused. He said I could lock prisoner up and take the responsibility. I then had prisoner arrested between five and six o'clock on Saturday evening. I did not see prisoner's wife except at the police station, and she then said, "Here is some of the money, and I will give you the remainder some other day." I said, "I cannot take it, it is too late."
Re-examined. No money was offered to me previous to prisoner's arrest. I had nothing to do with the particular time at which he was arrested. A detective was sent with me by the sergeant in charge
at the police-station, and after waiting about three hours round prisoner's house we did not see him. The detective then saw prisoner's wife and made an appointment, and that is all I know about the matter. I had no particular motive in my method of prosecuting the prisoner.
Mrs. SARAH SOMAN , 17, King's Road, Stoke Newington, wife of Edmund Soman, boot manufacturer, tenant of George Gibbons. I have known prisoner as collector of George Gibbons' rents since May, 1907. I have paid the rent to him down to March of this year. Up to December my rent was 26s. per week, but since then it has been 15s. I have paid the prisoner from October 1 to March 3 £22 18s. I did not always pay the full sum weekly, but the account was properly settled in March.
Cross-examined. The rates on 17, King's Road amounted to £6 13s. 10d. for the half year. Very little repairs were done from September to March by the prisoner's orders, but one or two small things. The water rate for the premises amounts to £1 2s. 2d. for the half year, and there were gas repairs amounting to 6s. or 7s., which I paid, and which prisoner allowed for.
Re-examined. I cannot say whether the rates were paid by prisoner; I usually took the demand notes down to him. Once after I had taken the demand note for the water rate to prisoner it was not paid at the proper time, and I had a further application, and as the house was in my name I had to pay the amount £1 2s. 2d. myself. That was about the second week in March. No one was collecting the rent at this particular time.
Mrs. ELIZABETH CARLTON , 19, King's Road, Stoke Newington. I am a widow and a tenant of Mr. George Gibbons. I have paid as rent to prisoner, as agent for George Gibbons, £20 5s. from the end of September to March 25. My rent is 15s. per week, collected monthly. In April last I was served with a distress warrant in respect of the rates for the quarter ending March 25, amounting to £6 16s. 4d. on April 24. My agreement with the landlord was that he should pay all rates. I took the summons to Mr. Ringwood, who had been appointed in place of the prisoner to collect Mr. Gibbons's rents, and he paid the amount due. It should have been paid some time before. Cross-examined. I have never before received a summons in respect of rates while prisoner was collecting the rents. Mr. Ringwood was at this time collecting.
EMMANUEL RICARDO , wholesale jeweller, 15, King's Road, Stoke Newington. I am a tenant of George Gibbons, and knew prisoner as rent collector for the landlord. I gave prisoner a post-dated cheque for £11 5s., dated November 20, drawn by my wife is payment of rest. The cheque was presented and paid on November 21. I did not give a cheque post-dated November 23. I also handed prisoner a cheque for £8 7s., dated March 12, 1908, for rent due December 25. The cheque was presented and paid on March 12.
Cross-examined. I always made my cheques payable to prisoner in the ordinary way, and post-dated them if necessary.
Mrs. REBECCA BRADSHAW , 27, Queen's Road, Stoke Newington, wife of Walter Bradshaw, a tenant of George Gibbons. I have known prisoner as rent collector for the landlord. On February 8, 1908, I paid the prisoner £9 5s. in cash for one quarters rent due at Christmas.
Cross-examined. The full quarter's rent is £11 5s., but the King's taxes amount to £2, which I paid and deducted, and have the receipt for.
DANIEL NEALE , 19, King's Road, Stoke Newington. I am a tenant of George Gibbons, and have known prisoner as rent collector. I paid him £2 10s. on August 8 and £1 4s. on September 21 on account of my rent. My rent was 12s. per week. I also paid prisoner 12s. on March 7. I have not paid my rent regularly. I have a rent book which I asked prisoner for repeatedly, but was unable to obtain.
Cross-examined. It was not on account of prisoner keeping my book that I was irregular with my payments. The landlord once took possession prior to this case on account of my not paying the rent.
NATHANIEL MERES FOWLER , clerk, in the employ of the solicitors acting for the prosecutor. I wrote the letter of April 15 on behalf of George Gibbons, giving prisoner one week in which to make an account payment, and posted it.
Detective JOHN CLARK , N Division. On May 9 I arrested prisoner at his address in Clarence Terrace, Church Street, Stoke Newington. When I arrested him I told him the charge. He said: "I cannot understand why Mr. Gibbons should have me arrested; it is simply a matter of account. If Mr. Gibbons will withdraw the charge I can find the money to pay him; it is only between £40 and £50. when can I see Mr. Gibbons." I said: "You will see him shortly." Prisoner asked me: "When was the information laid for my warrant." I said: "You are not arrested on the warrant, you are arrested under the Larceny Act of 1901." At the station prisoner said to Gibbons: "It is very vindictive on your part to have me charged." Gibbons replied: "You had no mercy on me, I will not have any on you." When prisoner was charged he said: "Can I see my solicitor."
Cross-examined. I was not instructed in the ordinary course by my superior officer to arrest prisoner, but acted on my own initiative. I have known prisoner as living at Clarence Terrace, Church Street, Stoke Newington, for some years, and he has never been charged with any offence before.
JAMES MOORE (prisoner, on oath). I have carried on business at 4, Clarence Terrace, Stoke Newington, for five years, under the name of James Moore and Co., as an auctioneer and estate agent. I was first instructed to collect rents for Gibbons about January, 1907. Following the usual practice in rent collecting, I used to allow three weeks' grace on quarterly collections, although sometimes the tenants take longer, and I was thus unable to render an account until seven or eight weeks after quarter-day to Gibbons. I receive all the rents from
the tenants and pay them into my own account, and then deduct such sums as have to be paid out, rates, taxes, repairs, fines, and commis sion, and draw a cheque in settlement, although I usually retain a certain sum in hand. There have been occasions, however, when Gibbons has owed me money on the account. On May 11, 1907, I sent Gibbons a cheque for the balance of account due to him, less a small sum which I kept in hand. That was in settlement of the March quarter. In August I sent another cheque for rents up to the June quarter, and on November 21 an account and cheque in settlement of the Michaelmas quarter, leaving everything straight up to that time. The next account should have been sent in some time in February. I had two applications about the beginning of February from Gibbons for an account, but owing to the serious illness of two of my children I was very worried. I had a sanitary notice served on me and my house and office had to be reconstructed. During this time I did not attend to my books properly and my accounts got into a muddle, but I did not anticipate any criminal action would be taken. I have no recollection of any requests for an account from Gibbons during this time. On one occasion I made an appointment, but he sent me an express letter stopping me. On April 8 I went to his house in the evening to see him. When I saw him in his shop on the ground floor I said: "I expect you are cross with me." He then asked me to go upstairs, which I did. He seemed very agitated and excited, but did not seem very ill. He said to me: "Why have not you rendered me an account." I said: "Well, Mr. Gibbons, I have been exceedingly worried with my domestic affairs," mentioning my children. I said I regretted exceedingly that I had not rendered an account. I did not say I was frightened or ashamed to come and see him. I told him that money was tight, but that I would send a cheque on the following Monday for £25, get out an account, and let him have the balance as quickly as possible. He was very friendly, and received my suggestion in a very friendly manner. He told me to continue collecting the rents, and I assumed he was perfectly satisfied with everything, with the exception of my not having rendered an account. We parted on perfectly friendly terms and shook hands. Some little time after my clerk told me that Gibbons had been to the office and used very abusive language. I was very annoyed at this, and said: "Let him wait for his account." I had no warning that any criminal action would be taken, but after a solicitor's letter applying for the money I was arrested at my own house. I did not see prosecutor at the time of my arrest. I was taken to the station and kept in the charge room for three hours waiting for prosecutor to charge me. When he came I said to him: "Mr. Gibbons, you do not mean to be so vindictive as to have me charged." He said: "You had no mercy on me, I will not have any on you. I have waited seven months for my money." He was very excited at the time. I was arrested on Saturday after banking hours and had no chance of getting bail and was kept in custody till the Monday.
Cross-examined. I could always have found the money and paid Gibbons if instead of taking proceedings at he did he had
waited till I had got my books out of the muddle they were in. The money was at the police court, but it was not allowed to be paid over. I have had no banking account since Christmas, but I could have got the money. I did not send the cheque for £25 I had promised on the Monday, because Gibbons had been round to my office while I was away on business and had used disgusting language and comported himself in a discourteous manner. On the following Wednesday when I received the solicitor's letter demanding the account, it was impossible owing to the state of my books to get it out accurately. I have been rather lax with my books, but that is the sole cause why the account has not been rendered. I assumed that the solicitors wanted a full statement of account, and that I could not get out. I could not send my own cheque for the £25 I had promised, but I could have raised it. At this time the collection had been taken out of my hands and I had not access to the rent books, which made it difficult for me to get out an account. I admit that some of the money had been in my possession since August, 1907. I have made no payment on account of Ricardo's post-dated cheque of November 20. I did not know how Neale's account stood, because he would never bring his receipts to me. His rent book, which he says he could not get from me, was mislaid and could not be found. With regard to the paragraph in my letter of November 20 that I had a post-dated cheque of Ricardo's of November 23, that is probably a clerical error. I have paid during the period when I rendered no account to Gibbons £6 13s. 10d. for rates in respect of 17, King's Road, and £5 12s. 6d. for repairs against the estate. I cannot give the date of payment of the £6 13s. 10d., but I paid it under pressure and out of respect for the occupier, because I was not collecting the rents at the time. I had heard that there was a distress warrant issued against the tenant. It was not my place to pay the amount, but the new collector's. I admit that rates are always applied for in advance, and these may have become due during the time I was collecting for Gibbons, but no demand note was sent to me. The collection of the rents was taken out of my hands after the end of March. I have not paid for any repairs in connection with the estate since the last account rendered, the only payments I have made being £6.13s. 10d. for rates and one or two small items and my commission would have to be taken off. I estimate the amount I owe Gibbons at the present time to be about £60, after deducting the amounts I have mentioned, and my commission of 2 1/2 per cent. I was never insolvent during the time of my connection with Gibbons. I had been in practice five years and had a good connection. I deny that I was spending prosecutor's money and consequently could not settle his account. I was rather pressed for money, but I had assets. I admit I was pressed for money in two quarters in February. If comGibbons had regarded this as a matter of account I should have paid him. I admit I was served with a County Court summons by a Dr. Griffin for rents which I collected for him, but owing to my books being in such a state I was unable to get out an account and pay him, but I intend doing so. I have not yet paid any money on the judgment
summons, which went against me by default, owing to my absence at Eastbourne, these proceedings having prevented my doing so. At the interview with Gibbons on April 8 I suggested to him that if he thought he was not going to get his money he could hold my property at Leytonstone as security. My property is mortgaged, but it has an equitable value, although I have not been able to realise owing to my present position. I did not say at the time that I was ashamed, because I intended to pay Gibbons and still intend to. I was trying to get my books straight at the time these proceedings were taken.
Re-examined. I collected a great number of accounts in the course of my business and the County Court summons by Dr. Griffin was the only other action ever taken against me for rent. My arrest has had the effect of thoroughly ruining me. I was offered £325 for my business and the negotiations were practically finished, but now my business has gone.
To the Court. I had no other business as rent collector beyond that of Mr. Gibbons and Dr. Griffin's at the time of my arrest, but I was in practice selling properties, letting properties, making valuations, and other business appertaining to an auctioneer's practice. I was also selling ground rents by private treaty. I have no bank book now, having closed my account with the bank in December last. I have not opened an account with any other bank since. I used to keep money at my house. My net profit from my business from the beginning of the year till the date of my arrest would be about £100 to £120. My business has been sold on the deferred payment system, and I have no books with me, because they went with the business.
Verdict: Guilty, "with a recommendation to mercy, because we think his domestic troubles have considerably influenced his disposition."
Sentence, Six weeks' imprisonment, second division.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Thursday, July 23.)
Mr. Dulley prosecuted.
JACOB LESHOSKY , 47, Red Lion Street, Hoxton, teacher of languages. Between 9 and 9.30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 16, I had just finished my teaching lessons, and was walking home through Red Lion Court. Davis was standing just by the corner of the public-house in the court, playing with some girls. I walked in the middle of the court, and as I passed he called me a Jewish bastard and twenty other damning names, but I did not care for that so long as he did not touch me. Davis followed me, and I ran for home. He
caught me up, and I stood and said, "What do you want of me? Do not touch me, because I am a neighbour in this country. I live here; I must go home." He did not care what I said. He gave me first a punch on my jaw and knocked out two teeth; then he tried to rob me of my chain, thinking it was gold. He did not get it, because I lifted up my umbrella to protect myself, and then after that the other prisoner came up and hit me right on my head. I could not see what it was he hit me with because it was dark, but I think it was a lump of iron. The hat produced to me is the one I was wearing at the time. On July 9 I identified Davis at Old Street Police Station. I did not pick out Kite because he was behind my back when he struck me. I have no doubt about Davis; I picked him out of about twelve or fourteen.
EDITH SUGAR (witness at first refused to give evidence). I am fourteen years of age, and live at 8, Pound's Buildings. About 9 p.m. on June 16 I was looking after a stall in Hoxton Street, near Red Lion Court. I heard a scream, and went down Red Lion Court and saw the injured man. Davis spoke a few words to him, and the injured man said a few words back, and Davis took off his belt and hit the injured man twice on the head; his head was bleeding. I never noticed the other prisoner.
To the Court. There were a number of people about. I have known Davis by sight for about a year; I have never spoken to him. I knew Kite before. There were about twenty or thirty people there. I have no doubt at all that it was Davis who hit the prosecutor twice with the belt.
ALBERT JOHN WELSH . I am twelve years old, and live at 20, Essex Street, Hoxton. About 9 p.m. on June 16 I was in Redver's Street and saw two boys running. They were about the same size as the prisoners, and about the same age. One of them was carrying a belt; I could not tell you which one it was.
To the Court. I do not know whether it was these boys or not; there were a few people there.
ROSINA BARNETT . I am sixteen years of age, and live at 9, Allerton Street, Hoxton. About 9 p.m. on June 16 I was in Redvers Street I was with them and Louisa Towers about 9 p.m. on June 16 at the top of Red Lion Court. We were eating potatoes from a paper. A little boy kept asking us for some, and we told him to go away. Arthur Davis turned round as a man passed, and said to the little boy, "Ask my brother, he will give you a halfpenny." I do not know whether the man was the prosecutor, because I did not see him, but he was a man of something like his age. The man who was passing then said, "You Christian dogs, you s—h—'s, if you come down here I will cut your b—heads off." With that Davis went down to the man and asked him the meaning of cutting heads off. The man turned round, and said, "If you do not go away I will hit you." The man got up his umbrella and tried to hit Gardener—that is the name they give Davis—and then Davis turned round and hit the man. to defend the blow from himself; then the man tried to hit Kite and
Kite did the same to baulk the blow. I was not there the whole time, but I only saw prisoners use their fists; I did not see the man fall down.
LOUISA TOWERS . I am 19 years of age and live at 4, Singleton Street, Hoxton. I was with Rosina Barnett and the two prisoners on the night in question. We were standing at the top of Red Lion Court eating fried potatoes; a little boy came up to ask for some, and we told him to go away, but he did not, and just then a Jew man passed by, and Davis turned to the little boy and said, "Go and ask my brother for a halfpenny," and the Jew man turned round and said, "You Christian dogs, you shit-houses," and then he walked down, mumbling, and said: "If you come down here I will cut your bleeding heads off." Davis walked down and said: "What do you mean talking of cutting heads off?" and the Jew man said: "If you do not go away I will hit you," and with that the Jew man went to hit Davis and Davis baulked the blow. Davis started the fight, and Kite went and fought with him. I saw the Jew man knock Davis over and hit him on the back. I never saw the prosecutor on the ground at all. I waited till the whole of the fight was over, because I told Davis to go away; he had a blow on the back, and he said, "My back hurts," and I told him to go away. Neither of the prisoners used a belt while I was there. Belt produced is Davis's belt, because I have seen one like it on him.
To the Court. When Davis said to the little boy. "Ask my brother, he will give you a halfpenny," I cannot say whether he meant the foreigner or whether he meant Kite; he used to talk of Kite in that way.
Police-constable JAMES ELY , 465 G. About 11.30 p.m. on June 18 I saw prisoners in Pimlico Walk, Hoxton, and told them that from information received I should take them to the police station for causing bodily harm to a man in Red Lion Court on the 16th; they made no reply; I took them to the station. Davis was charged, and he made no reply. Kite was not detained, because there was not sufficient evidence at the time; he was rearrested at a later date and charged.
Detective-sergeant SAMUEL COX , G Division. At 9 a.m. on June 12 I saw prisoner Kite at Old Street Police Station. He said he wished to make a statement; I took it down in writing and he signed it. He says: "I am William Kite; my age is 17; I live at 81, Crondall Street. At 9.15 p.m. on Tuesday night I was standing outside the Red Lion public-house, in Red Lion Court. I was with my mate named Davis and two girls; we were eating fried potatoes when a little boy came up to Davis and asked him for a halfpenny to buy some potatoes. Davis said, 'Ask him, he is my brother.' At that time the Jew man was passing; the Jew man thought that Davis was alluding to him. He, the Jew, then turned round and said to Davis, 'You Christian dog, I am not your brother.' He then walked on for about 12 or 14 yards, and he turned round again and said to Davis, 'I am not your brother, you shit-houses; if you come down here I will knock your bleeding heads off.' He was swinging his
umbrella about, and attempted to strike Davis, who dodged the blow. We both went to get away and I pushed a girl over, and the man struck Davis on the back with his umbrella. I saw Davis trying to defend himself. A large crowd gathered round, and Davis and I ran away. I am making this statement quite voluntarily and without any promises or threats from anyone.—Signed, William Kite." He was allowed to go, as there was no evidence against him at that time; I told him he would be released subject to further inquiry. About 11 p.m. on June 25 I was keeping observation in Allerton Street, Hoxton, where I saw prisoner Kite with Rose Barnett. I told him I was going to arrest him for being concerned with Gardener—that is Davis, he is known as Gardener—in causing grievous bodily harm to a man on the night of the 16th. Prisoner said, "All right." On the way to the station he said, "Do not bring the two girls into it; they cannot help what we have done." At the station the charge was explained to him, and in answer to it he said, "Am I charged with striking him with the belt?" I replied, "You are charged with being concerned with Davis in causing grievous bodily harm." Kite said, "I might have struck him with my fist, but that was in self-defence; I did not see my pal use his belt." On July 9 I took prosecutor from the hospital to the Old Street Police Station in order to identify the prisoners. I placed prisoners up amongst a number of other men, and prosecutor immediately went up and identified Davis as the man who struck him. He was not sure about Kite; he stood in front of him, but would not take the responsibility of identifying him.
To Davis. It is not true that prosecutor walked up and down the line several times and nodded his head as though he was counting, and then said, "You are the man," or that an officer counted the line and then said something to another officer, who then went out and fetched the prosecutor.
To the Court. Prisoners placed themselves in what position they liked in the line, and when the officer went out to fetch the prosecutor they were told that they could change their positions if they liked. Every fairness was displayed in the identification. Prosecutor did not hesitate about Davis, but he was not sure about Kite; he did not identify Kite.
Police-constable JAMES BUGDEN , 446 G. About 9.15 on the night in question I saw prosecutor in Red Lion Court bleeding from the head. I endeavoured to stop the bleeding by putting a damp handkerchief on his head, and took him to Old Street Police Station, where he was seen by the doctor, who ordered him to be taken to the hospital. I took prosecutor to St. Bartholomew's Hospital.
Inspector GEORGE ALLISON , G Division. I was in charge of the Old Street Police Station on June 16. About 9.30 p.m. prosecutor was brought to the station suffering from a severe wound on the head. I temporarily dressed it, and sent for the doctor, who dressed it and ordered his removal to the hospital, where he was taken. About 11.30 p.m. on June 18 both prisoners were brought to the station. I asked them for their belts. Davis produced this belt, the one with the large buckle; Kite took off this belt, the smaller one, with a small
buckle. I afterwards told Davis that he would be charged with assaulting and attempting to rob, and also with causing grievous bodily harm. He made no answer. I also produced the hat that I took away from the prosecutor on the night he was brought in; it is cut right through. The buckle of the belt that was taken away from Davis exactly fits the cut.
