Old Bailey Proceedings, 12th January 1909.
Reference Number: t19090112
Reference Number: f19090112

1909, JANUARY.

Vol. CL.] Part 891.


Sessions Paper.







Shorthand Writer to the Court.





[Published by Annual Subscription.]





On the King's Commission of



The City of London,





Held on Tuesday, January 12th, 1909, and following days.

Before the Right Hon. Sir GEORGE WYATT TRUSCOTT , Knight, Alderman, LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir WM. GRANTHAM , Kt., Justice of His Majesty's High Court; Sir HORATIO D. DAVIES, K. C. M. G., J. P., D. L., V. D., Sir T. VESEY STRONG , Sir T. VANSITTART BOWATER, Sir MR. E. KNIGHT, Sir JOHN POUND , Bert, C. JOHNSTON, Esq., Aldermen of the said City; Sir FORREST FULTON, Knight, K. C., Recorder of the said City; Sir FK. ALBERT BOSANQUET, K. C., Common Sergeant of the said City; and His Honour, Judge LUMLEY SMITH , K. C., Commissioner, His Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery holden for the said City, end Judges of the Central Criminal Court.












(Tuesday, January 12.)



The RECORDER, in his charge to the Grand Jury, commented on a case in the Calendar in which a woman was charged with manslaugher. The accused was a performer at a London music hall; her "business' was the firing with a pistol at balls placed on a man's head, At a recent performance (as the accused alleged, accidentally, owing to the man shifting his position) the bullet had struck the man and caused his death. The Recorder advised the Grand Jury to return a true bill, in order that the law as to dangerous amusements of this character might be clearly defined.

The Grand Jury, in returning "No bill," expressed the opinion that performances of this kind should be prohibited by law.

PRINCE, John (20, a native of West Africa), who last Sessions (see page 183) was found guilty of larceny (servant) and receiving, was sentenced to one day's imprisonment, the Court missionary (Mr. Scott France) undertaking to see him off to Liverpool, where prisoner has friends.

Reference Number: t19090112-2

WILSON, John (21, warehouseman) pleaded guilty , of maliciously, damaging by night two plate glass windows and other articles, the goods of Benetfink and Co., Limited, to the amount to £45.

Prisoner broke the windows in order that he might get a term of imprisonment. He told the officer he had been walking about for seven days without much food and asked him what he would do in such a case. He has no fixed abode. There is no conviction against him.

Sentence, Six month's hard labour.

Reference Number: t19090112-3

BODELL, George (27, labourer), and VICKARY, Richard (36, hat maker) both pleaded guilty , of breaking and entering the ware-house of Michael Levy, with intent to steal therein; both breaking and entering the warehouse of Rowland Tarbuck and stealing therein 15 rolls of silk and other articles, his goods.

Sentences: Bodell (who has been continuously in prison for the last 12 years), Six years' penal servitude; Vickary, six months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19090112-4

DICKER, David Frederick (24, postman) pleaded guilty , of stealing one post letter, containing one silver match box and other articles, the property of His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he being employed under the Post Office.

Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19090112-5

CONNELLY, William (33, labourer) ; maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm upon Thomas Russell: maliciously inflicting grievous bodily harm upon Cornelius Dennehy; assaulting Thomas Russell, a peace officer in the execution of his duty; assaulting Cornelius Dennehy, a peace officer, in the execution of his duty.

Mr. Boyd prosecuted.

Police-constable THOMAS RUSSELL, 491 V. On the night of October 24, about 11.45, I was on duty in Battersea Park Road. I there saw prisoner, who was drunk and quarrelling with a woman, with a crowd of people round him. He had his coat and hat off and was using very obscene language. I requested him to go away. After some demur he went a short distance. Then he stopped and recommenced his abuse of the woman, calling her a "by old cow." I went to him again and said, "Will you go?" He said, "No, you fog old bitch," at the same time striking me violently on the forehead with his fist. Before I could recover from that he struck me several other blows in the face. I placed my whistle is my mouth and blew it. He snatched that out of my mouth, loosening my front teeth, breaking my chain, and throwing the whistle away. He bit my left thumb. Police-constable Dennehy came to my assistance. Prisoner then threw himself on his back and deliberately kicked me in the bowels, also on the side of the jaw and the back of the head, owing to which I have been deaf since. He also kicked the constable who came to my assistance in the face. After a good deal of trouble we got him to the station, where I was examined by Dr. Kempster. Since that time I have been on the sick list and have suffered a good deal from giddiness and pains at the back of the head. Sometimes when I stoop I feel like pitching forward on to the ground. (Before this assault I had suffered from none of those things. Part of my sight is also gone, and I can hardly see to read the paper. I seem to have an abscess in my head and there is a discharge from my ears.