To the Court. Prisoners were arrested on information from Constable Ely. The man who pointed them out to the constable is not called because he knew nothing about it personally; it was only from information he received from the girl Sugar.
HENRY EDWARD GARRETT , divisional surgeon, G Division. About ten o'clock on night in question I saw prosecutor at Old Street Station. He was bleeding from the mouth and from the top of the head; he was in a confused condition, apparently from concussion. He was suffering from a severe scalp wound on the upper and left side of the head, about one and three-quarter inch long, and on probing the wound I found that it extended down to the bone, and that a portion of the bone had been ploughed up. I dressed his wounds temporarily, and sent him to the hospital on the ambulance.
RICHARD VERNON FAVELL , house surgeon, St. Bartholomew's Hospital. On the night in question prosecutor was brought to the hospital. He had had two teeth knocked out, there were two bleeding sockets; on the top of the head a cut two inches long, and beneath that a fracture of the bone. An operation was performed at once, and a piece of bone about an inch or an inch and a half removed. Prosecutor was in a dangerous condition for a fortnight; he was in the hospital for three weeks. It was an extremely serious case when he was brought to the hospital, and there it still danger. He may develop symptoms later on.
EDITH SUGAR , recalled. I first told my mother about this fight, and told her Davis was in it. I did not know about Kite. My mother went over to a man named Jacobs in the fish shop and told him about it, and Mr. Jacobs spoke to me about it, and asked me to go with the police and watch until these boys passed and pick out Davis. I did that. I have been threatened since by a pal of theirs. He smacked me on the face, and he got two months' hard labour. Then two boys last Sunday afternoon gave me a black eye, and when they were brought before the magistrate the magistrate discharged the case although I had the little boy that was with me to prove it. Nobody else has molested me except those that have been brought up already before the magistrate. I do not know how the fight began, because I was not there. The first I heard was a scream, and I went down the court and saw the prosecutor, and saw Davis speak a few words to the prosecutor and the prosecutor said a few words back. The prosecutor did not strike Davis at all—not that I saw.
JACOB LESHOSKY , recalled. I heard the story told by Rosina Barnett and Louisa Towers, and understood what they were saying. It is not true that I called prisoners Christian dogs and used a lot of bad language. It is not true that I began the row. Davis first of
all called me names and I ran away and Davis after me. The evidence of these two young women is untrue; they are the prisoners' companions; he is always playing with them.
ARTHUR DAVIS (prisoner, not on oath). At the time this happened we were eating fish and potatoes; a little child passing by said, "Give me one." I said, "You go and ask my brother for a half-penny, I have got no more." The Jew man was passing by, and he turned and said, "What do you mean, your Christian dogs?" I said, "I am not taking to you, and I have no arguments with you." He turned round again, swinging his umbrella, and said, "You Christian bastards, if you come down here I will cut your bleeding head off." I said, "What do you mean by threatening me like that?" he kept on saying, "If you do not go away I will cut your bleeding head off," and again I asked him, "What do you mean," and as he struck me I shoved him and he hit me on the back and we fell down, and then we got up and fought, and a crowd got round, and when it was over he went one way and I went the other.
To the Court. I say as he struck me with his umbrella I shoved him and then tried to get away, but he put his umbrella between my legs and knocked me down and hit me several times on the back, and I got up and bent my back, because the blows hurt me, and as he kept striking me with the stick I kept punching him.
KITE. I can only make the same statement as I made in the statement I gave to the police.
Verdict, Davis, Guilty; Kite, Not guilty. Sentence on Davis, six months' hard labour.
Mr. Clarke Hall prosecuted.
Verdict, Guilty; sentence, four months' hard labour.
TURNER, Thomas James (58, salesman) ; being an undischarged bankrupt, obtaining credit to the extent of £20 and upwards from various persons without informing them that he was an undischarged bankrupt.
Mr. Graham-Campbell prosecuted; Mr. Ramsay defended.
CHARLES ROBERTS , Examiner in the Official Receiver's Department, London Bankruptcy Court. On January 23, 1890, a receiving order was made on a creditor's petition against Thomas James Turner. He was trading at that time as Turner Brothers, provision merchants. He was adjudicated bankrupt on February 26, 1890, (liabilities £2, 061 2s. 6d., assets £1, 018 13s. 9d., but upon investigation it turned out that the liabilities were about £6, 000 and the assets about £78.
No dividend was paid. On June 10, 1900, he applied for his discharge, which was refused, and he is still an undischarged bankrupt. On June 1, 1901, an order to prosecute was made, which is now upon the file. On March 24, 1908, he filed his petition and a receiving order was made and he was adjudicated the same day. In those proceedings he described himself as James Thomas Turner.
Cross-examined. There was a Chancery dispute connected with the 1890 bankruptcy. It is quite possible where there are Chancery proceedings that the estimate of the debtor and the ultimate result of the assets and liabilities show a considerable difference; I should say the claims are usually for a full amount. I did not deal with the proofs on that occasion.
JAMES HARDING , farmer, Hillmartin, Calne, Wiltshire. In July, 1907, I received a memorandum from Canning, Russell, and Co., stating that they were buyers of eggs, butter, bacon, and so on, and I supplied them with goods to the value of £25 2s. There was one payment off of £5, leaving £20 2s. due. I was not paid any more, and I subsequently took proceedings against prisoner at the Calne County Court, and recovered judgment. He never told me that he was an undischarged bankrupt. I first learnt that fact after the present bankruptcy.
Cross-examined. On July 30, 1907, I sent prisoner two sample cheeses. About August 15 I sent him 6 cwt. 1 qr. 6 lb. of the same class of cheese. This is the first I have heard of his disputing that it was the same quality. I got judgment in his absence, but he had ample opportunity to attend the Court. I do not know that he could not afford to travel to the Court. I do not know that he disputed the second lot of cheese and after deducting the £5 that was paid that that brought the account down to £16. I have had no complaint whatever.
At this stage prisoner withdrew his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty to the first and second counts of the indictment.
The Jury found prisoner Guilty on the first two counts and not guilty on the other three.
Mr. GRAHAM-CAMPBELL stated that prisoner had failed on four previous occasions and that on October 22, 1903, he was indicted before the Common Serjeant for a similar offence in connection with his 1890 bankruptcy and was sentenced to 15 month's hard labour, but that sentence was reduced by the Court for Crown Cases to 12 months' hard labour.
Inspector COLLIN: During the past three years there have been about 50 complaints from various people in England and Scotland and also in Ireland, who have supplied goods to prisoner, some under £20 and some over.
Cross-examined. These complaints are not mostly from creditors on the petition; more than half of them are not scheduled here. I do not know that prisoner has paid a great many of them and has been trying to pay them gradually.
Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE SUTTON.
(Friday, July 24.)
HARROWELL, Alice Matilda (21, servant) , wilfully murdering her newly-born male child; HARROWELL, Elizabeth (53, dealer), wilfully murdering a male child, of which Alice Matilda Harrowell had recently been delivered.
Mr. Muir and Mr. Travers Humphreys prosecuted; Mr. Huntly Jenkins defended Alice Harrowell, and Mr. Jelf and Mr. Roome defended Elizabeth Harrowell.
(Mr. Muir stated that as there was no satisfactory evidence upon which the Jury would be justified in finding both of the prisoners guilty of murder and no satisfactory evidence upon which they could discriminate between them, he proposed to offer no evidence.)
Verdict, Not guilty.
Mr. Wilkinson prosecuted; Mr. Danford Thomas defended.
ELIZABETH LANE . I am the widow of John Stacey Lane. I resided with him until his death at 102, Richmond Road, Lisson Grove. He died on July 4 last. He left the house that day at about 9.30 p.m. and at that time was in good health. At a little after 11 o'clock I received a communication and in consequence went to the "Duke of Clarence" public-house in North Street. I there saw my husband sitting up against the house bleeding from the mouth. He was then dead. He was taken to St. Mary's Hospital.
Cross-examined. I did not know prisoner before this occurrence. My husband had never had fits; I am positive of that. I do not remember prisoner speaking to me when I went to my husband; he may have done so; lots of people spoke to me, but I was too worried to know who it was that spoke.
FREDERICK SEYMOUR , 4, Harper Street, Fulham Road, coal porter. About 11.30 p.m. I was opposite the "Duke of Clarence" when I saw deceased come out of the house, followed by prisoner, who gave him a heavy blow. It caught deceased on the side of the head. It was done with the right fist. The deceased fell and did not move any more. I crossed over the road and prisoner and a potman lifted deceased up in a sitting position. The man appeared then to be dead. The blow given by prisoner was one of the heaviest blows I have ever seen given by anyone.
Cross-examined. I am quite sure prisoner is the man that struck the blow.
COLIN CHESTER , 17, North Street, engineer. I was in North Street about 11.15 p.m. on July 4, right opposite the "Duke of Clarence." I saw the deceased come out of the public-house and as he did so he moved in a slanting direction. I saw prisoner facing him and he struck Lane under the chin, as it appeared. It was a very severe blow. It seemed to lift Lane off his feet and he fell flat on the back of his head. I went over immediately when I saw that Lane did not
get up. He then appeared to be dead. Prisoner commenced to rub Lane's face and drew him along and sat him up in front of the house.
Cross-examined. Prisoner waited till he saw that Lane did not move and then he asked for some water.
JAMES AITKIN , "Duke of Clarence," North Road, Lisson Grove, potman. I was in the house on the night of July 4 and saw Lane there, also prisoner. I have known them as customers. There was no quarrel between them. They were both sober. About 11 I was outside the house (I am usually outside), and saw Lane coming into North Street. I did not see him come out of the house. I did not see any blow struck.
Cross-examined. Prisoner, when I have seen him, has always behaved well. The deceased when he had a drop of drink in him used to get nasty and arrogant in his style towards people in the house.
HAROLD BUCKLAND , 248 D. On July 4 last I was called to the "Duke of Clarence" about 11.40 p.m., and there saw deceased lying on the pavement. I afterwards took the body on an ambulance to St. Mary's Hospital. I did not see prisoner there.
RICHARD LEONARD LANE , House Physician, St. Mary's Hospital. I was at the hospital on the night of July 4 when Lane was brought in. He was dead. I looked for any signs of injury, but I found none. There was a little blood on his chin, which looked as if it had been wiped off. I afterwards made a post-mortem examination. There were two fractures of the lower jaw and at the base of the brain there was a good deal of infusion of blood. A violent blow on the jaw with the consequent fall on the ground would have been likely to cause the injuries. Death was due to concussion of the brain. The body was generally in a healthy condition. There was no indication that he was an intemperate man.
Cross-examined. The fracture of the jaw would not necessarily cause death.
Detective-inspector JOSEPH SIMMONS , D Division. On the night of July 6 I was in North Street and there saw prisoner. I told him I was a police-officer and was making inquiries in connection with a case that occurred there on the 4th and that he would have to come with me to the station. He said, "Yes." I took him to the station, and afterwards placed him with 15 others and he was picked out by two witnesses as the man who had struck the blow. He was afterwards charged with manslaughter, and in reply said "Yes." On the morning of the 7th at the police court he sent for me and told me, "There is no necessity to make any mystery about this." He then made a statement, which I took down in writing and he signed it. It was put in in evidence at the police-court. Statement read: "Allen said: My mother told me, I think it was last Wednesday, that the stout man who always sits in the corner of the public-house had insulted her. I knew who she meant. He was always using 'f.' On Saturday night a friend of mine named Weston and I were having a drink in the public bar of the 'Duke of Clarence' when the man came in, had a drink, and went out. I said nothing
to him in the public-house, but followed him out. He was in the public-house about three minutes. When outside I asked him what he had insulted my mother for. He said, 'F—her, and with that raised his hand as if he was going to hit me, and I hit him in the face and he fell down on the back of his head. I picked him up and sat him up against the front of the public-house and washed his face. It was quite a quarter of an hour before anyone came. I thought he had a fit."
Cross-examined. Prisoner went at once to the station when I arrested him. He was searched and I found on him a piece of paper stating where he was working and living. He did not say what he was going to do with it.
WILLIAM ALLEN (prisoner, on oath). I am a drain repairer in the employ of the Economic House Drainage Company and have been with them for seven or eight years. On the evening in question I went for a walk with a friend named Weston and went to the "Duke of Clarence" just before 11. We each had a glass of beer. While we were there Lane came in and remained there about three minutes, when he went out. I said to my friend, "I won't be a minute, Jim," and went outside. I wanted to ask Lane to apologise for insulting my mother. I saw him and said, "What did you insult my mother for?" He said, "F—her and you too," and he put his hands up as though he was going to hit me; at the same time I struck him. He seemed to reel and fell on the back of his head with a nasty crash. I ran and picked him up, and then a man—I think it was the potman—came and helped me to sit him up against the wall of the public-house. The man went and fetched some water, and I washed his mouth out. There was a little blood oozing out. I thought he was in a fit. About 15 minutes after other people came up, and I found I could do no good, so I went to another house and had a drink; when I came back he had been taken to a hospital. I did not think much of the occurrence at the time. On the Monday morning after I went to work and then heard that Lane was dead. That was the first I heard of it. I wrote my name and address and where I worked on a piece of paper, thinking I would leave it at the house in case I was wanted.
Cross-examined. I did not speak to Lane in the house, as I did not want to cause a row there. I could have spoken to him in the house.
(His Lordship said that he did not see any real defence in this case.)
Verdict: Guilty, but under provocation; recommended to mercy.
JOSEPH SIMMONS (recalled). Prisoner has been in good employment, but 10 years ago he was convicted of burglary and bound over to come up for judgment if called upon. Six weeks ago he assaulted a barman in a public-house. It appears that he is rather free with his hands, otherwise he has a very good character.
Prisoner was released on his own recognisances in £20 to come up for judgment if called upon.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Friday, July 24.)
Mr. Muir and Mr. W. W. Grantham prosecuted; Mr. Walter Stewart defended.
Police-constable WILLIAM POOLE, 689, City police, produced a plan to scale of portion of Bishopsgate Street Without.
MARY ANN BURR , Hay Street, Bethnal Green Road. I have been a widow for 20 years. My husband was a fishmonger. Deceased was my son and was my sole support. He was 34 years old. He lived at home, and was an orange porter. He was single. He was engaged to Miss Callcut. He was in good health, and was a strong man. He could see well and hear well. He was sober. He used to have a glass now and then, but nothing to speak of. On Saturday night, June 27, he left my house at nine o'clock in good health to meet Miss Callcut. About three hours later I heard of his death. He allowed me 15s. a week.
Police-constable JAMES EDWARDS , 924, City Police. I was standing with Police-constable Gates in Bishopsgate Street Without on Saturday, June 27, on the east side of the road, on the pavement near Bishopsgate Chapel, which is north of Brushfield Street. At about 11.20 my attention was called by Gates to the very fast pace of a motor-car going south, towards the City. The car was a few yards past me when I saw it. I did not see how many were in it. When about Artillery Lane it suddenly swerved across on the off side of the road, and I saw a body lying in the road. There was not much traffic at the time, it being Saturday night. I was about 90 yards away from where the accident happened. The car was travelling at about 23 to 25 miles an hour. I did not take its number. I did not hear any horn blown. I did not notice a horse omnibus. My duty is to take the number of vehicles that exceed the legal limit of speed. It was impossible to see it. I did not blow my whistle, as I did not think that would stop the car. It is very difficult to estimate speed at 50 or 100 yards distant. I think I could judge of the speed it was going. I did not swear before the Coroner that there was no traffic in the road between me and the motor-car. There was none. I swore before the Coroner that I saw the light, but not the number.
Police-constable HENRY WALTER GATES , 952, City Police. I was on duty near Bishopsgate Chapel at the time in question. At about 11.20 I was in company with Police-constable Edwards when a motor, No. L. N. 9, 319, passed me at a very fast and reckless pace. The number was taken afterwards. The car was going down Bishopsgate Street, proceeding south, and when it got abreast of Middlesex Street it swerved suddenly on to the off side of the road. I then saw the body of a man lying in the centre of the road a little to the near side. I proceeded to the spot where the man was lying, and afterwards saw the man was injured and at once went to the telegraph station and
telegraphed for an electric ambulance. I assisted one of the witnesses to bind up the man's head. The woman was also bleeding from the head. The man appeared to be dead, but I could not say he was. He was taken to St. Bartholomew's Hospital. It was a very large car—I should say with room for two in front and four behind, I examined the mudguard of the car on the near side. This is a note I made soon after: "The near side hind mudguard was bent, the near side of the wood of the canopy was broken, and there was a small indentation in the body of the car over the near side hind wheel. There were three finger marks on the off front mudguard and five finger marks on the off hind mudguard, and four blurred finger marks on the near side hind mudguard." I watched the car from the time it passed me until the accident happened. It did not slacken in any way. I have had experience of motor traffic passing me for nearly 10 years on the Thames Embankment, by the Victoria statue. I estimated the pace roughly at 25 miles an hour.
Cross-examined. A car travelling at 25 miles an hour would cover about 10 feet a second. I had a clear view—there were no other vehicles. I must have seen a horse omnibus if it had been there. The woman's head was injured and bandaged. She gave her name and address and the name and address of the deceased. I could not say whether they crossed diagonally or at right angles.
HENRY WHITE , machinery dealer, 62, Southampton Street, Camberwell. I deal in old motor-cars. On Saturday night, June 27, I was in a horse 'bus going southwards towards London Bridge. I was on the off side in the far corner. I saw a motor-car coming in the same direction behind us, and it passed the 'bus on the offside. I should say at Brushfield Street and Bishopsgate Chapel or between Bishopsgate Chapel and Bishopsgate Institute. I followed it with my eyes and saw a lot of sparks emitted from the back, and it took a sharp turn and two people fell away from the car, as it were. I was looking through the glass. The car went right across to the right on the off side of the road and stopped. I did not hear a hooter or gong, but I was inside the 'bus, and I do not know with the rumbling of the 'bus that I could have heard it. I should say the car was going between 25 and 30 miles an hour. I cannot say whether it slackened its pace or stopped before the accident.
Cross-examined. There were a good many people going home after the Saturday night's amusement. There was a lot of people walking. I did not before the Coroner say that I saw any 'bus or traffic.
To the Jury. I imagined the moment I saw the sparks that the band brake was being put on. That is worked mostly by the foot. I saw the car afterwards and should estimate it at about 30 to 40 horse-power.
CHARLES MILLS , van guard, Bethnal Green. On the night in question I was standing near Artillery Lane, looking towards Shoreditch, when I saw a motor-car coming up very fast. I followed it with my eye, as I thought something would happen. As it passed me I saw two people walking out towards the middle of the road abreast
of the Wood Inn Shades. They were about three yards from the kerb. The motor-car was just passing me, and they went about two yards more and the car knocked them down; it turned half way to the right after it struck them and turned a half circle and pulled up against the kerb. I did not hear any hooter or gong. I did not see any sparks.
Cross-examined. I did not give evidence before the Coroner. I said before the Magistrate that I did not see where the car actually struck them. I saw the woman get hold of the man by the coat and the car was on top of him. In my opinion the woman could only see the glare of the lights and was so bewildered that she did not know what to do. She was trying to pull the man back. The deceased had no time to do anything.
DAVID WARD , carman, Gates Gardens, Bethnal Green Road. I was standing near the "Wood Inn Shades," Middlesex Street, when I saw the car coming along at about twenty miles an hour from Shoreditch. I saw the deceased and Miss Callcut about half-way across the road when the car knocked them down in turning a half circle. I heard a grinding noise, like a brake. I went up and found deceased bleeding from the head.
Cross-examined. I gave evidence before the Coroner, and said they stopped for a moment and the woman caught hold of the man's coat.
To the Jury. There was no apparent cessation of speed before the accident.
Mrs. FRESHFIELD, Cobbold Park, Hampstead. I am the owner of the car LN. 9319. Prisoner was my chauffeur for about four months. I gave him permission to have the car on Sunday, and he asked me if he might take it on Saturday and put it up at a garage near his place at Dulwich. I did not know he was going to use it for the purpose he did on Saturday. It is a petrol car of 16 to 20 h. p.—a new Argyll. I had only had it a few months.
Police-constable WILLIAM FOSTER , 969 City Police. I was standing near Middlesex Street, outside "Dirty Dick's," at the time in question, when I saw the car coming from the direction of Shoreditch at a very fast speed in the direction of London Bridge. A man and woman were crossing between Artillery Lane and Middlesex Street from east to west. The woman turned round and looked at the glaring lights of the approaching car and got hold of the man by the coat, as if she did not know which way to go, and no sooner had she got him by the coat when they were knocked down. The man was knocked five yards in front of the car and the woman to the left. The near side front part of the car struck them—the mudguard or wheel. The car then swerved to the off side, half turned to the right 18 yards away from where the man lay after he was knocked down. His head was lying 28 feet from the footway or kerb. The car was going, I should say, about 25 miles an hour. There were a good many pedestrians about. Middlesex Street is a residential neighbourhood. There were plenty of people about, some walking in the road and some on the pavement. The road was dry.
There were three men in the car besides the driver. I went up and asked the driver for his license. They did not attempt to get away. When charged he made no reply in my presence. The doctor came, the man was dead, and the prisoner was charged with manslaughter. It was a clear, bright night and there was plenty of light. I heard nothing sounded. The woman's body was three or four yards from the car. There was such a crowd there I could hardly see. The spot with the Maltese cross on the map is where there was blood and where he was found.
Cross-examined. There were three lights on the car, I should say two in front and one at the back. I did not examine them. The people who were struck were about 30 yards from me or a little more. I did not say before the Coroner that the car was 80 yards from me. When I first saw deceased he was crossing the road. They had got 26 feet away from the kerb. The car was then about 30 yards from me. When I first saw it, it was 80 yards or more. The man was a little farther from me than the woman. She was on the right of me. He would be more south. I do not think there was much difference. I never said before the Magistrate that it was in seven or eight seconds that I watched them and formed my view of the speed. I believe I said before the Coroner it was six or seven seconds. I do not agree that the injuries to the car show that it was the back part of the car that did the mischief. I do not know the height of the front. I maintain that the people were knocked down by the front part of the car and not the back. The front part is a good deal lower. In forming my estimate of speed I observed how far the car travelled in seven or eight seconds.
To the Jury. The woman was looking round and crossing side ways at right angles, or a little inclined to the left. Her back was a little to the car, and she would turn to see it.
Dr. HENNIKER WALKER , House Surgeon, St. Bartholomew's Hospital. On the night of June 27 the man was brought in dead. The woman was suffering from shock. She had a wound, I think, behind the left ear and a bruise on the lower part of the back. It was a small scalp wound behind the ear. It was only necessary to detain her that night; she was not seriously injured. I knew nothing about the wounds on the man.
Dr. ROBERT BESWICK , 122, Bishopsgate Street Without. On the night in question I was called to see a man on the ground. He was lying in a pool of blood and was dead. There was a wound on the back of the scalp on the occipital bone, and a scalp wound one and a half inches in length. I subsequently made a post-mortem examination and found on the skull a big wound on the temporal bone, and that had been pierced by something which had severed one of the arteries close by the carotid artery, where it separates into the occipital and temporal at that spot. I found part of the occipital artery had been lacerated and there was a large fissure which extended from the temporal or frontal bone, or, rather, passing across the temporal bone, which had been broken through, and it had gone right down to the hard portion of the temporal. The rift had gone right
up to join where he was first struck at the head of the occipital, so it travelled from the occipital bone down to the temporal. It was an enormous fracture. There was hemorrhage both externally and internally. I should say the impact was very severe and might have been caused by a motor car. I cannot agree that it could be caused by the man striking the ground afterwards. His height was about 5 ft. 9 in.
Cross-examined. The injuries to the head were undoubtedly accountable for the death. There was no injury on any other part of the man's body sufficient to account for it. I have seen the cape car hood, and I agree that of all portions of that car the most likely portion to cause the injury would be that. I cannot see how the lower part could have struck the man first without leaving other signs that I should have seen at the post-mortem and which were absent. If he had been struck by the lower part as the first point of impact I would expect to find signs lower down—about the hip. I agree that any injuries found on his body might well be accounted for by coming in contact with the back mudguard that has been produced in Court.
HARRIET EMILY CALLCUT , Temple Street, Hackney Road. The deceased was engaged to me. On the night in question I was walking with him, and when at about Artillery Lane he left the kerb. Before leaving the kerb I looked in the direction of Shoreditch, and I saw nothing coming along the road. I should think we got to about three-quarters to half the road across, and I saw the reflection, which caught my eyes, of a car coming from Shoreditch. I immediately stood still and said, "Oh, Bill, stand still." The deceased stood still immediately. He just had time to say, "Oh, God!" and the car was immediately on us. I had not time to catch hold of his coat; we were both knocked down, and I remembered no more when the car struck us. I did not hear any horn or hooter.
Cross-examined. My attention was not fixed on my sweetheart at the moment. We had finished our conversation, I think. We were crossing to catch an Old Ford 'bus. I did not see any. I cannot say exactly whether we were crossing slantways. We were going towards Liverpool Street to catch the 'bus. My recollection is practically a blank as to what happened before. I was also hurt about the body.
WILLIAM WORBY BEAUMONT , consulting engineer M. I. C. E., and M. E., etc. I have had 30 years' experience and am familiar with the construction of motor vehicles and am author of standard works on the subject. I have read some of the depositions taken before the magistrate and have heard the evidence of Police-constable Foster and Miss Callcut. I have visited the scene of the accident. I have not seen the car. It has been said the wood pavement was dry. To have skidded to any considerable extent it must have been going at a considerable speed. With a car of that description, if the driver saw the obstacle and realised that he had to stop, he could probably have brought the car up in about six cars' lengths, supposing it to have been going, say, 10 miles an hour. With any hesitation it would
take longer, i. e., a certain amount of time would be lost before he got the brakes on. If just before the persons were knocked down sparks were seen coming out from behind the car, the rapid application of the brake may have caused that and the wheels to skid, the iron on the wheels rubbing against any dirt or sand there might be on the surface of the road. The car, if travelling at a high speed, would be almost certain to skid, if the steering wheel were suddenly turned with the view of getting away from the person, even on such a road as that I have seen this morning. If going slowly, when the brakes were put on, it must reach a certain minimum speed to be able to skid to any considerable distance. If it were going at, say, 12 miles an hour and a turn were suddenly made it might begin to skid a little, but the skidding would almost immediately cease.
To the Court. Twenty miles an hour is the statutory speed. I should venture to assert that going 20 miles an hour it would skid very considerably. If there is no local speed the statutory limit applies. In the City there is only one limit, and that is, they must not exceed 20 miles an hour. I cannot make any guess at to what happened to bend the mud-guard in that way. It is held by two bolts through here upon a bracket of some kind projecting from the side of the car, and this is the side that would be hit by whatever the car ran against. If that is the front end it would take a comparatively smell impact to bend that up in this direction.
Cross-examined. I have made many experiments as to friction and speed. I have not seen this car that I know of. It would weigh about 20 cwt., which in the usual weight of such Argyll cars. The tendency to skid, even at the rate of 12 miles an hour, would be aggravated if the brake were applied at the same moment as the steering wheel was turned so as to deflect the car. If it turned a quarter of a circle in a very short space, say, 14 ft. 6 in., at 20 miles an hour, the occupants of the car would be thrown violently to the side. The question whether the speed was 20 miles an hour or 10 miles would depend on the direction in which the skidding took place. If the skidding were nearly at right angles to the line of the car, then it would show that the application of the brake diminished the high speed. On the other hand, if the marks made by the skidding were in the direction of the movement of the car, it would show that the brakes had little effect and that the angle of the turning of the car was small. I could not form an estimate of the speed.
CLAUDE HOWARD REUBEN LEVY (prisoner, on oath). I am aged 31 and am a chauffeur. On the night of June 27 last I called at a theatre at the East End of London to fetch my brother, the manager there. He and I and two other men got into the car. I think it was about 11.20. The length of the car is, roughly, from 16 ft. to 17 ft. Uppington sat on my left. I was going to put Uppington down at the approach to London Bridge Station. There was no reason why I should hurry, in fact I did not know what train he was going to
catch and he said there were plenty. At the time we passed Brushfield Street I should think we were doing probably 15 or 16 miles in hour. With the exception of a horse omnibus we had a clear road and there was nothing to attract my attention at the time. I was carrying two side paraffin lamps. The car is fitted with acetylene head lights, but I do not use them in town as they frighten the horses. In the country they are necessary for the travelling public as well as yourself. In London with brilliant lights you do not want them. I remember passing this part of the plan where the refuge, the electric light, and the sand box are. It is a little way past Bishopsgate Institute. I then saw a man and woman step into the road. They were close to the kerb, about 40 yards off. I eased my car by pressing the side pedal and slightly depressing the foot pedal and sounded my horn several times before they looked round. The man tried to run forward. It appeared to me that the woman had hold of his hand and she pulled at his coat; he drew back. I then put my clutch in again and started forward as I thought he meant to go back. I had gradually reduced speed to, say, 10 or 11 miles an hour. When I put the clutch in I, of course, began to gain speed. Just as I was almost on them they made another rush forward, or the man did. I suppose he thought I was going to stop. I threw my wheel right round, put on the brake, and took out the clutch—a simultaneous movement; we were never within a yard and a half of them. There was never anything on the front part of the car pointed out to me to suggest contact. The back part must have struck him. I did not see any part of the car strike them. Owing to the violence of the deflection and the violent way I put on the brake the back of the car skidded—the two back wheels. I should say from my experience of some years that under the same circumstances, on the same road and with the same tyres, the car would skid at 10 miles in hour. I should not, as a sane man, dare to deflect my car in that way (90 degrees) and put on the brakes in that manner if I were going 20 miles an hour. I do not think any sane man would attempt it, and I do not think you could get your wheel round sufficiently to do it. When I looked round I saw a man lying there, I should say at a distance of five yards the car had practically stopped. It might have been moving at two miles an hour. I looked round to see, having felt the car hit something, if anyone was knocked down, and I thought I would jump down and run to the man, and then I saw I was on the up side of the road, and so I went on a yard or two and then jumped down and went towards the man. On my oath I was never near the kerb. The usual crowd collected and the police came on the scene. I offered to put the man, if he were hurt, in the car and take him to the hospital. I did not anticipate that he was seriously hurt. They declined and said they would get an ambulance. I gave my name and particulars as to identity. The lamps were on the car all the time and were in the same condition as when we left the music-hall. Ultimately the car was moved to the police station. I was detained and was not, therefore, able to make any measurements, but my brother stopped to do so. I was perfectly sober. As I was
going towards the man lying in the road, Police-constable Foster came up and said, "I must have your card." I pulled out my pocket book and handed him one. He then said, "I am sorry. I have made a mistake; I must have your license." I said, "There it is," and he opened it. I was going away and he called to me to read it. It was rather a bad light. I went back and told him I thought I should get the man in the car and take him to the hospital. He said there would be an electric ambulance there directly and he would be taken to the hospital. I asked Foster when he came up, "Did you see this accident, officer?" and he said, "No, I am sorry, sir. I was over there," turning his head to the other side of the street.
Cross-examined. I understood by "over there" and the action of his head, that Foster meant he was the other side of Middlesex Street. If he said he was opposite "Dirty Dick's" I do not dispute it. I should say the deceased was not more that 40 yards from me when I first saw him. I remember the electric light and the refuge before I got to Artillery Lane. I did not notice any pedestrians about on the road; 50 or 60 yards back I had to use my hooter after I left the Olympia. I do not know the neighbourhood well. The road being clear the moment anyone steps into the road every driver is on the look out for that. I cannot say if these people would have got across had I kept straight without making any alteration. They probably would have got in front of me to the off-side of my car. It is difficult to say how far I had gone before I got to nine or 10 miles an hour, but I will risk an estimate and say 18 or 20 yards. I do not think I was going slower at any time than nine miles an hour. My car would do 35 miles with a good road and favourable conditions. It was a good road that night. My car was not going nine or 10 miles an hour the last 20 yards, because during that distance I understood the man and woman had made up their minds to stand still. I then went fast again in the second half of the last 20 yards, probably at 12 miles. Of course, it was not the actual speed of the car, but the weight of the car and the skid that struck them. I have heard the evidence that no hooter or horn was sounded. Mrs. Freshfield lent me the car from Saturday night to Monday morning on the understanding that I took the car home to Dulwich to save my going back. It is incorrect to say that on the skidding of the car sparks could be seen from any part of the car, bar the tyres. It did not skid considerably—perhaps 8 ft. or 6 ft, and pulled up dead in five yards I should say. I then put the car in a place of safety towards the kerb. The front of the car was facing south. The deceased and Miss Callcut had a struggle in the road and the other witnesses must have seen it. The woman tried to pull back. He may have had hold of her hand. His arm had hold of something—it might be her dress. The man would be nearest to me. He made an attempt to go on. She still hung back. They no doubt saw my lights when they looked round on hearing the hooter. They would have had time to walk across. I could have got out of their way easily. I should say the car going at 10 miles an hour would skid 6 ft. or 8 ft. Some might skid only 2 ft. or 3 ft. It had the new nonskid
tyres, which had just had the edges taken off them by the wear of a few hundred miles, and they were almost like skates. They had probably done 200 or 300 miles—just enough to take the edge off the studs, the keenness of them. The maximum speed I got up to on leaving the Olympia Theatre to the scene of the accident would be 16 or 17 miles an hour. I should say it would be impossible for a car going at 25 miles to go round a quarter of a circle in that way without toppling over or the strain breaking the wheels.
Re-examined. I have never done such a thing at 20 miles. It was skidding while the wheels progressed 6 or 8 ft. I was driving on the throttle. The elasticity of the car is down to eight or nine miles on top speed. For about three-quarters of the way I had about a quarter of the throttle open.
To the Court. I have been driving for eight years and never before had an accident, beyond a burst tyre.
AUGUSTUS HENRY UPPINGTON , indiarubber manufacturer. I was in the car next to prisoner. We were going about the speed of a motor bus. I saw the man and woman crossing. Prisoner sounded his horn and slightly reduced speed. She pulled the man towards the kerb by his arm, I think. The prisoner, as I thought, thought they were going back to the kerb and the car went on so as to get past. The man pulled the woman towards the refuge and the car was then too close to clear them. Prisoner put his brakes on, and I thought cleared them. The front of the car did not strike them. It was swerved round as quickly as the driver could do it. I was surprised to find they had been struck, and I jumped out. The car never struck the kerb.
Cross-examined. I did not see them leave the kerb. I gave evidence before the coroner and said when I first saw them they were 80 or 90 yards off—i. e., I said I thought about three times the length of the coroner's court, and somebody said that probably would be about 80 or 90 yards. I am sure the woman turned her head immediately after the hooter was sounded.
HENRY KEPMAN . I was in the car just before accident. I heard the hooter blown. I cannot say exactly where, because I had my eyes closed. I got in at the music hall, which is about seven minutes' run to the place of the accident. I opened my eyes when I felt the car swerving the right side of the road. I felt a slight shock by the side of my shoulder, and on looking round I saw it was the frame of the hood, which would be about 5 ft. 3 in. above the ground.
Cross-examined. When I opened my eyes I saw two people lying on the ground. I should say the brakes had been put on just before it swerved to the right. I should say we had been going about 12 miles an hour past Great Eastern Street. I should imagine we were going the same pace all the time until the accident happened. The horn was blown on several occasions. The car did not stop until it was pulled up, I should imagine to avoid an accident, right in at the side of the road. I remained in the car.
I heard the hooter. It had been sounded, I should say, 50 yards back. We were not going at an excessive speed from the commencement. The speed was checked after the hooter was sounded. I am not a car driver but I have been a good deal in cars. I looked at the time the hooter was sounded and the car pulled up, I saw two people step off the pavement. When I say the car pulled up, it went at considerably less speed. I saw the lady and gentleman step into the road and hesitate for a second or so, and then I saw the man stand perfectly still and put himself straight, as if to let the car go by. I quite thought that was his intention, then the motor car went forward again, and the lady and gentleman walked into the car practically. My brother jammed the brake on immediately. The car swung round, and, as it swung round, on looking over, I saw the man's head practically within a few inches from where I was looking. The back of the hood hit him. The front of the car cleared him by some distance. If he had not started forward there would have been no occasion to swerve round in that way. The car seemed to me to pull up immediately. My brother drove it over to the kerb—a matter of a few yards, to get it out of the way of the road. I attended and made measurements of the road and photographs were taken. The skid marks are about 14 ft. 6 in. from the blood in the road. I cannot say the car stopped there. I should say the from wheels hardly moved at all after.
Cross-examined. I believe the two girls who gave evidence before the coroner are here. I should say the car swung round a quarter of a circle. That is what I mean by "right round." Both the back wheels skidded badly—the near side wheel, the one nearest to the blood I could prove that, but I am not certain whether we took it to the middle of the lines or not, but the photographer measured it with me. He did the measurements and I watched him. I know nothing about the engine.
Re-examined. The skid marks were further towards Shoreditch than the blood marks were.
To the Jury. My head was close to the man when he was killed. I saw a brass nut in the hood afterwards and I have that in my mind that it was that which struck him. The hood was broken in two by the blow.
PRISONER, recalled. The frame of the hood that was broken is of wood about half an inch thick. It might be a little broader than my thumb, but no thicker. A screw passes through at the point of fracture. The hood is made of canvas; on either side there is a brass plate and it is broken off short at the end of that brass plate. The brass plates are to strengthen it and are four or five inches long, coming from the end making connection on to the body. I should say they are 10 inches from the screw which fastens them into the car at the point where they converge. The stay was in good condition so far as I know when it left Mrs. Freshfield's.
The Recorder. It seems to be quite clear that the unfortunate man's head was struck by the back of the car and apparently snapped the thing clean in half.
(Saturday, July 25.)
The Recorder having summed up the case to the Jury, and they having retired for an hour, on being asked if they had agreed upon their verdict, the Foreman of the Jury said they seemed to be agreed that there was negligence up to a point, but not at the time of the accident.
Mr. Stewart submitted that this was in effect a verdict of Not guilty.
The Recorder. Are you agreed that there was no culpable negligence at the time of the accident?
The Foreman. Certainly. We agree that at the moment of impact he was not culpably negligent, but that he was negligent previous to the moment of the accident.
The Recorder. I am afraid that is a very unsatisfactory verdict.
After some discussion the Jury were discharged without giving a verdict.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Friday, July 24.)
ROSENBERG, Harry (24, furrier), and ROSENBERG, John (22, furrier); both soliciting and inciting John Scott to steal the goods of and belonging to Emil Teichmann and others; both conspiring, combining, confederating, and agreeing together to steal divers goods of and belonging to Emil Teichmann and others.
Mr. Harold Morris prosecuted; Mr. Louis Green defended.
JOHN SCOTT . I am a porter at Messrs. Lampson's, fur merchants, 64, Queen Street, E.C.; I have been with them 25 years. They employ over 100 men, and it is my duty to provide food for them; for this purpose I frequently go to the "King's Head" public-house in Queen Street. I was there on June 25 between one and two in the afternoon. I saw John Rosenberg there; he said, "Good morning" to me; I answered him, and then he asked me how the sale was going on at my firm; I told him I knew nothing about it, and that if he wanted information he could go round and get it; he said, "I don't want to go round, but as I am a dealer I wanted to know, so that I could buy cheap if possible." He said, "Could you get anything that would do yourself a bit of good?" I said, "Yes, at times." He said, "If you can get anything, fetch it round to my address," and he gave me a piece of paper bearing the words, "Rosenberg, 9, Windmill Street, E. C., third floor"; he said, "This is between you and me and the lamppost." At this time I was dressed in a furrier's long white smock. I subsequently made a communication to our manager, Mr. Proctor. On June 29 I went to 9, Windmill Street and knocked at a door on the third floor. Harry Rosenberg same to the door. I said, "Is Mr. Rosenberg in?" he said, "I am Mr. Rosenberg;" I said, "You don't recognise me?" he said, "No"; I said, "Thames
Street"; he said, "Oh, yes, come in." When I got in he said, "Well, what have you got?" I said, "Nothing with me, but I have got something in tow"; he said, "When can you bring it?" I said, "I can't tell you; I shall have to make the best of my way with it round here." I then left. I called and saw him again on July 1. He said, "Have you got anything?" I said, "No, not here; I have got something all ready," and I asked him which was the best way to get it to his place; he said, "Can't you fetch it?" I said, "It is rather risky for me; can't you come and meet me?" he said, "That would be very risky; can't you put it over a public-house bar or a booking-office at a station and let me have the ticket?" I said, "I will come back later on and let you know how I can distribute them." On the morning of July 3 I took the four skins (produced) from our office and concealed them in my trousers and went to 9, Windmill Street, where I saw both prisoners. Harry said, "Well, have you got them?" I said, "Yes"; I looked round and said, "Is it all right?" he said, "Yes." I then took the skins from my trousers and placed them on the bench. Both prisoners looked at them and threw them under the table. Harry said, "How much?" I said, "You ought to know the price within a little"; he said, "Five shillings?" I said, "No, make it more than that—make it half a sovereign"; he said, "I'll tell you what I will do; I will make it 8s." I said, "Well, I must accept that"; he gave me half a sovereign in gold and I gave him four sixpences change. I then left. The detectives were at the bottom of the stairs, and they immediately went up. I accompanying them, and arrested prisoners. From June 26 I had been acting under the instructions of the police and my firm.