Police-constable CORNELIUS DENNEHY, 401 V. I saw last witness struggling with prisoner on the night in question and went to his assistance. I took hold of prisoner's arm and he struck me two or three times in the face with his fist. I saw him strike Policeconstable Russell several times in the face. Prisoner was drunk. He threw himself to the ground and kicked me several times in the testicles and abdomen. A crowd collected, numbering 50 or 100

No one in the crowd came to our assistance, and the crowd was rather hostile. I have been on the sick list ever since and have had several epileptic fits. Previously I had never had a fit. My age is 26, and I have been in the force three years.

GEORGE HENRY HARPER , 35, Leitrim Street, and FREDERICK JOCELYN, 9, Leitrim Street, both Post Office employees, gave evidence as to assisting the police.

FELIX CHARLES KEMPSTER , divisional surgeon. On the morning of October 25, about half-past 12, I was called to the Battersea Police Station. I there saw Police-constable Russell, who was in a very faint and weak condition, suffering from severe bruising of the head and body. He had severe bruises on the forehead (at the back of the head, and bridge of the nose; his lip was cut, his teeth were loose, his lower jaw was wounded, his left thumb was bitten through, and he had severe bruises on the left side of the stomach, on his left thigh, and private parts. He was very seriously ill. I sent him home at once, and he remained in bed a week or more. There was bleeding from his bowel, and he eventually developed a bleeding from the left ear, deafness, giddiness, headache, and dimness of vision, showing that he had sustained some serious injury to the bone of the skull and the internal ear. The rim of one ear had been torn away, and there will be permanent deafness of the left ear. I do not think he will be able to return to duty, but it has been arranged that he shall return to Brighton after this case is over. X examined Constable Dennehy at the same time. He had bruising on the left temple, on the stomach, and lower part of the body, and he as well as Russell had bleeding from the bowel for several days in consequence of the kicks, showing that the bowel had been torn to some extent. Eventually he developed epilepsy and has had 14 or 15 epileptic fits, in which he bites his tongue. I am afraid he will never be fit for service again. He has been to the Convalescent Home and is to go back again after the trial is over. I also examined prisoner, who said he had been injured, and found a slight abrasion on the left forearm. I found no serious injury about him. He was drunk.

Verdict, Guilty. Some previous convictions for minor offences were proved.

Sentence. Two years' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19090112-6

VERYAN, Richard John (26, dealer) ; stealing two bundles of papers called "The Shipping Gazette," the goods of Arthur Serena and others.

Mr. Wimpfheimer prosecuted.

MARTHA PENDRY , housekeeper to Messrs. Galbraith, Pembroke, and Co., 8, Austin Friars. On December 8, at about 7.30, I heard the basement door shut and went to see the reason. I saw a barrow outside with two bundles of" Shipping Gazettes" on it. I immediately went down to the basement and saw two bundles more. When I came up the barrow was gone. I hastened round to Austin Friars Square, where I saw prisoner with the papers in a sack on the barrow. I had not previously known him. I asked

him where he had obtained the papers, and he hesitated. I asked him to go back with me and tell me where he took them from, and he said he would do so. On the way back I saw a policeman on duty and asked him to go back with us. The constable took prisoner down into the basement and asked him to show him where he took them from, which he did. He said he had asked a clerk, "Is there any waste paper I" and the clerk had told him to go down there and help himself. There was no clerk on the premises at the time I was in charge. As to the value of the papers, Mr. Serena, the chief partner of the firm, told me they were worth £5 for references.

Police-constable FREDERICK CLIFFORD, 448 City. On December 8 I was on duty in Austin Friars and saw last witness speaking to prisoner. She informed me he had taken two bundles of papers from the basement of No. 8. Prisoner was present when she made the statement. I asked him where he had got the papers from, and he said he had taken them from the basement of No. 8. "A clerk." he said, "told me to go down and help myself." I took him back to the premises, and he showed me where he had taken the papers from.