Cross-examined. John Rosenberg was a perfect stranger to me when he first spoke to me on June 25. Other people in the bar might have heard our conversation. He approached me first. He said, "Good morning, how is the sale going on?" he did not say "at my firm"; that was a slip I made just now. I admit I could not understand a stranger asking me to have a drink, but I did not then think there was anything wrong. He did say that he was in the fur trade, and ask how trade was going. I did not say, "If you take stuff we can shift it cheap"; he did not say, "I am not in business on my own account, I work for my brother," or that he was fairly stocked up; I did not ask him for his address; he gave it me voluntarily. I am positive it was Harry I saw on July 1. At the interview of the 3rd I took the skins from my trousers in the presence of the two prisoners. It is not the fact that we agreed the price of the skins at £6, that he gave me 8s. on account, and that I was to call the next day for the balance.
ARTHUR PROCTOR , manager to Lampson and Co. On June 26 Scott made a communication to me and I communicated with the police. The four skins produced were marked and handed to Scott; their value is about £8 wholesale.
the third floor and then saw the two prisoners. Lyons said, "We are police officers, and I believe you have just bought some skins from this man" (Scott). Harry Rosenberg said, "He has brought no skins here." Lyons said to John, "Have you bought any skins?" John said, "No, he has brought no skins here." Lyons said, "We shall search the place"; Harry said, "You can do as you like about that." We then commenced the search. I went to a bench where prisoners were standing; I pushed Harry on one side and pulled a drawer under the bench, and there I found these four skins. I said, "What do you both want to tell lies for? here are the marks," and I showed prisoners the marks on the skins. They were then separately told that they would be charged with stealing the furs and with inciting Scott to commit a crime. Harry said, "Be lenient with me; I have a wife and one child, deaf and dumb; I am only a young man; be a father to me; I have never done anything wrong before, and I paid him 8s. for the lot." John said, "I know nothing about it." On John being searched at the police station 9 1/2 d. was found on him; it was returned to him and he gave the receipt produced; I have compared the handwriting with that on the paper which Scott declares was handed to him by John Rosenberg on June 23, and, in my opinion, the writing is the same.
Cross-examined. I am sure that Harry said he had given "8s. for the lot"; he was no doubt rather confused and upset. I have made inquiries as to him; he has always borne a good reputation.
HARRY ROSENBERG (prisoner, on oath). I am 24 years of age; I was born in England, and have been carrying on business as a furrier for five or six years—for the last 18 months at 9, Windmill Street. My brother John works for me; I employ about seven men. On June 29 Scott called at my place and asked to see Mr. Rosenberg. I said, "I am Mr. Rosenberg." He said, "You are not the Mr. Rosenberg I want." I said, "Perhaps you want to see my brother, but he is out at present." He said that a few days previously he had met a Mr. Rosenberg in Thames Street, who had said he was a probable man who would take some stuff off his hands. I had no knowledge at this time that my brother had had any conversation with Scott. I said I was pretty well stocked up, but if he had anything cheap I might possibly be able to put it into stock. He said he had nothing with him then, but he would be passing in a few days and would bring some stuff to show me; he then left. Scott is quite mistaken in saying that he saw me at all on July 1; the next time I saw him was on July 3. I and my brother were together. Scott produced four skins. I asked how much he wanted for them. He said £8. I said I could not possibly give that, as I did not want them, but if he would take £6 I might be able to make use of them when the season came on. He agreed to £6. I then took the skins and put them in a drawer where I generally keep skins. I told him to call again for the money. He said he wanted it then. I said I had only 10s. in my
pocket, and that I would let him have 8s., keeping 2s. for my day's expenses. I gave him half a sovereign and he gave me 2s. change. He said he would give me a receipt when he called next day for the balance of the money. He then left, and shortly afterwards returned with three police officers. I could not imagine what had happened and, comparatively, lost my senses. This accounts for my at first denying that I had bought any furs and saying what I did to the officers. I do not think I told Chapman that I had given Scott 8s. for the lot—I said 8s. on account. When I arranged that Scott should call for the money the following day, I had in view a payment I was to receive from the Fore Street Warehouse Company; that payment was actually made. I produce a cheque from that company to me for £14 5s., dated July 4.
Cross-examined. I have never in my life had any contact with the police before this, and the arrival of the officers completely upset me. My brother had not spoken to me about his meeting with Scott until after Scott first calling on me. I keep no banking account; there is a till in my shop, and I also keep business money in my pocket. I am not in partnership with my brother. I trade as Rosenberg and Co., and my brother is in my employ at £1 a week. Scott did not tell me his name or address or what his firm was. I absolutely deny that I saw Scott at all on July 1.
JOHN ROSENBERG (prisoner, on oath). I am 22 years old, and work for my brother Harry at £1 a week. On June 25 I saw Scott in the "King's Head." He had on a furrier's smock, and I took him to be in the fur line. I told him I was in his line and asked him how trade was. He said it was bad, and he could not move anything, although he had a lot of stuff. He said if I could take any of his stuff he could shift it cheap. I told him that the business I was in was not my own, that I was working for my brother Harry, and that he was fairly stocked too. I did not say to Scott, "How are the sales getting on at your firm?" I did not know that he came from Lamson's, of that they had a sale on. I said he might pick something out and bring it along, and I gave him our address. I next saw Scott on July 3. He produced the four skins and asked £8 for them. My brother said he would give £6 and he agreed. Eventually Harry paid him 8s. on account. Harry asked for a receipt. Scott said he would give him one when he called the next morning for the balance. When the officers called I denied that any skins had been brought by Scott; the reason I did so was that I got excited.
Cross-examined. I did not get any name or address from Scott; he told me he was in business for himself. I did not mention to my brother that I had seen Scott; it slipped my memory.
Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, Harry Rosenberg, 18 months' hard labour; John Rosenberg, two years' hard labour.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE SUTTON.
(Monday, July 27.)
Mr. Travers Humphreys and Mr. Oddie prosecuted; Mr. Eustace Fulton defended.
The Jury disagreed.
BEFORE THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.
(Monday, July 27.)
SIEVIER, Robert Standish (48, journalist) ; unlawfully threatening Jack Barnato Joel on June 25, 1908, to publish certain libellous and defamatory matter and things of and concerning and touching the said Jack Barnato Joel, with intent thereby to extort from him certain money, to wit, the sum of £5, 000; and unlawfully proposing to Jack Barnato Joel to abstain from printing and publishing the aforesaid matter and things with intent thereby to extort from him, the said Jack Barnato Joel, certain money, to wit, the sum of £5, 000.
Sir Edward H. Carson, K.C., M.P., Mr. C.F. Gill, K.C., and Mr. Bodkin prosecuted; Mr. Rufus D. Isaacs, K. C., M. P., Mr. Montague Shearman, K.C., and Mr. R. D. Muir defended.
ALBERT BENDON , Finchley. I am a member of the Stock Exchange and an owner of racehorses. I first made the acquaintance of prisoner in September last at Derby races, and afterwards saw him frequently at race meetings. In November I had a horse running at Manchester. Sievier telegraphed to me to back my horse for him; I backed it for him for £100 each way; it lost; I paid the money, and have not been repaid it. On April 6 I lent him £1, 000, which has also not been repaid. On April 29 he asked me if I could get Mr. Solly Joel to lend him £2, 000 on the security of 5, 000 "Winning Post" shares. I told him I did not care to ask Solly Joel, but he persuaded me to do so; I asked Solly Joel, and he flatly refused. Sievier then asked if I could get Jack Joel to lend the money, but through a third party, and said that if he did he would never annoy him or his family again. On April 30 I spoke to Jack Joel; he said he would think the matter over, but that if he lent the money he would require a receipt and a letter promising to keep his word not to annoy him in future; he did not want a bill or security. I told this to Sievier, who said, "I will have no transaction with Mr. Joel; my loan would be from Mills." I had suggested that the matter might be carried out by Mills. I repeated to Mills the conversation I had had with Joel.
Cross-examined. I do a considerable amount of Stock Exchange business for the firm of Barnato Bros., in which J. B. Joel is a partner; I should naturally be anxious to oblige him, but I should not
do anything wrong in order to obtain business. I am on intimate terms with Solly Joel. He had been repeatedly attacked in the "Winning Post"; I was anxious that this should be stopped; I approached Mills to use his influence with Sievier; I believe he did so, for there were no further attacks upon Solly Joel. There was no question of money in that transaction. Mills is a person who puts money on horses for himself and on commission for others. The £1, 000 which I lent Sievier on April 6 was on a three months' bill, and that had not matured when this prosecution started. The £200 owing to me on the betting transaction I have not pressed for; I have told Sievier not to bother, that I would win it back for him. When Sievier asked me to get him a loan of £2, 000 on 5, 000 "Winning Post" shares I saw nothing discreditable or disreputable about it. I believed the money would be repaid if it were advanced. When Solly Joel refused the loan I did not tell Sievier that I thought I knew somebody who would do it. When I went to J. B. Joel no suggestion of a threat had been made. In my interview with J. B. Joel I did not say that Sievier was a villainous scoundrel, that I was afraid of him, and that that was why I had done it; that is an absolute fabrication. I first began to think some kind of trap was being laid for Sievier at my second interview with Joel. I told Mills the conversation I had had with Joel, and said I did not like it, that I thought it was a very dirty business, and I would have nothing more to do with it; he said, "You are quite right, I will see to it"; I said, "Be very careful, Charlie, you are not dealing with Solly."
Re-examined. The attacks on Solly Joel ceased about February, at the time Solly Joel prosecuted Von Veltheim for blackmail. (See preceding volume, page 579.)
HENRY M. MAYHEW , from the British Museum Library. We keep files of newspapers; on anyone applying to inspect a file his name is entered in a book. In a book (produced) I find that on March 11, 1905, inspection was had of the "Police Gazette" of 1884 by "J. Wisdom, 11, Essex Street, Strand," and "R. S. Sievier, Savoy Mansions, W. C." I produce the file of the "Police Gazette."
CHARLES ANTHONY MILLS , 54, Parkside, Wimbledon Common. I have been connected with the turf for 25 years, and am a professional backer, with a little business on commission. I have known Sievier for many years; in September or November last year I introduced Bendon to him. On April 29 this year Bendon spoke to me at the Epsom Spring Meeting and said Sievier had asked him to get him a loan of £2, 000 from J. B. Joel to leave his name out of the "Winning Post." Two days later he told me he had been to Joel; that he (Bendon) did not care to go on with the business, and would like me to take his place. I said that if Sievier was agreeable I would do so. I rang up Joel three or four times, but he was not in. On June 22 Joel rang me up and asked me to call at his private house, as he wanted to see me very particularly. I went to his house on June 23. He said, "Can you guess what I have sent to you for?" I said, "Yes." He said, "This business has upset me very much and my wife is ill through it; I want you to do your best and see
Sievier and try to stop it for me for as little as you can; if you do this you will be doing me a great favour, and I shall always be grateful to you." I said I would do my best. I then telephoned to Sievier and told him that Joel wanted me to see him to settle things and try and bring peace between them, and Sievier made an appointment to meet me at 132, Regent Street on April 24. We met there accordingly. We had a conversation to the effect that Joel had asked me to get Sievier to leave his name out of the paper, and Sievier said he would do it for £5, 000. Sievier and I then went to a room in which there was a telephone. I rang Joel up. I said, "Sievier is here. He says he will do it, but not for less than £5, 000." Joel replied, "Ridiculous; would not mind giving half." I spoke to Sievier as to this, and then spoke to Joel. "He won't take one shilling less, and he says that if you do not find some money he will put some very hot things in the paper about you this week, including a warrant for your arrest, issued in Johannesburg in 1884, and he has also got two murderers that he will put you between." Joel again said, "Ridiculous." I said, "You had better think it over and let me know by wire to Newbury." Later, at Sievier's suggestion, I sent Joel this wire, "You must give your decision to-day absolutely; reply Mills, Weighing Room, Newbury." I had this wire back, "Five thousand ridiculous after offering to accept two to settle business; would do half if he will give letter as he offered before." I wired this on to Sievier, and in the evening he and I met at the Victoria Club. I got on the telephone to Joel and said to him, "Sievier is here at my side. I showed him your telegram, and he says he will not accept a shilling less than £5, 000." Joel said, "It is ridiculous, but if you cannot do it for less I will gave him the £5, 000, providing he gives you a letter to say he will not molest me any more and a bill for £2, 500." I told this to Sievier. He at first did not agree to give the letter, but eventually said that he would. This I telephoned to Joel, who said, "I will give you a cheque for £5, 000 to-morrow morning at eleven"; he afterwards altered the appointment to six o'clock at night. Sievier and I then left the telephonebox. He asked me if I could let him have some money on account; I said, "If you will bring the letter and the bill to me at 132, Regent Street in the morning I will give you a cheque for the £1, 000." Next morning he called and gave me the bill and the receipt; also a copy of the warrant advertisement that had been intended to be inserted in the "Winning Post," with the likeness of Joel that was to have been put between two murderers, and copy of the old warrant for Joel's arrest. He said, "These you can take and show to Joel." He said he was very pressed for money and I gave him a cheque for £1, 000 on account of the promise of Joel's £5, 000. We arranged to meet that evening. On my return from the races I found a taxicab waiting at the station, with a boy from the "Winning Post" on it, and I went to see Joel. I gave him the papers Sievier had given me. The letter of Sievier's was: "Dear Charlie,—Many thanks for the money, which I will repay as agreed. I ought not to be pressed for
ready, but I have not had a winning week for a long time. With respect to our conversation about J. B. Joel, and your request that I might now leave his name out of the paper, you can take it from me that I have now done with the subject, except in the ordinary way of referring to his horses when running. I have said all there is to be said, and I am glad you did not ask me to 'leave him alone' earlier. If it is any pleasure to you, you can assure Joel that I have completed my remarks regarding him, and, if you wish, show him this letter." Joel read this and said to me, "I am going to give you a cheque for £5, 000 on one condition, that you have a line inserted at the top of the second page that he will not molest me any more." I took Joel's cheque for £5, 000 and the letter, and I went in the taxicab to where I had arranged to meet Sievier. I showed him the cheque and told him what had passed. He at first objected to inserting the words suggested by Joel, but eventually he wrote in after the words "when running," the line "and I will not, as you say, molest him again." I suggested that I should deduct not only the £1, 000 I had given him the previous day, but £600 that he had owed me for some years; he agreed, and I gave him my cheque for the balance of £3, 400. It was arranged that the letter should remain in my possession until on any future occasion he should attack Joel, when I was at liberty to hand it to Joel for him to do as he pleased. I afterwards saw Joel; he took a copy of the letter; then it was placed in a sealed envelope addressed, "J. B. Joel, Esq., care of C. Mills, Esq.," and I took it home. At this time I had not the slightest knowledge that the matter was in the hands of the police. On the day Sievier was arrested I handed the letter to Inspector Drew and made a statement to him.
Cross-examined. I had no idea that I was taking part in anything discreditable or dishonourable in these negotiations. I knew nothing about a trap being laid by Joel for Sievier. Bendon said nothing about a trap and gave me no warning whatever. He did say, "Be careful," but not "because you are not dealing with Solly"; I understood he meant be careful of J. B. Joel; I knew he was prejudiced against J. B. Joel; he said nothing about "a dirty business"; that may have been what he understood when he said, "Be careful." My conversation with Bendon was about Sievier's proposal to borrow £2, 000, and nothing came of that at all, and the matter dropped altogether. It was reopened six or seven weeks later by Joel sending for me and asking me to act for him in the matter, as he was sick to death of the whole business. My instructions were taken from Joel. I had a great deal of influence with Sievier; we had had many business transactions, which were quite satisfactory to both of us; I sometimes owed him money and sometimes he owed me money. In February I had asked him to leave Solly Joel's name out of the "Winning Post," and he consented and kept his word; there was no suggestion about payment of money in connection with that; he said, "If you wish it I will do it," and he did. At my first interview with Sievier after J. B. Joel had sent for me I said to him, "I want to see you about Jack Joel; I want you to keep his name out
of the paper now." He replied, "If you want me to do it I will," but, he added, "for £5, 000." At the police court I admitted that he might have said that keeping Joel's name out "was not a question of money." Thinking it over since, I do not think Sievier did say that. He did say that he wanted some money—there is nothing extraordinary in that—he said he had security to offer, and I said I would see if I could get him some money. I do not remember his saying, "I do not want Joel's money; I am not taking any." At my interview with Sievier at the Victoria Club, when I told him, "Joel wants you to write a letter to say that you won't put his name in the paper again," I do not think Sievier replied, "I have already promised that"; I said, "Write a letter saying you will drop it"; I did not say, "That will show Joel what influence I have over you"; he did finally say, "All right, I will write it." I will not swear that at this interview I showed Sievier Joel's telegram to me or Joel's cheque for £5, 000. As to my cheque to Sievier for £1, 000, I gave that to him on April 25; I swear I did not give it to him on the 24th, dating it the 25th; it was a mistake if I said so at the police court. I gave him the cheque at 132, Regent Street, at 11.30 on the morning of the 25th.
(Tuesday, July 28.)
CHARLES ANTHONY MILLS , recalled, further cross-examined. With regard to the cheque for £1, 000 paid by me to Sievier, that was a loan to him on the promise of Mr. Joel to advance £5, 000. At that time Joel had paid me no money. I drew the cheque with the intention that it could be presented and honoured at once. If a hitch arose I should have been left with a debt from Sievier, but that I did not mind. I could not think I was risking anything of any consequence. I do not think I used exactly the words, "On the promise of Joel to advance the money," but "On account of the £5, 000." He told me he wanted the money that very day. I had no promise from Joel to reimburse me for any loan I made to Sievier. It never struck me that Joel wanted Sievier to take money. I remember on June 24, during the conversation in Regent Street, Sievier asked me whether I had ever seen a description of Joel in the "Police Gazette," and I said I had not. He told me in effect that that was the best description of him that he had ever seen. He told me he had a woodcut of Joel, and might have said that it came out of the "Gazette." I asked to see it and he showed me. I did not understand him that the portrait had appeared amongst murderers, or men looking like murderers. I am not prepared to pledge my word that he did not say that. I never had the impression, as a result of the conversation, that there was anything dishonourable in what he suggested. I did not look upon it as blackmailing. As to when I saw the woodcut, if I did not see it on the Wednesday, then it was on the Thursday morning. I told Joel, "Sievier is mad with you about what happened last Saturday at Windsor, and thinks it was on your instigation that Morton bid for his horse against him,"
and, further, "I hear that in this week's issue he is going to have a nice attack on you in connection with this incident, and also the warrant." That was at the interview in consequence of Joel telephoning to me to see him. At that time the matter had dropped for some weeks, and that conversation was not in consequence of what Sievier had told me to tell him. I knew on the Tuesday that there had been a racing incident on the Saturday previous. I read the article in the "Winning Post" of June 20; it was not connected with the racing incident. I understood Sievier to say he was going to put the woodcut, or a reproduction of it, between two murderers. I may, however, have been wrong. He may have said he had seen it between two murderers. When we met in the shop in Regent Street on the Thursday, Sievier produced the letter and bill and the printed warrant for Joel's arrest in Johannesburg in 1884, and I gave him a cheque for £1, 000. I did not tell him I would let him have the remaining £1, 500 that day. He gave me bill, which I myself drew up. It was made payable to me for £2, 500. I asked him for, and he gave me, a typewritten copy of the warrant, as I wanted to show it to Joel. I did not ask for the picture, and Sievier did not say he would send for it if I wanted it. I know as a fact that he sent for it, and it was brought. On the Thursday night I arranged to meet him in New Oxford Street—he coming in a taxi-cab—after I had seen Mr. Joel. A placard of the "Winning Post" was put on the cab so that I should know it. He gave me a letter with the address of his bankers, and asked me to post the cheque to them. I read the letter and gave it back to him. I did not put it in my pocket. He said he was very anxious for the money to be paid in. After that we were to meet at the Victoria Club. At that meeting I said I had shown the letter to Joel, in accordance with the permission Sievier had given, and further that Joel wanted inserted a promise that he would not be molested again. I said, "I think it will be all right if you put it in." With regard to the £600, I gave him a cheque for £3, 400, having deducted the £600 which had been owing between us. It never occurred to me that this was obtaining money by threats. I looked upon it as carrying out what I had been asked by Joel. I do not remember that Sievier said he would pay the other £2, 500 back. He may have said so. I do not remember that he said he would let me have bills for it during the week. As to his saying, "I want no £2, 500 as a present; I will pay it back," I do not remember that. He may have said it. I may have said at the police court, "Possibly he said it." I saw him at Sandown on the 27th, but do not remember him saying, "I was going to bring you the bills, but they did not come in time." He might have said that. I could not swear that Joel read the letter out aloud at the interview at Grosvenor Square on the 25th. I had not the faintest suspicion that a policeman was concealed in the room on that occasion. I did not say to Joel, "it is a dirty piece of business; Sievier is a villainous scoundrel." Joel said, "He is a villainous scoundrel to the last." I was amazed when I heard the police had arrested Sievier at Sandown. I certainly had
no idea that it could have been anything in connection with our negotiations. The first time I heard there was a criminal offence was when Inspector Drew said, "I have arrested Mr. Sievier on a warrant for blackmail." I realised that I was in a very unpleasant position, I being a friend of Sievier. I knew nothing of what was being done to trap him. If I was being used to trap him I was being played a very dirty trick. That would be by the person who sent for me to carry it out—Mr. Joel. I am of opinion that a dirty trick was played upon me by him.