MARTHA PENDRY , recalled. I do not live on the premises, but I have the keys of the place; I shut it up at night and open it in the morning. The last clerk would leave about seven o'clock.

Verdict, Guilty. A previous conviction was proved against prisoner as a rogue and vagabond.

Sentence, Six months hard labour.

Reference Number: t19090112-7

COLLINS, Joseph (28. fitter) ; stealing one horse and harness, the goods of Thomas Herbert Whiteheart.

Mr. Holford Knight prosecuted.

THOMAS HERBERT WHITEHEART , furniture remover, 53, Aylesbury Street, Walworth. On December 4 I saw prisoner, who asked me to let him have a pony and harness. I had one of the value of about £7 or £8. I arranged with him that he should pay 5s. a week until such time as £5 should be paid, and then if he acted honourably I would sell him the pony and harness for £2. He agreed to those terms, paid the first instalment, and took the pony and harness away with him. The trap he was to hire of another gentleman. He asked me whether I would lend him some money, and I agreed to lend him 10s., for which he was to return me 12s. When the week had expired, as he did not pay a second instalment, I went to the address he had given me—25, Pollock Road, Deacon Street, Walworth—which I found was a false address. I next saw the pony at Whetstone a week or so afterwards in the possession of a Mr. Cooper. I met prisoner subsequently in Percy Street, Tottenham Court Road. He was recommended to me by a man named Mills. I am sure prisoner is the same man. I asked him if he knew where my pony and harness was. He said, "Have not you got it!" I said. "You know I have not got it." He said, "I win come and show you where it is." He came across the road to where my van was. Of course, the detective was there and took him into custody.

To Prisoner. You were not a perfect stranger to me; I had seen you before. You did not pay me a deposit of £1. I lent you 10s., and YOU gave me the acknowledgment produced. I did not ask you whether you were a married man and tell you I did so because I should like to have the security of your furniture. You gave me your Army paper (discharge) as security. I said I did not want that, but you said I had better take it, and so I put it in my pocket. It is false that there was a written agreement for the purchase of the pony. The agreement was by word of mouth.

ARTHUR COOPER , dealer, 5. Whetstone Place. Prisoner came to see me on the morning of December 7. He said trade was very bad and he wanted to sell his pony and harness, and I bought them on the evening of the same day for £2 12s. 6d. He gave me the receipt produced. I had the pony in the stable until the Thursday morning following (December 10), when I returned it to prosecutor with the harness.

To Prisoner. The pony was very lame and paralysed. I think I gave for it what it was worth. I do not think it could lie down.

Detective FRANK HAWKES, L Division. On December 16, about four o'clock, accompanied by the prosecutor, I arrested prisoner in Percy Street, Tottenham Court Road. I told him I was a police officer, and also the charge. In reply he said, "I can fog well see who you are. I had a pony and harness and I sold it to a Mr. Cooper. I did it on him because he would not lend me a shilling when I was out of work. He gave me £2 12s. 6d. for it, and I meant to pinch it from him the same evening as I sold it to him." On the way to the station he gave me this key (produced) and said, "This is Whiteheart's He ought to think himself lucky I did not knock all the other lots off." By that he meant that he had not taken all the other horses out of the stable. He also said, "This is the key of Whitehead's stable." When charged at the station he said to prosecutor, "You say this is not my lot?" He afterwards said, "Jack Gardiner ought to think himself lucky I threw that knife away" (meaning this knife produced), "on the way to the station. I had a great mind to put it through him. I expect this means a lagging' for me this time." To Prisoner. Prosecutor was present when you said this. When you gave me the key you did not say, "If I am charged with stealing a pony and harness, it is very extraordinary that I should have the key of prosecutor's stable, and if I had wished I could have had several good ponies, besides tradesmen's vans." Prosecutor, recalled, confirmed Detective Hawkes's evidence as to the statements made by prisoner.


JOSEPH COLLINS (prisoner, not on oath) contended that this was a matter of debt. He bought the pony and harness outright on the terms of paying a deposit of £1, which he paid, and the balance of £5 at the rate of 5s. a week. An agreement to this effect was drawn up by prosecutor and signed by himself (prisoner). He denied that

there was any hire-purchase agreement at all. He borrowed the 10s. in order to have a start. Prosecutor asked him if he was a married man with a view to having the security of his furniture, and by way of security he gave him his Army discharge. As to the address in Pollock Road, that was the address of his brother-in-law, where he often had letters addressed. (Prisoner produced a number of letters from his pocket by way of proof.) Besides the £1 down, he had paid one instalment of 5s.

Prosecutor, recalled, as to how it came about that the key of his stable was in prisoner's possession, explained that prisoner stabled the pony there for a week. There was no truth in the statement that an agreement was drawn up which he (prosecutor) had destroyed.

Verdict. Not guilty, the Jury not being satisfied that there was a hire-purchase agreement.

Reference Number: t19090112-8

SHADBOLT, William (51, night watchman) pleaded guilty , of feloniously throwing diluted sulphuric acid at George Stanley Harris with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

Prisoner was employed on the Waterloo and City Railway; prosecutor is a clerk in the engineers' department On December 22, complaints having been made about the conduct of the prisoner by Harris, prisoner was sent for by the Chief Electrical Engineer and dismissed. On coming from the Chief Engineer's room prosecutor found prisoner waiting for him with a can in his hand. As prisoner made to throw something at him, Harris knocked his hand up and the diluted sulphuric acid went on to the door, whence it splashed on to prisoner's face and hands, Mr. Harris being only slightly injured. Prisoner, when charged, admitted taking the acid from a carboy.

Sentence, Six months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19090112-9

CLARKE, Albert (22. shoemaker) pleaded guilty that, having been entrusted with certain property—to wit, the sum of 8s. 5d. in money, in order that he might pay the same to another person, he did fraudulently convert the said moneys to his own use; and of stealing one ring, the goods of Emily Clarke, from her person.

Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19090112-10

HAMMOND, George (64, traveller) pleaded guilty , of forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, an order for the delivery of goods, with intent to defraud; and obtaining by false pretences from Oliver Nunn 28 1b. in weight of cocoa, with intent to defraud. Several previous convictions were proved. Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.


(Tuesday, January 12.)

Reference Number: t19090112-11

THORPE, Henry (28. labourer), and WAKELING, Alice (45, ironer) pleaded guilty , of feloniously uttering counterfeit coin, knowing the same to be counterfeit, twice on the same day; feloniously having in their possession 10 pieces of counterfeit coin, with intent to utter the same.

Mr. Wilkinson prosecuted.

Thorpe confessed to having been convicted at this Court on July 24, 1899, in the name of George Morris, receiving 12 months' hard labour, for possessing counterfeit coin. Other convictions were proved. Prisoner was known as the associate and agent of an experienced expert coiner. Wakeling confessed to having been convicted at this Court on October 24, 1898, in the name of Griffiths, of possessing and uttering counterfeit coin, receiving three years' penal servitude. Other convictions were proved; prisoner was known as the associate of coiners.

Sentence: Each prisoner. Five years' penal servitude.

Reference Number: t19090112-12

CLARK, Thomas (26, porter), and CLARK, Rose Flora (34, dressmaker); uttering counterfeit coin; having in their possession four other pieces of counterfeit coin; having in their possession four pieces of counterfeit coin, with intent to utter the same; feloniously having in their possession portions of a mould and other tools for the manufacture of counterfeit coin.

Mr. Sands prosecuted.

Thomas Clark pleaded guilty. Rose Flora Clark pleaded not guilty. It having been ascertained that she was the wife of the male prisoner, no evidence was offered against her and the Jury returned a verdict of Not guilty. Thomas Clark was sentenced to 12 months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19090112-13

BROAD, William John (28, stoker) ; feloniously wounding Charles Kavanagh with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

Mr. W. Fletcher prosecuted.

CHARLES KAVANAGH , 22, East Surrey Road, Peckham. On December 24, at 11.10 p.m., I was in Waterloo Street, Peckham, when I saw prisoner, who is a stranger to me, pushing his wife about and using very foul language. I remonstrated with him, when he struck at me with his fist. I avoided the blow and left him. I had got about 100 yards off, to the corner of Cork Street, when prisoner ran after me. Someone called out, "Look out!" and as I turned prisoner stabbed me in the face, throat, and shoulder with a knife. Miss came to my assistance and helped me to my feet. Prisoner said nothing when he attacked me that I recollect. He did not appear to be drunk.

Cross-examined. Prisoner did not appear to be in drink at all. It was his violent language to his wife rather than his violence that made me interfere.