Re-examined. The £5, 000 was paid to keep Joel's name out of the paper. At the time I telephoned to Joel at Regent Street Sievier could hear every word I said. I told Joel that Sievier would not take less than £5, 000. Joel said that was ridiculous, he would give £2, 500. Sievier said if he did not pay £5, 000 there would be some very hot things in the paper about him that week. It never struck me that it was a dirty business. As to the £600 which I deducted, Sievier had owed me that for four or five years. With regard to Solly Joel, he was left alone at my request. Sievier never suggested that he had any materials on which he could attack Solly. When the picture was sent for he said he was going to put it in the "Winning Post," and, I understood him, between two murderers. I was under the impression that the £2, 500 was "dead," that is, it was given to Sievier. On the morning of the arrest Sievier said, "I have heard it reported from a man on the 'phone that Joel has been heard to say that he has got me." I said, "I do not thank so." The cheque for £400 appears to be dated August, 1906, and is in my favour. It was found on Sievier when he was arrested.
Further cross-examined. I know nothing about that cheque and do not suggest anything against Sievier with regard to it.
JACK BARNATO JOEL . I live at 34, Grosvenor Square, and have a country place at St. Albans. I own a racehorse breeding establishment and run horses on the Turf under the name of Jack Barnato Joel. I am a member of the firm of Barnato Bros., which I joined on the death of my brother, Wolfe Joel, ten years ago. I inherited a considerable fortune from him, and also from my late uncle, Barney Barnato. I have never had any dealings or transactions with Sievier, and have only casually spoken to him on a racecourse. At Epsom, when Sceptre was running in the Derby, Sievier said he hoped I would back his horse. In the same year, at Epsom, he wanted to borrow money from me, asking if I would be willing to let him have some on good security. I said there was no objection if the security was good enough, and he said he would come to my office. I was told that he called, but I did not see him, and nothing came of it. I afterwards had a letter from him about purchasing his place at Shrewton, where he had a racing stable, but I declined the offer. On October 15, 1904, I saw it announced in the "Winning Post" that the next "Celebrity in Glasshouses" would be J. B. Joel, and it duly appeared on October 22. It was of a most scurrilous character, attacking my parentage, my origin, and the whole of my family. I believe placards of the "Winning Post" were exhibited outside my house.
From that time, regularly, there have been articles in that paper attacking me, my brother, and uncle. Copies were sent to me and my wife. The articles have given us very great annoyance. In April or May last Bendon called upon me, saying he had been sent by Sievier, who desired to borrow £2, 000 on 5, 000 "Winning Post" shares, and that if I agreed he would abstain from printing anything in his paper about myself. I said, "I am surprised you should come to me," and Bendon remarked, "It is a blackmailing business. I know." I said, "Let me think it over." He said he would call again, and he did so. I told him I might be prepared to do the business if he gave me a bill and a letter promising to stop publishing the articles, and he said Sievier was willing to do that. Bendon further said, "I am going to introduce the business now to Mr. Mills; I won't have anything more to do with it, it is too dirty for me." I was afterwards rung up by Mills, but I did nothing in the matter at the time. On June 18 my horse, Your Majesty, won, the St. James's Palace Stakes at Ascot, and a day or so after the "Winning Post" had the following: "The victory of the horse, Your Majesty, in the St. James's Palace Stakes was a disgrace to racing. He is the property of Isaac Joel, who races under the assumed name of J. B. Joel, which is unregistered. Apart from this, his owner is as unscrupulous on the Turf as he has been in his dealings in the City and at Kimberley. For the King's horse Perrier to be beaten by one belonging to such an individual is a tragic blow to the Turf and one the recurrence of which should be prevented by the stewards taking the same action as they have done on previous occasions when the circumstances were far less aggravating, even if they were true in fact. Our King takes defeat as only the first gentleman in England can, but his subjects must feel that it is a scandalous state of things that a horse should beat his at the Royal meeting belonging to one who has estreated his heavy bail in South Africa when charged with 'one' of the most grave offences of theft that can be perpetrated in that colony and for whom a warrant is still out in the name of our late revered Queen." On another page of the same issue was another paragraph, "Ike Joel, owner of Dean Swift and millions made out of illicit diamond-buying and crooked dealings, also nephew of Issy Sloshy, entertained one of his old acquaintances at his palatial residence for Ascot week. The 'old pard' of the dim, past days was dumbfounded at the wealth which filled his eyes at every corner. He even conjured up the thoughts of how he could burgle the place at a later date." Having read that, I telephoned to Mills, who I knew had great influence with Sievier. When he arrived I asked whether he knew why I wanted him and he replied. "suppose it is about this Sievier." I said, "Yes, it is worrying myself and wife to death and something must be done to stop it." He said, "You lost a golden opportunity at the time when Bendon came and offered to settle it for £2, 000. He is in debt up to his neck and I am afraid he will want more money now." I said to him. "I am going away to the Continent. I wish you would see him and see what can be done and get this thing settled." He told me he
would see what he could do. The next morning Mills rang me up in the City, saying, "I have seen Sievier and he won't take a shilling less than £5, 000. If you don't pay it he is going to publish your picture between a woodcut of two murderers and a copy of the warrant." I said that he was a blackmailing thief and he replied, "Well, anyhow, think it over and wire me to Newbury." Mills told me, also, that something very hot would come out in the paper if the money was not paid. I received a telegram from Mills from Newbury that I must give my decision that day. I wired back the telegram that has been read. Later I telephoned Mills to the Victoria Club, and he told me Sievier would not take a shilling less than £5, 000; that he would give a bill for £2, 500 and that I was not to expect ever to see the other £2, 500 again. I said, "If he will give me a letter promising to abstain I think I might be induced to do the business." He said, "Can I rely, if I get the letter and the bill, that you will pay the £5, 000," and I said, "Yes." He suggested coming the next morning, and I altered it to the evening. The next day I instructed my solicitor to place the matter in the hands of the police. Inspector Drew came to my house and was concealed in the room when Mills arrived. I said, "Have you got the letter and the bill?" He replied, "Yes; I have them both," and produced them. The letter did not at that time have the line, "I will not molest him again." Mills brought the bill for £2, 500, as well as the typewritten document extracted from the "Police Gazette." The letter, he said, was the thing which was going in with my picture between the woodcuts of two murderers. I read all the documents aloud, with the object that they might be heard by the detective. At the time I noticed that the words relating to Sievier abstaining from molesting me in the future were not in the letter and Mills said he would see Sievier on the morrow and get them inserted. This was done. I noticed that the bill was drawn to Mills and he told me that that was because Sievier did not care to have it drawn to me. Mills added, "He has made it payable to me, and I hand it on to you." I asked him to give me a copy of the letter, which he did. The letter itself Mills was to keep and if Sievier ever published anything again the letter was to be handed over to me. I gave Mills the cheque the first time he brought the letter.
Cross-examined. When Sievier asked me at Ascot whether I would lend him money he did not say that he would not sell any of his horses without handing me the proceeds. I believe he owned valuable horses at that time. I did not say to him that he was to see me after the next race, nor did I say, "I will do that for you." In March, 1902, I remember I had a conversation with Mr. Markham, M. P., about a question which it was proposed to put in Parliament. I did not know that it bore reference to a warrant. I went to see him because I heard he was going to say something about me. I do not think our conversation was about the Consolidated Johannesburg Investment Company. It did not have reference to a contract with the Imperial Storage Company. I was a director of the first-named company. Mr. Markham did not say to me that he did not think I
was telling him the truth and he certainly never asked me whether I could point to any untrue statement in the question to be put to the House. We did not discuss the question at all. He did not say to me that hundreds of men had been sent to prison for buying a single illicit diamond. I did not offer to give Mr. Markham £10, 000 to go to any institution he might name in his constituency if he did not put the question; the whole thing is a pure fabrication; it is pure invention. In June, 1908, when I sent for Mills it was not with the intention of getting material upon which I could prosecute Sievier. I sent for him merely to see what Sievier wanted; to see how this thing could be stopped, and nothing beyond that. I had consulted my solicitor about it before sending for Mills, but it was not on my solicitor's advice that I sent. When Bendon came and proposed that I should lend £2, 000 on "Winning Post" shares it did not occur to me that that was material upon which I could prosecute. Mills told me Sievier was very much broke. I did not then think it a favourable opportunity to "dangle" money before him. I am quite clear that when I sent for Mills on June 23 I had no idea of prosecuting. I did have, however, on the morning Mills told me over the telephone that my picture was going to be published between two murderers. The statement I made at the police court that I always intended paying the money provided I got what I wanted—viz., sufficient information to prosecute, is not quite correct; I did not intend to prosecute Sievier until he threatened me with the murderous attack. I did not want to pay hush money, but to prosecute. I wanted a letter containing sufficient to prosecute on, but it was not forthcoming. Until Mills went back to Sievier and then came to me again, I did not really know in what way the money was to be paid. Mills told me that Sievier was mad with me because Morton, the trainer, bid for his horse against his (Sievier's) bid, and that the following week a nasty attack about it would be made against me in the "Winning Post." Of course, I meant to prosecute if the opportunity occurred. I sent for Mills because he was a great friend of Sievier and had much influence over him. I went on using Mills to get the materials with which to prosecute. I did not consider that dishonourable; I had been persecuted for four years. It was an unfortunate thing, but it had to be done. My solicitor wrote the telegram from me in which I said £5, 000 was ridiculous and asked if half that would do. That, however, was not done as a trap. I was of opinion that the security of "Winning Post" shares was valueless, as also a bill given by Sievier. If Mills denies that he said to me, "This is a blackmailing business; he is a villainous scoundrel" he has made a mistake. Bendon said, "He is a blackmailing dog," and "I am scared of him and that is why I have done it." I am not the only one he said that to. If he denies it he is telling an untruth. I have no recollection of saying to Mills on June 23 that Mr. Leopold Rothschild had stated that these attacks must stop. When I wrote out the cheque for £5, 000 I did not know that Mills had already given Sievier a cheque for £1, 000. I have given money to a man named Dan Murray, but it was not for the purpose of
getting Murray to attack Sievier. I gave him £200 on three occasions; he blackmailed me for it. He came to my house and threatened to smash up my home and kill me. I was a fool to pay him anything. I ought to have locked him up. I was pleased at the time to give him £200. I think I would have given him £500. If a man wants £5, 000 to suppress an article in a paper £200 is very little to give a man for not taking my life. Murray told my solicitor afterwards that he came to my house by arrangement with Sievier. I do not know whether Sievier challenged me to bring a libel action in connection with Murray's statement, to test the truth of it. I remember seeing the following in the "Winning Post," with reference to the "Police Gazette": "To those who may at the time have entertained any doubt upon the subject, Mr. J. Joel has himself set their minds at rest by not answering a single charge which we brought before the public, and if further proof were needed the British Museum can produce it. In its library are the bound copies of the 'Police Gazette' of July and August, 1884, published at Scotland Yard, Whitehall. The public has access to this volume on application for a ticket from the librarian, and in its pages it contains, week by week, a long account of Isaac Joel and the justifiable reason which demanded this publication. That there may be no shadow of doubt as to whom it refers, it also prints a woodcut portrait of him, and the likeness does not lie. The pendant portraits of the two others on the same page are not flattering to the owner of Dean Swift." Then there was a further paragraph. "On the first afternoon Mr. J. B. Joel won three races, but the objection to Garnock should not have been for bumping and boring, but on the ground that Mr. J. B. Joel has not registered his assumed names according to rule, his real name being Isaac Joel. Any doubt on this subject can be set at rest on reference to the 'Police Gazette' (Scotland Yard), in which his portrait appears, and by which he can readily be identified." Those articles contained pretty well everything that could be said against me. I did not know that a warrant had been issued against me for something in connection with South Africa, I know now. There is no doubt my bail was estreated, but I do not know to what amount. It is 25 years ago, when I was a boy. I never inquired what it was, whether £10, £10, 000, or £10, 000, 000. I have been told that I was bailed to the extent of two sums of £1, 000 each. Then I was told it was £4, 000. I have not been to South Africa since. My firm's business is not principally in that country. Since the death of my brother and uncle it has mostly been in England—that is to say, in shares. I have not promised Mills anything for taking part in this negotiation. Such a suggestion is infamous. I have not made bets with him, either by myself or through my brother. I have asked my brother to put money on horses, and if he chooses to give it to Mills that is his business. With regard to the £600. I believe Mills sent a cheque back to my solicitor. I am certainly under no promise to give Mills the £600. After the prosecution had been started he returned the £600. Mills has never made any complaint about his treatment in the matter; I do not
think he is ever likely to speak to me again. It was a very dirty business on my part to put him into it. It was not a very pleasant thing to do.
Re-examined. What I mean is, it was a dirty business towards an innocent man. I was engaged in putting an end to a series of outrageous attacks made against me extending over four years. There is no truth in the suggestion that the getting back of £600 from Mills was a mere colourable matter, nor that I was to pay it back again to him. I have not paid him a farthing, nor spoken to him since this business. He returned the £600 when he made his statement to my solicitor. He did not at first know what had happened, but when he did he returned the money immediately, saying, "I cannot touch dirty money; take it back at once." No application was made to him for it; he returned it of his own accord. This occurred when I was contending that this money had been got out of me by blackmailing. I did not agree in the first instance to lend Sievier money and then go back on my word. There was no agreement or reason in the world why he should demand money from me to lend. I do not know the man. I did not know that it was to settle his betting account. I did not know what he wanted it for. It was simply the case of a stranger coming up to know whether I would lend him £5.000 to settle his bets; he always had the front to do anything. I know he has gone to other people in the same way and they have paid it like fools. There is no truth whatever in the suggestion that he came and complained that I had not carried out my arrangement. There is no foundation whatever for the allegation that I offered Mr. Markham, M. P., to pay him money for any charity in his constituency. It is a pure fabrication. I deny that I told him a falsehood by saying that I was not a director of the Consolidated Johannesburg Investment Company. Mr. Markham never suggested that I was not telling the truth. I have only seen him once before to-day, and that was in 1904, when I went to him with a letter from Sir George Lewis. I looked upon the threat about putting my photo between two murderers as so very serious that I thought the only way to stop it was to try to get evidence. The reason I took no proceedings in respect of what was in the "Police Gazette" and Sievier's challenge was because there would have been brought up a very unfortunate incident that happened to me in my youthful days—something like a quarter of a century ago which I was in hopes was forgotten; secondly, there would have been the greatest possible difficulty for me to have obtained evidence after so long a period; and, thirdly, the whole of the newspapers would have been ringing with this thing, whereas it was only in a rag like the "Winning Post," that no respectable people ever read, so I let it die at that.
Chief-inspector EDWARD DREW , New Scotland Yard. I was first communicated with about this matter on Thursday, June 25. I received telegrams and certain information, in consequence of which I went to J. B. Joel's house. I was concealed in a room in such a position that I could both see and hear everything that went on. At about a quarter past six in the evening Mills and Joel came into the
room together. Joel said, "What have you done?" Mills replied, "I have done what you want." Joel said, "Have you got the bill?" Mills, producing a document, said, "This is what was coming out about you this week." Joel commenced to read it aloud, and Mills said to him, "He has got your woodcut coming out between two murderers, with the description," The document was a copy of the "Police Gazette" of 1884. This he read out. After that Joel said, "Have you got the bill?" Mills said, "Yes," and he handed him another document, and Joel read that out. It was the bill. Joel said the bill was drawn by Mills, and Mills said, "Yes, and it is accepted by Sievier." Joel then asked Mills if he had got the letter. He said, "Yes," and Mills handed the letter to him. This Joel read out aloud. At the finish of it Mills said, "It is a dirty bit of business; he is a villainous scoundrel." He added, "I am doing this for yours and Solly's sake as a favour." After the letter was read it passed from Joel to Mills. Joel said, "It does not contain a promise that he will not attack me in the future. I should like to have that put in." Mills said, "I can easily get that done; I am sure he will do it." Joel said, "I should like to have that done." Then he further said, "I suppose you would like to have the cheque." Mills said, "Yes," and Joel sat down, wrote a cheque, and handed it to Mills. Joel said, "I should like this business done at once, as I am going away." Mills said, "I will go and get it done at once." Joel said, "I will wait here until you come back." About an hour afterwards Mills arrived and Joel asked him if he had got it done, and he replied that he had, and Joel read it out again as to the alteration that had been made. Joel asked for a copy of it, and Mills made one. Mills asked, "You don't mind having that in about going in between the two murderers?" and Joel replied, "Certainly not, I would like to show it to Solly." When the letter had been copied Mills gave Joel the letter, and Joel said, "What shall we do with this?" and he said, "You seal it up and give it to me, and I will put it in my safe, and if occasion arises you shall have it." Joel then put the letter in an envelope, gummed it down, wrote across it, and handed it to Mills. Later on I reported the matter to the Assistant Commissioner, and a warrant was granted for Sievier's arrest. I went to Sandown Park Racecourse, where I saw Sievier and told him I held a warrant for his arrest on a charge of attempting to extort £5, 000 from Mr. Joel. He said, "Don't catch hold of me; I will go with you quite willingly; I don't want any scene to be created." I went into the betting-ring and spoke to Mills, after which I returned to Sievier and read the warrant. He said, "I have not seen Joel; I absolutely deny the charge." I searched him, and found a cheque for £400, dated August 28, 1906; a cheque for £25, payable to Mr. Dillon, dated June 26, 1908; £25 in bank notes, and three blank cheques. Sievier and the two officers who were with me got into his motor-car and were driven away. I then went to Mills' house at Wimbledon, and he took out of a desk a letter which he handed to me. It was sealed and gummed, and I took it to Bow Street Police Station, where I saw Sievier. When charged on the warrant he said, "I have
already answered that charge." I next went to Scotland Yard with Mills, where the envelope was opened. It contained the original letter which has been exhibited here. On June 29 I went to the offices of the "Winning Post." I found no money there, but discovered the three portraits. The "Police Gazette" is a publication issued week by week for the information of the police authorities exclusively, and is treated as confidential. The picture of Joel found at the "Winning Post" was a reproduction of his portrait mentioned in the "Police Gazette," excepting that on the "Winning Post" picture a moustache has been pencilled in. I have searched Scotland Yard for the Kimberley papers referred to in the extract, but the only trace I can find of them is that they were destroyed.
Cross-examined. I stated in my sworn information that I had reasonable cause for suspecting that part of the £4, 400 was concealed at the "Winning Post," and on that allegation the magistrate granted a search warrant. It never occurred to me to search his private address. Every facility for searching was afforded at the "Winning Post." Mr. Knight, the solicitor, was at that office and warned me that it was outside the province of the warrant to take the documents, but I considered it was in the interests of justice that I should take them. Mr. Knight showed me the pass book and how the money had vanished. I saw that £800 had been paid to the credit of the "Winning Post." I produce a copy of the "Police Gazette" in which there are three pictures, one being of Mr. Joel and the others of people charged with embezzlement.
Re-examined. In regard to taking away the documents in question, I conformed to the ordinary practice. I took away, purely and simply, what might be evidence of the crime for which the warrant had been issued.
JOHN SMITH , hall porter, Victoria Club, Wellington Street, Strand, said: Mills is a member and Sievier not. On the afternoon of June 24 they were both, in the club and went into the telephone box together. The next day they came again and stayed about half an hour.
Cross-examined. Mills went into the box alone at first and Sievier followed after a while.
ERNEST ADOLPHUS LUCAS , 142, Horseferry Road, Westminster, taxicab driver. I was engaged by a gentleman, who gave me written instructions to drive a boy who had "Winning Post" on his cap to Paddington. A little before six a train came in and Mills came from among the passengers and I drove him to 34, Grosvenor Square. On the way back to the Victoria Club Mills got out and spoke to someone. After being at the club a short time, I drove him to 34, Grosvenor Square again.
JAMES BRIDGER , foreman at the works of the printers of the "Winning Post." I produce several exhibits of matter received for that paper. I could not swear to the handwriting of the one concerning "Ike Joel." I fancy it is Sievier's, but I am not certain. Another
which ran, "In the Selling Plate at Windsor where Ike Joel's Violet started favourite there was a colt called Birdlime; this it thieves' slang for 'time,' " I believe to be in Mr. Sievier's handwriting; as also "Would not Portland Gaol be a more appropriate name for Port-land Bay, the winner of the Wokingham."
Cross-examined. The picture with the moustache pencilled in could be printed in the "Winning Post."
JAMES STRONG , manager of James Strong and Co., 132, Regent Street. Mills is interested in our business; Sievier came there about 11 o'clock on the morning of June 24 last and asked for Mills. Both went into a room at the back of the shop, where there was a telephone. They remained there some time and left together. The next day Sievier came again and both he and Mills again adjourned to the back room.
EDWARD ELLIOTT , bookmaker, 136, Sutherland Avenue. Sievier had an account with me which should have been settled on June 8 last. The total was £559. He asked me whether I would take a post-dated cheque; if not he would have to get the money and pay 60 per cent, for it. I agreed to the post-dated cheque, I paid it in in due course and it never came back. The amount was credited to my account on Saturday, June 27.
Cross-examined. I have many times received similar requests from people with whom I have had accounts. Sievier pointed out that I had claimed too little and he gave me a further £75.
SYDNEY ARTHUR SAMUEL , partner in Fieldings, moneylenders. I discounted a cheque for Sievier on June 24. It was five days post-dated, and I charged him £25 for the accommodation. I really gave him £550 for a £575 cheque. I presented the cheque, but the account was stopped.
Cross-examined. It has since been paid. I have had considerable business with Sievier, having lent him a great deal of money extending over a long period. He has always paid.
Re-examined. He owed me £4, 420 at the time in question. We never charged him anything but what he offered to pay us.
SIEVIER. Might I say, my lord, it was my suggestion that I should pay him £25 for the loan.
FRANK ASHMAN , manager, Strand branch, National Provincial Bank. Sievier kept an account there from November, 1906. as also did the "Winning Post," The sum of £550 was paid in on June 24. On June 19 the balance was £2 7s. 10d.; 20th, £2 17s. 10d.; 22nd, £114 17s. 10d.; 23rd, £64 17s. 10d.; 24th, £507 9s. 3d.; 25th, £68 19s. 3d.; 26th, £3, 155 13s. 3d.; and on the 27th, £945. A cheque for £1,000 which was paid in was Mills's, as also one for £3, 400. A cheque of Sievier's was dishonoured on June 24, and others previously. They were subsequently met.
Cross-examined. There were sometimes very large balances. The account was very operative. Sievier has always kept faith with us.
Mr. HELLIER, chief clerk, London and South-western Bank, Wimbledon. Mills had an account with us on June 25. A cheque for £1, 000 of Mills's was sent from the National Provincial Bank and specially cleared. So also was the cheque for £3, 400 on June 26.
Mr. BERGER partner in Ladbrooke and Co., bookmakers. In the week ending June 20 Sievier owed us £1, 142 on betting transactions. He asked us to hold over his cheque for a few days and we did so. It was then paid in.
Cross-examined. We have had many dealings with Sievier and we have held over his cheques before. He has always met his liabilities to us.
(Wednesday, July 29.)
FRANCIS JOSEPH SELLICKS , secretary of the "Winning Post" Company. Sievier is managing director of the company and the editor of the "Winning Post." After he was arrested he gave me a cheque for £10, which I cashed. I know a man named Stebbing, a member of one of the sporting clubs and a bookmaker, I believe. I have no idea whether he was a clerk of Sievier's.
Cross-examined. I acted as sub-editor of the paper and was more in attendance than he was. I believe it was started in August, 1904, and was subsequently formed into a company. The shares were dealt in, the last transaction being at 45s. for an ordinary £1 share—in June of this year. I was in the office on Tuesday, June 23. Sievier was there, conversing over the telephone, and I heard part of what was said. He was talking to Mills. I heard him say, "Look here, Charlie; as for Joel, I have done with him, and you have my word for that, as in the case of Solly." He also said, "I will do everything I can for you, and you have my word for it that I have done with Joel." He further said, "If you could lend me a few thousands I could do with it; but I don't want Joel's money; I am not taking any." I was then asked to take down an address—132, Regent Street—and after Sievier put down the receiver of the telephone he told me there were to be no further paragraphs about Joel. This he repeated before leaving the office that evening. In the room where I am there are many artists' pictures and sketches. There is also a safe there, the key of which only I possess. I saw the picture of Joel when I first came to the office, about May, 1905. At that time it had upon it the pencilling of a moustache. I have never seen a picture struck from it with the moustache on. No instructions were given, then, to use the picture. The pictures of the other two men were drawn by Mr. Cudham, an artist, on my instructions, as I proposed to write a series of burlesques and skits on Labour leaders and so on. They were absolutely burlesque pictures. So far as I know they were never shown to Sievier. They had nothing whatever to do with the picture of Joel and I never heard it suggested that they were to be published with his picture. When Inspector Drew searched the office he found the two pictures in the safe, where I had put them on the Friday previous to Sievier's arrest
on the Saturday. I put them there because I was clearing up my table. Never, until it was stated at Bow Street, had I heard it suggested that Joel's picture was to be published between two murderers.
Re-examined. I do not remember ever having seen the picture of Joel without the pencil moustache. I cannot guess the meaning of the two marks at the side of Joel's head. It might mean the positions of two murderers. I do not doubt that Inspector Drew found the two pictures together; but I say they were placed together by pure accident. The shares of the "Winning Post" are not quoted on the Stock Exchange. I could not tell you whether that paper was sold on the bookstalls of such firms as Smith's or Willing's in March of this year. Those firms sell it to order.
ROBERT STANDISH SIEVIER (prisoner, on oath). I am editor of the "Winning Post" and managing director of the company. I started the paper in August, 1904. I have known Mills for 15 or 20 years, and have had many transactions with him; he has accommodated me and I him; we are about level. I have had a great deal to do with racing and know many racing men. My first acquaintance with J B. Joel was in 1901. I had met him on several occasions previous to the Ascot meeting that year. We chatted and talked together frequently about all sorts of things. In the course of the week at Ascot I told him that I had had a very bad time, and that my settling on the following Monday was very rocky, and would he lend me some money. He said, "How much do you want?" I said, "About £5, 000 will see me through." He then said, "That's all right, I think, but I will think it over, and I will see you after the next race." After the next race I felt a hand placed on my shoulder, and Joel said to me, "I will do this for you." Then I said I would send in a bill for the amount, carrying 10 per cent., and guarantee that I would give him the refusal of any horse I sold except those who won selling plate races, until after the money was paid. On the Sunday morning at Toddington Park, where I lived, I got an intimation from him that he could not entertain the matter, as he did not think it was business. I did not get the money. I met him at Tattersall's subsequently and told him he had let me rather into a hole. He said he did not think it was quite business, but would I see him in Austin Friars? I went, and instead of seeing Joel I was told by Mr. Tom Honey that he would see me instead. After a long conversation I was offered £10, 000 for Sceptre. My answer was, "I gave that for her as a yearling," and I got up and walked out of the place After that incident I called one of my horses "Promising Jack." I did not speak to Joel after that. He was not a man of his promise and I left it there. I remember in 1904 an article appearing in the "Winning Post" attacking Joel, and subsequently there were other articles reflecting upon him. In April, 1908, I saw Bendon, whom I knew as an owner of racehorses. I am very clear
about the conversation we had. It was one day at the Epsom Spring Meeting. I said, "I am going very badly; do you think you could lend me £2, 000 on 5, 000 "Winning Post" shares and a bill at three months—it will be met, as you know?" He said, "I also am going badly and I cannot lend it." Then, after a pause, he said, "Do you mind me asking Solly?" I said certainly I did not mind. Then he left me, and after a time he came back and said, "Solly will not do it." He paused and then said, "I think I know where I can get it for you." I said, "Thank you very much, if you can it will assist me." With respect to Solly Joel, things had appeared in my paper holding him up to ridicule. About February, 1908, Mills asked me to cease attacking him. Mills told me the request, came through Bendon. I agreed, and kept my word. There was never any suggestion of consideration of any kind for that. I had known Mills many years. He had given me tips on races and I had given him tips. I trusted him. I saw Bendon at the Sandown Meeting, and he said, "Well, I have seen the person I was speaking about, and I am going to see him again to-night." I saw him next day, when he said he was sorry he had failed, and added that he thought Mills had more influence than he had, and he was of opinion that I could get it from Mills. Seeing Mills, I asked him whether he had seen Bendon. He said he had. That is the only conversation in regard to that matter, and I have never heard any more about it. Jack Joel's name had never been mentioned once up to that time. I said nothing at all about promising not to annoy Jack Joel or his family. The first I heard of ever having offered to give such a promise was in the police court. From that time till June 23 I heard nothing from either Mills or Bendon in regard to applying for a loan. The first time anything came up afresh in connection with them was on that date, when Mills telephoned me to my office. He said, "I want you to do me a favour and keep Jack Joel's name out of the paper," or words to that effect. I said, "Very well, if you ask me I will do it for you." He then said that if I wanted it he could get me a bit of money. I replied that I would have no money in connection with keeping Joel's name out of the paper; that it was being kept out in the same way as Solly's name had been—at his request. Then he went on to say that he would like to see me, as I had said that I would like to borrow money from him—as I had done before. He asked me to meet him at 132, Regent Street, and I finally said, "You will understand I don't want any money from Joel." When he said he could get me a bit of money I said, "I don't want any money for this transaction, and I will not have it—it has nothing to do with it." After other words I said. "I want to borrow some money and if you can lend me any, do." I went to 132, Regent Street, and met Mills. He invited me into a little parlour at the back of the shop and said, "I am very much obliged for your keeping Joel's name out; it will do me a turn." He then said he was sure he could borrow some money if I wanted any. I said if he could lend me some I should be only too pleased to borrow from him. He asked what I wanted, and I replied that£5, 000 would clear me. In the course of conversation
I asked him whether he had seen the description of Joel in the "Police Gazette." He said, "No," and I told him it was the beat description that I had ever seen of the man in so few lines. He said he would like to see it, and I remarked that I would have a copy found up. He then stated that he would see what he could do as to the loan and would telegraph me from Newbury. After that he rang up someone on the telephone, and as I did not desire to overhear his conversation I walked out of the shop. Mills came to me shortly after and said, "I have rung up Joel, and he will not lend £5, 000, but he will £2, 500; is that any good to you?" I said, "I can raise the money elsewhere, but £5, 000 would have been more useful and would save me a lot of trouble." There the conversation nominally ended. We did speak about the "Police Gazette," and I said Joel's picture was amongst a lot of fearful individuals who might be taken for murderers. It is absolutely untrue that at that interview I told him I was going to bring out some very hot stuff and put Joel's picture in the paper between two murderers. I had never given such instructions, and had no idea of such a thing. I pencilled the moustache on Joel's, picture in September, 1905, I think. It was done to guide Mr. Star Wood, who drew the cartoon of Joel—to guide and give him some idea, of Joel's likeness at the present time. Mr. Wood had gone to the City to try and find him, but he did not find him and we had to resort to this. The cartoon is that. of the "Gladiator," who is Joel, with the "Winning Post" standing on top of him. I told Mr. Wood to make the head a little fatter and to bring the ringlet a little further down, somewhat after the fashion in which Solly does his hair. I may say that that pencilled moustache, if put on a block and sent to the Art Reproduction Company would not print on the "Winning Post" paper; it would come out a smudge and grey. Except for the purpose of indicating to Mr. Wood the position of the moustache that block or picture has never been used. At the back of it the top three lines are mine. They are, "Sultry Stories; Peppery Paragraphs; Tobasco Tales." Tobasco is a hot sauce. Before Mills left I had not said anything to him about sending a telegram to Joel. What Mills said about my having said anything to him about sending a telegram to Joel is absolutely false. When I received the wire from Mills at Newbury, "Message to say five ridiculous; prepared to give half if will give letter as promised," all I understood was that I had asked Mills if he could get me £5, 000 as a loan, taking it from him, and that he had said he could lend me £2, 500 and that that was in some way to do with it; but more than that I knew nothing. When I wired him to meet me at night I had not received the other telegram. I had not been to the office. I had made no appointment with him in the morning and I wanted to know exactly whether he was going to let me have this money or not. I saw him at the Victoria Club that night. He came out of the telephone-box and said, "You can have that £2, 500 if you like." I said, "Thank you verymuch, can yon give it me now?" He said, "No." I asked if he could give me anything and he replied, "You can have a thousand and I will give you the rest to-morrow morning." I then got a cheque
from him for £1, 000 and told him I would bring him the bills. He had previously asked me to give him a letter saying that I would not annoy Joel and would leave him out of the paper. That was when I showed him the telegram and asked him for an explanation of it. The first thing that happened when I met Mills at the club was, I showed him the telegram and asked what it meant and he said, "It is all right, it means that Joel will only lend £2, 500." Then I said, "Yes, that is all right, I understand that, but what about if I give a letter?" He said, "That is nothing; he wants just to see that it is not going to be in the paper at all; it will do me a turn if you write me a letter. Write it to me and I will show it to Joel." I said, "I will do it with pleasure and I will also write one for Solly." "No," he said, "that is all I want; it will just do me a turn and show that I have a little influence in this matter." And I said, "Certainly." There was no question connecting the letter with the £2, 500 in any way whatsoever so far as Mills's conversation with me was concerned. Nothing was said about the balance. A sum of £2, 500 was going to be lent, as I thought, immediately, and I got £1, 000 of it. I said I would bring the bills to Regent Street the following morning. I asked when he wanted it back and he told me I could make my own time. I said, "If I can make my own time I will make it a year. That will be a very convenient time." I got the bills out at 12 months, wrote the letter on "Winning Post" paper, and went to keep the appointment at Regent Street, expecting to get £1, 500 in exchange for the bills the next morning. As to the other £2, 500 which I wanted, I said I would have to go to Mr. Bass or someone like that. I think I also mentioned Mr. Blacklock's name. The former is a brewer and the latter the proprietor of "Bradshaw's Guide." Neither of them are money-lenders. I got the £2, 500 that night and paid it into the bank next morning, about 10 o'clock. Mills's statement that he did not give me that cheque until 11.30 the next day is untrue. On Wednesday, the 24th, at the Victoria Club, Mills told me that if I would come up to 132, Regent Street, and bring the bills he would give me the balance of the money. I deny that I was in the telephone room at the club with Mills on the Wednesday evening. On the Thursday morning at Regent Street he said he had not the money with him. I had given him the bills and I gave him a letter saying, "Is this the sort of thing you want to please you?" He read it and said, "That will do nicely; it will do me a bit of good," or words to that effect. Then he said if I met him that evening between New Oxford Street and Shaftesbury Avenue he would give me the balance, as he had a board meeting, and that was the only point at which he could meet me. When I showed him the papers and the "Police Gazette," he said he wanted them, as he would have a bit of fun. I remember what was said about the telegram about £5, 000 being ridiculous, but I have never seen it in my life. I never sent any offer whatever to Joel or anybody; the boot has been on the other leg. I sent a taxicab for Mills on his arrival at Paddington. When he got out he said, "I can lend you £5, 000." I said, "Thank you very much, this is a
surprise; I am in a great hurry, would you mind placing the cheque in this letter?" I had already written a letter to my bank saying I wanted the enclosed cheque placed to my credit. I said, "Would you mind placing the cheque into this and posting it to my bank tonight, as I want to get home to-night and I shall not be in town for the end of the week." He took the letter and said, "I have not the cheque with me—will 12 o'clock to-morrow do?" I said, "Yes; I should prefer if you would send the cheque to-night." He retained the letter and put it into his pocket. Then at the Victoria Club he wrote me out a cheque for £3, 400. The reason that the figure was made £3, 400 was because he said to me that there was a matter of £600 outstanding between me and him. I said I had no recollection of it. He said, "Well, there is" So I said, "If there is you had better have it now and take it off the cheque." Then he wrote me a cheque for the £3, 400 on blank paper and I put it in the envelope which contained the letter and which Mills handed me back and I posted it. He said to me before I posted it, "I wish you would put in another sentence here. I have seen Joel, but he says you have not said in this letter to me that you will not molest him." I then said, "I have never molested him, but if you with it—" and he said, "Well, do it for me; I want it; it is all right; what does it matter and it will be putting me very nicely with Joel?" I said, "Certainly," and with that I wrote it saying, "I will do as you wish," or words to that effect. It was done openly. The whole of this was done in the Victoria Club. Members were passing constantly and could have heard the conversation. I know the majority of the members there and they know me. The interlineation of the words in that letter and everything was done at the porter's table in the hall. As to repayment of the extra £2, 500, I said I must have time to settle as to how I could pay it. I said I would do it before the other bill became due, because, of course, I could not owe it over a year and I would see how I could work it out—how I could pay it back. I never agreed to accept that £2, 500 as a present. Mills said, "You can have £2, 500 as a present if you like." I said, "No such thing; I will not accept it as a present." Mills told me early in the course of our meetings that Mr. Leopold Rothschild had said to Joel that this sort of thing in the "Winning Post" ought to stop. I went to Sandown on the day I was arrested. The bills were to have come down to me in the morning by messenger before I started. They did not arrive, however, so I started for Sandown. They were brought to my house at Taplow later in the day. They were brought to me by my solicitor, who opened the envelope. With reference to the picture now produced, I had never seen it before it was shown at the police court. I never supposed it to be the picture of two murderers. It is too grotesque for anything, and I know nothing about it. Referring to the two articles about Dan Murray, I made reference to both him and Joel. I myself believe those statements. I say that in publishing the articles reflecting on Joel I had no intention whatsoever to extort money from him. It is not true that I was in league with Murray.
I have earned a fair income during the past few years, but have had many periods of considerable financial depression. I have had high and low tides financially. I never saw the cheque for £5, 000 which was given by Joel to Mills.