HUGH GORDON COWIE , M. D., 30, Camberwell Green. On December 24, at about 11.40 p.m., I was called to 24, Waterloo Street, when I saw prosecutor lying on a couch, his face and clothes smeared with blood, partly undressed. He had a wound in the right shoulder, 1 1/2 in. long, touching the large bronchial artery, but not severing it; it was a dangerous wound from its position, and it severed the biceps muscle. He had another wound from the right side of the

nose, extending across to the right eyebrow; the brow was severed, so that it flapped over practically on to the cheek, the wound cutting to the bone; there was no vital structure involved. There was a small wound above the left eyebrow, about half an inch long, extending to the bone. On the right side of the throat there was another wound, about 3 in. long, through the true skin and close to the large bloodvessel. Had it gone one-eighth of an inch deeper it would have been very dangerous; it was in an exceedingly dangerous place. The injuries could have been done with the pocket-knife produced. The wounds have all healed up by first intention and remarkably well. There is a stiffness of the muscle of the right shoulder, so that the smallest wound has left the most serious trouble. The wound over the left eye is a perpendicular one, as though the knife had been dug in—a stab—and a blood clot has formed in the tissues of the eyeball, disturbing the vision considerably; the injury to the sight of the left eye may be permanent; it may get clearer, but there is certainly some risk of permanent variation in the sight of that eye. I think prosecutor will recover from the other injuries. He cannot use his right arm, and is not yet fit for work.

HENRY FRANK BISS , 25, St. Georges Street, Peckham, printer's assistant. I am a friend of the prosecutor and an entire stranger to the prisoner. On December 24, at 11.20 p.m., I was walking home with my young lady down Waterloo Street when we saw a scuffle between prosecutor and prisoner. I went over to separate them. Prisoners wife was there, and she attempted to scratch our faces. I got prosecutor away and we went round the corner into Cork Street, when prisoner rushed round, seized prosecutor, and struck him several times—so far as I saw, with his fist. They closed, and after struggling together for a minute, prosecutor said. "I have been stabbed; I am done," and stumbled and fell. I caught hold of him and helped him up, when prisoner made for my face and said, "You are the other b——." He flourished his right arm, struck me, and cut me at the back of the ear. I put my hand up and found I was bleeding. I then assisted prosecutor to his father-in-law's house.

GEORGE LAING . 46, Court Street, Camberwell, carman. Prisoner lodges with me. On December 24, at between 11 and 11.30 p.m., I saw prosecutor and prisoner quarrelling in Waterloo Street, nearly opposite the "Brunswick" beer shop. I walked away down Cork Street towards home to look after my girl. As I came round the corner into Cork Street prosecutor and Biss came round the corner, followed by the prisoner, who struck one and then the other. I persuaded prisoner to come indoors. When we got into the passage prisoner said, "I have done one in and very near done the other one in, and this is what I done it with." sticking the knife at the same time into the brick wall. He had an open knife in his hand and he stuck it into my passage wall. Prisoner was not actually drunk, but he appeared to have been drinking heavily.

Police-constable GEORGE HODGE s, 672 P, stationed at Camberwell. On December 24, at 11.45 p.m., I was informed that two men had

been wounded by a man stabbing them. I went to 26, Cork Street, saw the prisoner, told him he would be charged with the stabbing, and took him to Camberwell Police Station. When charged he replied, "Well, if I am charged with that, I cannot get away from it" He was charged with wounding Biss. I saw Kavanagh that night. He was bleeding very much from the head, left arm, and throat Prisoner was sober.

ALFRED WILLIAM HUTT , barman, "Brunswick Arms," Waterloo Street. On December 24, at about 11.20 or 11.30 p.m., I was standing outside the" Brunswick Arms," when I saw prisoner and prosecutor having a few words at the corner of Samson Street; that street is opposite to Cork Street, running out of Waterloo Street. I heard prosecutor say to prisoner," Well, if you are done with it, so am I." Prosecutor then walked away round the corner of Cork Street. Prisoner rushed round after him. I shouted," Look out!" Prisoner then struck him about the face. I did not see anything in his hand. Prosecutor said, "I am done." and staggered against the wall. I rushed to his assistance and supported him. He was bleeding all over the eyes, and blood was pouring down his face. Biss took him away.

Sergeant FREDERICK HEDGES, P Division. On December 27 I went to 46, Cork Street and received knife produced from the prisoner's wife. I then went into the passage and fitted the blade into a hole in the wall. I showed the knife to the witness Laing, who identified it as being the knife he saw in the prisoner's hand on the night this offence was committed. When charged prisoner made no reply.