Cross-examined. The last time I had personal communication with Joel was when I was angry with him for not lending me money. We were intimate, so far as intimacy on the racecourse goes. There was no reason why he should lend me money, except that we were both owners of racehorses, and I had very particular property in racehorses at that time—some £100, 000. The case I put to the jury is that undoubtedly Bendon has grossly perjured himself. Certainly Bendon was the gentleman from whom I borrowed £1, 000 on April 6 and from whom I tried to get another £2, 000. I heard Mills say that Bendon was very much prejudiced against Jack Joel. I cannot give any reason why Bendon should commit perjury with a view to injuring me. As to Mills, he was a friend, and I say that one of the last things I had to do with him is that he tried to force upon me £2, 000. I do indeed charge him also with having committed gross perjury here. I think he was foisting that money upon me. I think he knew the whole of this business throughout, or if he did not, then what he had said to Joel he said on his own account in order to save his own skin, and he began to think it was the truth. Bendon never told me that he did not care to ask Solly Joel. I did not then request him to ask Jack Joel. That is an invention on his part. I deny that I said if Jack Joel lent the money I would never annoy him or his family again. His saying that, I should suggest was for the purpose of assisting Joel in this case. He never told me it was a dirty business from the start. When he said, "I know someone who will do it "—meaning lend the money—I did not ask him who the lender was. He did not mention Jack Joel. I would not take his money. In fact, I do not know now that the £5, 000 came from Joel. When I knew that Mills wanted me to have £2, 500, having borrowed £5, 000, and I found that he desired me to take it as a present for the obligation of Joel's name not going into the paper, I would not accept it. When I consulted Bendon and he said he was going to see someone to get it, my idea was that Bendon himself was going to lend it. Of course, he might have gone and seen a third person, but he certainly did not tell me afterwards that he had been to Jack Joel. All he said was, "I have failed, but have asked Mills to carry out the business." He did not say Jack Joel was inclined to lend the money, but would want a receipt and a letter. That is another lie. I did not say, "I will have no transaction with Joel, the loan would be from Mills." I do not know that Mills rang up Jack Joel immediately after he had seen Bendon, though I have no doubt Bendon had told him to go to Jack Joel. It was an invention of Mills when he says that Bendon stated that I wanted to borrow £2, 000 from J. B. Joel on the security of 5, 000 shares in the "Winning Post" to have Joel's name left out of the paper. I could have borrowed the money anywhere without security. The benefit, if there were any,
which Bendon would get by making such a statement as has been suggested would be the benefit of assisting Barnato Brothers, or, rather, one of their partners. I heard none of the conversation on the telephone in Regent Street between Mills and Joel; in fact, I did not know that he rang Joel up. Bendon had warned Mills to be careful, according to Mills's own version, and according to Bendon's version it was a dirty business, and Mills appears to have gone on with it without any intimation to me to that effect. I call the "business" a matter of manufacturing evidence against me. Mills has sworn that he has done everything at the instigation of Joel. Nobody told Mills about the two "murderers." What was said in reference to the case there is that I said: "This is a block of Joel's—in talking about the Joels—with a description of him, which was excellent, and it had appeared amongst a number of ugly-looking individuals, who looked like murderers. I can show you two people who look like murderers in the issue of the "Winning Post" of July 11 who had much Joel's appearance. Before I parted from Mills, when he went to Paddington to send a telegram to say that it was absolutely imperative that the business should be finished that day, I never asked him to send any telegram whatsoever to Joel. When he wired, "You must give your decision to-day absolutely," I say that he took that upon himself, on his own initiative, or by instructions of Joel. My opinion is that he did that in order that it might be part of the manufactured evidence. It was an astonishment to me when Mills telegraphed, "Wire particulars; prepared to give half if will give letter promised." It did not strike me as curious, if Mills was blackmailing on his own account, that he should telegraph to me that Joel had sent to him. That would be part of the plan. I should say very likely that telegram was sent at the instigation of Joel's solicitor, or Joel himself. In his evidence Mills said that Joel had said to him exactly what was in that telegram. When the telegram came, "Wire ridiculous; prepared to give half if will give letter as promised," I saw Mills, by appointment in the evening. I said, "What does this mean?" He replied, "Oh! it is all right; it means that I can only borrow £2, 500 for you." I said, "What does it mean about the letter as promised?" Then he said, "Joel asked me to get a letter from you saying that you would leave his name out of the paper; I promised Joel you would give me one." I knew then that he was quite willing to lend Mills the £2, 500, and as I explained to Mills on the Tuesday, I had given my promise that his name should be kept out of the paper, and there was an end of the matter. The paragraphs and everything were deleted at the time I got that telegram. I knew that Mills, if he obtained the money, would lend it to me; in fact, he said I could have the £2, 500 that night. Whatever the telegram says, the subsequent conversation did not make it a condition that I was to give a letter. If I had seen the telegram I should have understood it. The letter really was to content Mills. I cannot say that I understood from the information given that Joel was making it a condition that he would only give half the £5, 000 if he got such a letter. Mills did not put it in that
way at all. I swear that I did not even then understand that Joel was making that letter a condition of lending money. I do not know whether it was conspiracy on Mills' part, or whether he acted on his own accord in the matter. If he only acted on his own accord he would be what I call trying to be extra clever on both sides. All his evidence is false. I should think he was put up to it—probably by Joel. If the hall-porter at the club said I went into the telephone box, I say he made a mistake. I did not hear Mills say, "Sievier is here at my side; I showed him your telegram, and he says that he will not accept less than £5, 000." Mills did not tell me that Joel said, "If you cannot do it for less I will give you £5, 000, provided you give me a letter to say you will not molest me any more." I did not say at first that I would not agree to give the bills. That is very likely another invention of Mills, showing the important part he was playing to Joel. There was no question that evening of £5, 000. Mills gave me £1, 000, and promised me £1, 500 more in the morning. I do not pretend that I did not have a very strong suspicion that Joel was going to lend Mills the money and Mills lend it to me. There was no difficulty in getting me to take it in a legitimate manner, but there was a difficulty in getting me to take £2, 500 as a gift. I refused to do that. Though I had a shrewd idea that Joel was supplying the money, yet Mills might have borrowed it from other people, as he has done in the past. I maintain that there was a conspiracy between Joel and Mills to put me into gaol. With reference to handing over to Mills the "Police Gazette," it is not likely I should have let him have it to take to Joel if I was blackmailing Joel for money. It would be the last thing I should do. The sum of £1, 500 was handed over to me on the pavement in Oxford Street. That did not strike me as a curious kind of transaction. It was an ordinary business transaction on the pavement between two men who go racing and have lax views of business. I added the words in the letter, promising that I would not molest Joel again, after I received the £3, 400, not before. Of course, I understood that Joel had already seen the letter and that he had instructed Mills to get me to make the addition. I had never molested Joel, and there was no harm in saying, "I will not, as you say, molest him again." There was no connection whatsoevor between the letter and the cheque. Mills would have had that letter without any cheque if he had asked for it. I should have done it without receiving a sixpence. The fact of the loan and letter coming at the same time was not, in my opinion, a mere coincidence, but a little bit of manoeuvring—a good stroke in setting the trap. The letter and the cheque had no concern one with the other—not with me. I did not "arrange" with Mills to show the letter to Joel; I said he could do anything he liked.
Re-examined. The bills in the envelope now produced are the ones in question. They are 21s. blank bill forms, endorsed, "Important papers." This was opened by Mr. Knight, the solicitor. I had given instructions in regard to them, and they were paid for out of "Winning Post" petty cash. I waited for those bills before going to Sandown, but as there was some delay I left and went to Sandown. Eventually they reached me, after I had been arrested.
(Thursday July 30.)
Verdict, Not guilty.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Tuesday, July 21.)
KEENAN, Andrew, and NELSON, Walter John ; unlawfully going on board the British ship "Star of Scotland," lying in the Victoria Docks, without permission of the master of the said ship, and before the seamen left the ship, contrary to the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894. The charge against Keenan was first taken.
Mr. Corrie Grant, K.C., M.P., and Mr. Norman Raeburn prosecuted; Mr. Eustace Fulton defended.
PETER EDWIN PORCH , deputy-superintendent, Mercantile Marine Office, Poplar. I produce copy of register of British steamship "Star of Scotland," also official log of the steamer. The voyage ended on Jane 19 in Victoria Dock, London. The crew were discharged before me according to the Act at 10.30 a.m. on the 20th.
ERNEST WETHERALL , transmission officer of Board of Trade. At 3.15 on June 19 I boarded the "Star of Scotland" on her arrival from Adelaide. I saw Keenan standing on the fore part of the vessel about 7.30 that night. He ran off the ship and I called to him to come back, but he took no notice. I have no doubt it was Keenan, as I have known him for years.
Cross-examined. I believe Keenan had come there to collect the seamen's baggage.' That was not the offence. The offence was going on board the ship without the permission of the master. It is my duty to go aboard the ship to advance the seamen's wages and also to keep these sort of people off.
To the Jury. It is not the custom on board steamers to allow tradesmen to go aboard a ship for orders on its arrival.
Clarence Dove, Customs Preventive Officer. I was on board the "Star of Scotland" on June 19 and I saw Keenan coming from the fore part of the vessel about seven to 7.30 p.m.
JOHN MANN HART . I am master of the "Star of Scotland." She arrived on June 19 from Australia at K Jetty, Victoria Dock. I remained on board in my room from the time she arrived until about eight o'clock. During that time I gave no permission to anyone to come on board I have never seen Keenan before this case.
To the Court. There is no one to whom I give authority to let people come on board the ship when I am there.
EDWARD CROMWELL COLCHESTER , second officer, "Star of Scotland." After the vessel arrived in the dock I saw Nelson and a one-armed man standing amidships on the starboard side of the ship. I could not swear that the one-armed man was Keenan. I did not see what became of him. He did not ask me for permission to come on board.
Cross-examined. A large number of porters from time to time, rightly or wrongly, come on board the ship without any objection being made. They usually belong to the Great Eastern Railway Company or some other company, or Pickford's, and they come to see if there is any luggage to be taken away. I have seen them on board whilst the men are still there without objection being raised. Pickford's men are not persons authorised by law to come aboard. I think there were some of Pickford's men on board later on in the evening. If I saw a man on board knowing him to be a Pickford's man I would not turn him off or inquire if he had leave.
At the close of the case for the prosecution Mr. Fulton submitted that the indictment was bad on the ground that it did not set up that defendant was on board "without being duly authorised by any person allowed by law to give such authority."
Mr. Corrie Grant contended that the words in the indictment "unlawfully going on board" were sufficient.
The Common Serjeant allowed the objection, and quashed the indictment.
(Wednesday, July 22.)
KEENAN was now indicted for having, on June 19 last, not then being an officer in His Majesty's service, and not being duly authorised by any person allowed by law to give such authority, been on board a certain British ship, without the permission of the master of the ship, and before the seamen were allowed to leave the ship, contrary to the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894.
PETER EDWIN GILES PORCH , Deputy Superintendent of Mercantile Marine at Poplar. I yesterday produced a copy of the register of the steamship "Star of Scotland." She is a British ship from Adelaide. Her crew was discharged on June 20 at half-past 10 in the morning.
ERNEST WETHERALL . I am a transmission officer of the Board of Trade, and for the last four years have been carrying out my duties at the Docks. On June 19 I boarded the steamship "Star of Scotland," which had just arrived from Adelaide, at about 3.15 in the afternoon, and went round with her to the Victoria Docks, where she was berthed at the K jetty at about 5.30. I remained aboard till about 7.15, when I went ashore, returning in about a quarter of an hour. As I was walking up the gangway, I saw Keenan standing on the fore deck of the vessel. He is a one-armed man, and I have known him for years; there is no possible doubt that it was he I saw. I walked forward towards him, when he dodged round a deck house, ran through the cook's galley, and tried to get away. I called out, "Keenan, come back!" quite loud enough for him to hear (in fact, I shouted it), but he took no notice and went away.
Cross-examined. I did not know that Keenan has been a fireman, but I know him as a carrier in the dock, who goes aboard ships to carry parcels. I am a sort of police officer of the Board of Trade. It is a fact, when a ship comes in, a lot of people try to board her, such at the representatives of Carter, Paterson and Co. and other carriers, but they are not allowed there without the permission of the master. I do not think Carter, Paterson and Co.'s people have general permission to come aboard. Everybody who comes aboard must have written permission of the master or somebody in authority.
Re-examined. My duty is to enforce the rule, and I am there for the purpose.
CLARENCE DOVE , Customs Preventive Officer. I was on board the "Star of Scotland" on her arrival on June 19, and saw Keenan there about 7 or 7.30, walking in the forepart of the vessel towards the gangway.
Cross-examined. He was not carrying anything to my knowledge. I have known him since the middle of last April. There are a lot of authorised porters in the dock, but they are not allowed to board ships until the goods have been examined. After that they may come aboard with permission, and I believe some of them have general authority to do so.
Re-examined. Besides the porters who have general permits, there are many others who attempt to come aboard without, which it is my duty to prevent. They come to carry parcels for the seamen, but I have not come across a case where they have carried spirits to them, nor do I know that they act as touts for keepers of brothels.
JOHN M. HART , master of the "Star of Scotland." My ship arrived from Adelaide on June 19 and took up her berth at K jetty in the Victoria Dock about five in the afternoon. I did not leave the ship till 9.15 next morning. I gave no authority to the man Keenan to come aboard the ship, and do not know him. I had altogether a crew of 63 on arrival on June 19, including the officers. The voyage occupied five months and five days, and the members of the crew would take from £14 to £18 apiece; some, of course, of the higher grades would have more.
Cross-examined. The men were allowed to go ashore on the arrival of the ship if they wished, and to take their luggage with them, but I never give permission to anyone to come aboard to carry it until the officers have made their examination, and I do not allow my officers to give permission if I am on board myself. When I am on board, anybody who wanted to obtain permission to board the ship would have to come to me. I have never given such permission, though I cannot say in the whole course of my experience that no one has come on board without a pass; they will do sometimes.
Re-examined. If I found anyone aboard I did not want without a Pass I should put him ashore. I cannot say how many of the crew went ashore oh June 19, but there was a considerable number of the crew there when I left the ship the next morning, and we all attended before Mr. Porch when they were discharged.
EDWARD C. COLCHESTER , second officer of the "Star of Scotland." I remember the ship being berthed on June 19. At about 7.30 o'clock I saw on board a one-armed man and a man named Nelson. I did not speak to the one-armed man nor he to me. We had a crew of about 63, and when I saw the one-armed man I should think that quite half the crew were still on board. I did not see the man a face, and would not swear to his being the man in the dock. I think he was because he had one arm only. I say I think half the crew had gone ashore when I saw the man, but I cannot say what happened to their luggage. I was not greatly disturbed when I saw the man. I saw the witness Wetherall about the matter after I saw the man, about 7.15, who asked me if I had given him authority to board the ship, because I am in the habit when I am on duty of giving such permission, but I never give general permission. If any tradesmen come to deliver goods they send for me and ask for directions, and each permission given covers one visit. I should give people like Carter, Paterson and Co. permission to come aboard if I were asked. People do, as a fact, come aboard sometimes without permission, and I should not turn them off.
Cross-examined. If I saw any man on board without permission. I should ask him what he was doing, and, if his explanation was satisfactory, I should allow him to remain, and if he were an undesirable character I should send him ashore.
JAMES ANNETT , carrier, 24, Seaton Street, E. On June 19 I was standing, when the "Star of Scotland" came in, at the end of K jetty, and I saw Keenan there. After that I saw Mr. Weatherall, the Board of Trade officer, go aboard the ship, but I did not see Keenan again till I saw him aboard the ship; then I saw him again a little while afterwards going towards the road: I did not see him come off the ship.
Cross-examined. I am in the same business as Keenan and know Mr. Weatherall. When a vessel comes into dock and seamen want carriers to take their luggage ashore, they either get a pass themselves or get us to get one for them from the chief officer, and we have to wait for them to bring the luggage ashore, not being allowed aboard the ship. The Captain and the Board of Trade officers object to carriers boarding the ship and turn them off when they see them, but at times I know that carriers do go aboard to fetch luggage themselves for the seamen.
ANDREW KEENAN (prisoner, on oath). I am 38 years of age and act with another man (Nelson) as a carrier in the dock. We do business together. Only people who have business there are allowed in the dock, but 40 carriers, of whom I am one, have permission to go in. On the occasion in question I was asked by a fireman of the name of Roche, a fireman aboard the ship, to go on board and fetch his luggage and carry it out, and for that purpose I obtained from the officer on board the ship a pass to allow me to go through the dock gates with the luggage; that pass was a pass to satisfy the Custom
House officer and not an authority to go on board the ship. They would not allow me to go out of the dock without that pass; I only went aboard the ship to get the luggage which Roche asked me to carry out.
Cross-examined. When I went aboard the ship to get the luggage for this fireman I went forward, but I cannot say which side of the ship, whether it was the starboard or port side, I have forgotten those terms, but it was on the right side near the dock. It is a fact that I have been a fireman, but that is about 25 years ago, I should think. I believe I went up on the right hand side of the ship. I did not run through the cook's galley to escape from the officer, because it was closed at the time, and if Mr. Weatherall says that he saw me run through the cook's galley that is not correct. If Mr. Weatherall called me to come back to him I can assure you I never heard him. Of course, it is possible that he may have called me, but it did not attract my attention. When this man Roche asked me to go aboard and get his luggage for him, I simply went on board and got it. I did not know that I was doing any wrong in doing so. I have done it on many occasions before, and I do not see any harm in doing it. I admit that I had no permission to go aboard, but I have had permission before, and I did not think that I was in fault by going aboard and fetching the luggage in this instance. I know, as a matter of fact, one is not supposed to go aboard a ship without permission. It is a fact I have been found on board a ship before by the Board of Trade officers, and I have been warned that if I did it again I should be prosecuted, but in this particular case I was under the impression that the Board of Trade officer had finished his work and that I was free to go on board the ship and render any assistance that was required. I saw Mr. Weatherall leave the ship at about 6.30 or 6.45 p.m., and about 20 minutes after I went on board the ship, which I thought I was entitled to do. As a matter of fact, I asked him whether he had finished and he said "Yes." Some of the notice bills that you produce to me I have seen before, but I do not know that I have read them particularly. I have read some of them and know that it is not proper to go aboard ships without permission of the authorities or of the master.
ERNEST WEATHERALL , recalled. To Mr. Corrie Grant. With reference to Keenan's statement that he asked me whether I had finished and that I said, "Yes," I remember him speaking to me on the day in question, but I do not remember that he asked me that question. As a matter of fact, I think he spoke to me about six o'clock. At that time I told him I wanted to speak to another man who was in the dock and who was Nelson who I thought was on the jetty, and I simply asked him where he was. It is not true that I said I had finished. I have had occasion to caution the prisoner before about the practice of going aboard ships, but I cannot tell off-hand the dates upon which that has happened. It is impossible for me to remember what he said when I cautioned him about the matter. I. at any rate, pointed out to him that he had no right to be there and he thoroughly understood it. Verdict, Guilty.
Nelson now withdrew his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty. Detective-sergeant Read proved two previous convictions of Keenan for a similar offence and one against Nelson.
Sentence, each prisoner, Three weeks' hard labour.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE SUTTON.
(Wednesday, July 22.)
Mr. Muir and Mr. Graham-Campbell prosecuted; Mr. Eustace Fulton appeared for prisoner.
Prisoner at first pleaded guilty, but after the Jury had been sworn he, at his own request, was permitted to make a statement, through an interpreter. The statement was "that he did strike the man and was sorry that he was dead, but he had no idea of killing him."
Mr. Muir submitted that that statement having been made by prisoner in the hearing of the Jury, they would be justified in returning a verdict of manslaughter—a verdict at which he should have asked the Jury to arrive had they heard the evidence out.
His Lordship assented, and accordingly a verdict was entered of Guilty of manslaughter.1
The prisoner and Mukdoom were Mahomedan natives of Bombay and they were members of the crew of the P. and O. steamer "Malta," on board which they were employed as firemen. At Shanghai they were transferred to the P. and O. steamer "Nore," which arrived at Antwerp on the 5th inst. The following morning the sound of a scuffle on deck was heard and the prisoner and Mukdoom were seen struggling together. In the course of the encounter the prisoner stabbed Mukdoom five or six times with a knife.
PRISONER, called upon said, "I acknowledge that by my hand the man was killed, and that it was by the knife that was in my hand, but I had no idea I was going to kill him. The man was my friend; we ate together and drank together and had many things in common, and I did not intend to kill him. There had never been any animosity between us. I leave myself in the hands of the Sirkar; the Government is my protector."
Sentence, Eighteen months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Wednesday, July 22.)
GOSS, Frederick Albert (18, porter) ; stealing in the shop of Anna Margaretta Burkert eight tobacco pouches, four cigarette cases, two pipes and cases, and other articles, her goods, and breaking out of the said shop.
Mr. Graham-Campbell prosecuted.
Police-constable CORNELIUS KEEBLE , 708 N. On July 8, at 8.40 in the morning, I saw prisoner in High Road, Walthamstow, and noticed that his pockets appeared to be very bulky. I stopped him and asked him what he had got in them, and he said, "I have got some tobacco, do you want a bit? I got it off the old man last Friday?" I asked him if he meant his father, and he said "Yes." He showed me the tobacco, and I said, "You have not had this tobacco in your pocket since Friday," and I took him to the station. At the station he was searched and a quantity of tobacco and other articles were found upon him. He then made a statement, which was taken down by the officer on duty and had been handed in.
ANDREW BURKERT , son of Anna M. Burkert. I left the shop safe at 11 o'clock on July 7, with the doors properly fastened, but when I went there the next morning at eight o'clock I found the shop in disorder and the yard door open. I then shut up the shop again and went and informed the police. At the station I saw the articles taken from the prisoner, which I identified as having been in the shop on the previous night. The value of the goods stolen was about £2 10s.
Detective-sergeant HORACE CASTLETON . On July 8 I went to the premises, 65, St. James Street, Walthamstow, and examined them, but found no mark of any entry to them having been effected. The back door was unbolted from the inside, and the windows were all secure. On July 9 I saw prisoner at the Court at Stratford Petty Sessions, and told him I should charge him with breaking out of the shop and stealing a quantity of tobacco and other goods. He said, "That is what you say, but it is true what I have stated." He referred to the statement he had made at the police station. I did not hear the statement made, but the constable can prove it.
The statement was read, to the effect that prisoner met a man on Monday at Leyton, who asked him to walk with him to Walthamstow. He had slept in the forest the previous night. That he went with the man, who was called Joe, and that at half-past 11 on the Tuesday night they were in Valentine Road, where Joe told him to stop and watch while he broke into a tobacco shop in, he believed, Markhouse Road, but he could not say for certain, as he did not know the name of the road. He waited for half an hour, when Joe came back and gave him some tobacco and the other articles, telling him that there was no money in the shop. Joe then went off with a woman and told him to wait for him at Wood Street Station, where he went and waited till five o'clock, and then walked to Woodford. He had not seen Joe since he left him at 12 o'clock that night.
Detective-sergeant H. CASTLETON, recalled. It was in consequence of that statement that I went to the premises. They are not near Valentine Road, but half a mile away. Markhouse Road is a continuation
of St. James Street, but it is a long way from Valentine Road. It was evident that no entry had been made into the premises, and the back door must have been opened from the inside.
Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, Six months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Thursday, July 23.)
Mr. S. Lynch and Mr. H. F. Egerton Warburton prosecuted.
Sentence, Four months' imprisonment.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Friday, July 24.)
HAROSKE, Adolf (34, traveller) ; obtaining on May 26, 1908, by false pretences from Job Archer the sum of £1 10s. 4d.; on May 30, 1908, from Thomas Wright the sum of £1 3s. 4d.; on June 2, 1908, from David Birkle the sum of £1 10s.; on June 6, 1908, from Henry Grass the sum of £1; on May 27, 1908, from Henry Alfred Woodcock the sum of 17s. 8d.; and on May 26, 1908, from Edward William Small the sum of 6s. 1 1/2 d., in each case with intent to defraud.
STANLEY HUGH BRADFORD , 20, Park Avenue, Palmer's Green. In May last I was manager of Feltham's Bank, Limited, 2, Coleman Street, E. C. On May 26 prisoner came to the bank for the purpose-of. opening an account; he gave his name as Paul Normann, of 7, Blyth Road, Leyton; he signed the book, which I produce, in that name. He opened the account by a payment in of £1 in gold, and, so far as I know, no other person had any connection with the account. I produce a certified copy of that account. On the same day a cheque for 14s. 10d. was presented against that account in prisoner's handwriting, signed "P. Normann" and endorsed "F. Haroske." I should say the endorsement was in prisoner's writing with a different pen. Nothing has ever been paid into the account since, but several cheques have been presented against the account and dishonoured by the bank. The seven cheques produced are, in my opinion, in the prisoner's handwriting, and all drawn to "A. Haroske" or "F. Haroske," and, to the best of my judgment, the endorsements are also in the handwriting of the prisoner.
Cross-examined. When a customer comes to open an account I generally put some questions to him as to his business and so on; I do not remember asking prisoner such questions, but I should think
I probably did so. He gave his correct address, but there was nothing said about it being a small amount to open an account with, or about£40 being paid in the next morning. We open accounts, by post at our bank.
ALBERT HART , manager of Feltham's Bank, Coleman Street branch. On June 6 I wrote a letter to Mr. P. Normann, 7, Blyth Road, Leyton, of which the document produced is a certified copy. Being a Saturday, that letter would have been posted between two and four o'clock.
Cross-examined. I wrote to say we were going to close the account, but we did not close it till two or three days afterwards. All the cheques that were presented afterwards were marked "Refer to drawer." I know Mr. R. A. Blagdon, a solicitor, of Copthall Avenue, as a customer of the bank; he is not our legal adviser. I know Feltham's Mercantile Agency, but I know nothing about its work. I do not know that its directors are the same as those of Feltham's Bank. I have nothing to do with that company; it may be another branch of the business which constitutes the bank; that I do not know.
JOB ARCHER , dairyman, 305, Church Road, Leyton. I have known prisoner as a customer since January 21 last. On May 26 he owed me 9s. 6d.; he brought a cheque to me and asked me if I would take his account out of that and give him the change, as he was going away for three weeks' travelling. The amount of the cheque was £1 19s. 10d.; it was post-dated, June 1. He told me he had received the cheque as commission. I took the account of 9s. 6d. and gave him the change. He endorsed the cheque on my counter, "Payable to Messrs. Archer and Son.—Adolf Haroske." On June 1 I received the postcard, now produced, dated May 31, from 7, Blyth Road, Leyton, asking me to hold the cheque over till Wednesday, June 4. I therefore did not pay the cheque in until Thursday, June 5, and it was returned on June 6, bearing the letters "R. D." I then went to prisoner's house, but did not see him. On the following Monday, June 8, he came into my shop and said, "I am sorry you had the cheque returned. I have wrote to the drawer and he has promised to pay me to-morrow, Tuesday, this being Bank Holiday," and he said he would draw the money out from the Post Office Bank if he did not get it from the drawer and pay me on Wednesday. I have never been paid. On Friday, June 12, I received a postcard by hand; it was put in a milk can for my man to bring to me, promising to settle the cheque without fail on Saturday afternoon. He did not settle on the Saturday, and on the following Monday I went to Blyth Road and found the house shut up and everything gone.
Cross-examined. I had never pressed for the payment of the 9s. 6d. I do not remember prisoner paying an account of 25s. with a £5 note, but he has paid accounts of three or four weeks at a time; he has told me that he always paid his accounts after his return from travelling.
cheque for £1 3s. 4d. He said he had to take his wife away, as she was very ill and he wanted the money to pay for a cab. The cheque produced is the one I cashed for him on May 30, dated June 1. He endorsed the cheque on my counter. I paid the cheque away in the course of my business, and on June 12 it was returned marked, "Refer to drawer." I called at his house, 7, Blyth Road, Leyton, and told him the cheque had been returned; he said he had received the cheque from a customer of his for some goods which he had supplied and he would see the customer in the morning and bring me the money by 11 o'clock on Saturday. He came on the Saturday and told me he had not seen his customer, but was then going to the City to see him and would call and pay me at six o'clock in the evening. He did not come, and on the Monday I went to 7, Blyth Road and found the house empty.
Cross-examined. The only address I knew prisoner at was 7, Blyth Road. On the Saturday, after he had promised to pay in the evening I sent a friend round to his house at about six o'clock, and he brought back a message that prisoner would come and see me on the Sunday morning. I had before this time lent prisoner 14s. 6d., which he had repaid.
Re-examined. The cheque was returned on Friday, June 12, and I called at his house the same evening to tell him so.
DAVID BIRKLE , watchmaker, 103, Commercial Road, E. I have known prisoner for several years by the name of Haroske. On June 2 he came to my shop and bought a silver watch, value £1 10s.; he gave me a cheque for £1 14s. (produced), dated May 30. He said he would send a clock to be repaired in a few days and the balance of the cheque could go to the cost of the repairs. I was somewhat suspicious of the cheque and did not let him have the watch until the next day, by which time I had got it cashed by a neighbour. On June 5 the cheque was returned, marked "R. D." A letter was written to the prisoner, and on June 9 I received a postcard from him saying he was surprised to hear the cheque was returned; he would see the party on Wednesday and would call on me on the Thursday and pay the amount in cash. I have never received any payment for it yet. On June 26 I gave instructions for another letter to be sent to "Mr. Haroske, 19, Russell Road, Leyton, E.," asking him to come and see me at his convenience. I have never seen him since nor had any reply to that letter.
Cross-examined. I do not remember prisoner saying that he did not want the watch until the cheque was clear. I showed him several other watches and he might have selected a better one. I do not remember him saying he did not want to spend more money. Prisoner had a restaurant in Cheapside some four or five years ago and I used to wind his clocks for him by contract; that is all the business I remember having done with him before this.
CHARLES HORNER , assistant to William Stoneham, pawnbroker, Hoxton. The watch produced was pawned with us on June 3 for 8s. in the name of Adolf Haroske, 45, Singleton Street. Prisoner is the man who pledged the watch.
Cross-examined. I do not think it is possible that the address was put on the ticket without asking the prisoner for his address.
HENRY GRASS , tailor, 30, Fitzroy Square, Tottenham Court Road. I have known prisoner as a customer for about 10 years. He called on me on June 6 and handed me a cheque for £2 15s. 8d., dated May 30, signed, "P. Normann." At that time he owed me about £4. He said he would pay me part of my account and asked me to give him £1 change, which I did. I asked him who P. Normann was and he told me he had had several cheques from him and he was all right. I paid the cheque into my account and it was returned marked "R. D." I have never been paid the amount of the cheque.
Cross-examined. Prisoner has always paid me for the work I have done for him except the last suit I made for him about two years ago, when he failed in business.
HENRY ALFRED WOODCOCK , chair caner, Gibraltar Walk, Bethnal Green. I have known prisoner's father for some years and I have known prisoner about nine months. Prisoner called on me on May 27 and bought goods to the value of 2s. He gave me the cheque now produced, for £1 4s. 8d. in payment. I asked who P. Normann was, and he told me he was a customer of his. He said he would pay 5s. off what his father owed me, and I gave him 17s. 8d. change. I paid the cheque into my bank on June 11, and about two days afterwards it was returned marked "R. D." I wrote to prisoner's father's address at Russell Road and received a postcard in reply, which has been destroyed, saying he could not see Normann, but he would be down with the cash in the morning. He did not come, so I wrote again and received the postcard now produced in reply. I do not know whether prisoner lived at Russell Road; I wrote there because that was the only address I knew. I afterwards saw prisoner in a house at Finsbury, I believe in Dysart Street, and asked him what he was going to do about the cheque. He only said he was going travelling. I told him I would have him arrested. He said, "You can't do nothing with me; it is only the cheque. If you are going to do that sort of thing, do what you like." I said, "Who does the furniture belong to?" He said, "To me," so I bought the furniture of him for £3 15s. in cash and the amount of the cheque and 12s. off the father's account was returned to me.
Cross-examined. The letters which I sent in reference to the cheque were addressed to "Mr. Haroske," and the replies were in the name of "F. Haroske and Co." I have received full satisfaction for the cheque.
EDWARD WILLIAM SMALL , assistant to Frank Wells and Co., grocers, Capworth Street, Leyton. I had known prisoner as a customer for about three months prior to the time of this occurrence. On May 26 he came to the shop and produced the cheque, dated May 25, for £1 3s. He asked me to take the account—16s. 4 1/2 d.—out of it and give him the balance, which I did. I paid the cheque in on the 27th and two days later received it back marked, "Refer to drawer." I took the cheque to 7, Blyth Road and showed it to prisoner's wife and she subsequently paid me 10s. and 3s. in respect of the cheque.
About 10 days later I saw prisoner in James Street, Walthamstow, and spoke to him about the matter. He said he expected a cheque for £40 to be paid in which had not been paid in. He told me to call and see him on the following Monday at 19, Russell Road, which I did, but he was not there.
Cross-examined. I had called several times for payment of the account. I gave 6s. 1 1/2 d. cash out of the cheque and have received 13s. back in cash. When I called at Russell Road I saw a young fellow with a moustache who told me prisoner's wife had gone to Germany and would bring the money home with her to settle up with everybody.
Detective-sergeant CHARLES TOBBUTT , J Division. On July 6 I saw prisoner in Capworth Street, Leyton. I told him I was a police officer and asked his name; he said, "Haroske." I said "I shall arrest you on a warrant for obtaining the sum of £1 10s. 4d. from Mr. Archer, the dairyman." He made no reply. I took him to Leyton Police Station, where the warrant was read to him. He said, "Yes, if you can see where the false pretence is, I can't. I can prove that I have paid about £4 for cheques that have been returned." He was searched, and there was found upon him another cheque marked, "Refer to drawer," drawn in favour of "A. Haroske" by "P. Normann" for £1 4s. 8d. That is Mr. Woodcock's cheque. I was looking at the cheque and prisoner said, "I have been advertising for a partner; I met Mr. Normann by appointment at Barbican; he lives at Shepherd's Bush, but I cannot tell you the street; he promised to pay £50 into the business; he gave me £2 in cash, and as he did not speak English properly he asked me to open an account at Feltham's Bank; I opened the account for him; we arranged to trade as P. Normann; I gave him my paying-in book and he promised to pay in £48 the next day; I saw him next day by appointment and he told me he could not pay it before another day or two; he had some samples and paid for them with a cheque for 14s. 10d.; the samples were of my father's goods; he told me on the first appointment that I could draw cheques for the money he arranged to pay for his partnership; I tore the cheque book up when I found how things were." The charge was subsequently read over to him and he replied, "All right." I also found on him a pawnticket relating to a silver watch. Prisoner was at that time living at 12, Wilton Road, Dalston; I went there, but found nothing further. I have made inquiries for Mr. Normann at the "Bush Hotel," Shepherd's Bush, but failed to find any trace of him. Since prisoner has been in custody I have received the letter dated July 7, written from Brixton Prison (produced). I have made inquiries at 7, Blyth Road and find that he had given notice to leave upon the date that he left.
Cross-examined. I have made inquiries at the Warner Estate offices and find that prisoner wanted to stay on there, but they declined to allow him to. A cheque for 13s. 10d., which he paid for a fortnight's rent, has been returned and paid by him; I know nothing about any others having been paid.
F. HAROSKE, prisoner's father, 19, Russell Road, Leyton. Examined through an interpreter. My son desired to be a partner with Mr. Normann and Mr. Normann gave my son £2 and said he would pay £48 into the bank. I delivered goods to them to the value of £14 or £15. I afterwards saw Mr. Normann in the City. My son selected samples to the value of 14s. and a few pence, for which I received a cheque for 14s. 10d. (produced). I also received a cheque for £1 6s., which I paid away to a stick maker; after 15 days it was returned and my son gave me some sticks back and the rest in money. I was aware that they were going to trade under the name of P. Normann. My son has £15 or £16 to come from me. About the middle of June I heard that these cheques were being returned, and my son asked me to try and settle with the people out of the money I owed him, but I have had no money to do so.
Cross-examined. It was at my house that I first saw Mr. Normann. It was in the City they gave me the cheque for 14s. 10d. They have not yet paid me for all the goods they had from me; they paid me £1 and £1 10s.; afterwards my son offered me a cheque for £2 14s. or £2 15s. and I told him to keep it until we settled up the account. I cannot tell whether the endorsements on the cheques produced are in my son's handwriting; I think they are. The business my son and Mr. Normann were going into was the manufacture of card tables, fire screens, and such things. Previously my son had been buying things from me and selling them at a profit. Normann told me he lived at Bushey Park; I have searched for him for four days, but could not find him. The endorsement on the cheque for 14s. 10d. is in my handwriting; the others I endorsed and handed back to my son, and I gave him permission to endorse in my name. The cheques produced are endorsed in my son's own name, "A. Haroske."
ADOLF HAROSKE (prisoner, on oath). When I opened the account at Feltham's Bank I told the manager that I should trade under the name of "P. Normann"; at the same time I told him that I should sign the cheques and that I was transacting business with Feltham's Mercantile Agency under the name of "Haroske" and employed them for collecting debts. I further told him that I or Mr. Normann would pay in £48 the next morning. I never heard anything from Feltham's Bank until I received that letter dated June 6, which came to me by the first post on Whit Monday, June 8. Besides the cheques which are before your Lordship I have drawn several other cheques which have been returned and which I have paid. The money I have paid for returned cheques amounts to £5 4s. 6d., and the money I have obtained under the present charges amounts to £4 17s. 4d., of which 24s. is already paid; the money not repaid amounts to £3 13s. 4d., and the watch; so that I have actually repaid more money than I obtained under the charges. With regard to the cheques which I gave to Mr. Woodcock, Mr. Grass, and Mr. Wright, it would have been impossible for me to have repaid them through the bank, because the account was closed, so it was only possible for me
to make arrangements to meet them when they were returned, which I have done in Woodcock's case. I fully believed that Normann would pay the money into the bank, or I would not have parted with the cheques. I saw Normann again on May 26 or 27, and he told me he had not been able to pay the money into the bank as we had arranged, but he promised me faithfully that he would do so in the course of the next day or two, and, of course, I did not part with any more cheques before June 1, or I post-dated them. On June 8 I received a letter from the bank, then I went to my father's place and found the letter from Mr. Birkle there. When I found how things were, I admit that I made some excuses to the trades people which were not true. To find the money to pay off the £5 4s. 6d. on returned cheques I have had to break my home up; and also my father owes me some money, and he promised to do the best he could with regard to them.
Cross-examined. My connection with Feltham's Mercantile Agency was in the matter of debt collecting. The business I was going into with Mr. Normann was to supply retail shops with goods which my father made; Normann was to pay me £50 and to have a share in the profits; he was to give me £15 for the goodwill—the customers I already had. I got into communication with Normann through an advertisement I put in the papers for a partner. He answered the advertisement, making an appointment with me in the City; when I met him, in the course of our conversation he took hold of his letter and made some notes on it; I know the address on his letter was Shepherd's Bush, but I cannot remember anything further. He told me that he was an experienced traveller in fancy goods. I do not know the name of the firm he had been travelling for. The first appointment I had with him was at a public-house in Barbican. I made no inquiries about him as he was to find the money. About May 27 he said he was going away on the Continent for four weeks' holiday, and when he returned we would have an agreement drawn up as to the partnership. He told me that he would pay the money into the bank before he went. It was after I knew that Normann had not paid the money into the bank that I gave the cheque to Mr. Archer, but, being confident that Normann would pay the money in, and wanting some money myself, I drew a cheque for £1 19s. 10d.; I thought his account was 9s. 10d. and I wanted 30s. for myself. I drew all the cheques in Normann's presence, all at one time, the day after I opened the account; some were drawn on May 26 in a public-house in Fore Street. After the first appointment in answer to my advertisement we always made our appointments verbally; I did not write to Norman at all. We mostly met in public-houses in Barbican or Fore Street. The reason I asked Mr. Archer to keep back the cheque for a day or two was to make sure the money had been paid in. I knew there were other cheques out, and as they were not returned in a few days I thought the money had been paid in. When Mr. Woodcock asked me who Normann was, I told him he was a customer of mine. That was not true. I had no reason to tell him about my business transactions and I thought the cheque
would be met. I told Mr. Archer that I had received the cheque for commission; that was not true. I also told him that I had written to Mr. Normann and he had promised to pay the cheque in cash tomorrow; that was not true, it was only an excuse to gain time. I told Mr. Wright that I had received the cheque from a customer for goods supplied; I knew the cheques would be returned and I made any excuse to gain time. With regard to Mr. Woodcock, I wrote the letter to him on my father's behalf because Woodcock had written to my father, being under the impression that the transaction was with him. With regard to Mr. Birkle, the reason I pawned the watch was because I went away from his shop and met a customer of mine in Great Eastern Street; we had a few drinks together and, being very short of money that day, I pawned the watch so that I could entertain him a little more. When I was at Mr. Birkle's shop I had enough money to get home with, that is the reason I did not ask him for the change of 4s.out of the cheque. I do not know how they got the address of "Singleton Street" at the pawnbrokers; they often put a fictitious address on the tickets. They had my right name, because I handed over my visiting card.
Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Tuesday, July 21.)
Several previous convictions were proved.
Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.