PRISONER (not on oath). I was not in a state to give evidence. All I can say is I had had too much to drink. I left off work at six o'clock; I had too much to drink. I must have got excited and lost my senses. As regards the stabbing and that, I cannot remember anything about it.

Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.


(Wednesday, January 13.)

Reference Number: t19090112-14

WHITE, William (26, labourer) pleaded guilty , of feloniously wounding Mary White (his mother), with intent to do her grievous bodily harm. He confessed to having been convicted of felony at the Newington Sessions on February 15, 1905.

Sentence, Three years' penal servitude.

Reference Number: t19090112-15

DYE, William Charles (35, bricklayer) ; feloniously wounding Lizzie Dye, with intent to kill and murder her, or with intent to do her grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Thin prosecuted; Mr. Cotes-Preedy defended.

LIZZIE DYE . I was married to prisoner nine years ago; we have not lived happily together; he has ill-treated me, punching and kicking

me. In June, 1907, I left him because I was in fear of my life. In August I lived with him again, until May last, when on account of his ill-treatment I left him again, taking a situation at Charlton. On December 10 he came to the house at Charlton where I was, at the back door, at eight in the morning. I told him that I wished to have nothing more to do with him, that the people were in the house then, and that if he must come he had better call later when they were out. He called again at four o'clock and I let him into the kitchen; Mrs. Chilcott was in the scullery working; I had told her that I was afraid of prisoner and asked her to stay. (Prisoner began swearing and accused me of immorality. Mrs. Chilcott said, "Don't come here worrying her; she is working here, and you ought not to say such things." I made him some tea and gave him the dinner that had been left for me. He kept asking me if I would go outside: I felt so nervous that I would not go. He asked me for money; I said, "I have only a few coppers, will you go away quietly if I give them to you?" He said, "Yes"; I went upstairs and brought down 4d. and gave it to him. Then he said, "Come outside; I want to say something to you and I have got something for you. "I said, "What you want to say, say here; my people will soon be home, "He said, "I don't care if they do come home; you had no character before you came here, and they shall know what you are. "Finally he said, "Kiss me goodbye before I go "; I would not go near him to kiss him at first, but Mrs. Chilcott said, "Oh, kiss him, and maybe he will go." I got up to kiss him; he put his right arm round my neck; he put his left hand in his pocket and took out a razor and said, "This is what I have got for you. "I broke away and got to the other tide of the room; Chilcott shouted," Oh, don't. Police! murder!" and I started screaming. He opened the razor and came over to me. I held his wrists with both hands and tried to bite his wrists; he punched me in the face; I think we both fell; in the scuffle the razor dropped; 'he picked' it up and put it towards my face; I snatched at the razor and it dropped again and I heard it snap. Getting free for a moment, I flew out of the room and into the next house; there I fainted and the police were sent for. My fingers were cut in snatching at the razor; I was attended by the divisional surgeon.

Cross-examined. I twice charged prisoner with assaulting me; first in November, 1904; I withdrew the summons and a deed of separation was entered into. The same thing happened in 1907. I was in fear of my life, but I went to live with prisoner again for the sake of my little children. After I finally left him and went to Charlton I continued corresponding with him; that was in order that I might hear of my children. I have no affection for him, only he is the father of my children. The reason I saw him when he called at Charlton was that the people I was with thought I was a single woman, and I was afraid if he made a bother I should lose my situation. I am certain that prisoner took the razor out of his jacket pocket; I am sure it did not fall out as he was doing up his boots. I deny that it was a pure accident arising from the struggle between prisoner and me for the possession of the razor.

ANNIE CHILCOTT , charwoman, 131, Victoria Road, Charlton. I remember prisoner coming to the house on December 10. Coming from the scullery into the kitchen I saw him sitting there with his wife. She asked him to go, as the was afraid of getting into trouble with the people coming in. He said, "All right," but the did not go I said, "Why don't you go and not come here worrying your wife? she has to work hard here." He asked her for money; she gave him 4d.; he still would not go. He asked her to go with him to the back door as he wanted to speak to her alone; she said, "No; what you have got to say, say here." He said, "I am going away to-morrow morning, kiss me goodbye before I go "; she would not go at first, but eventually she went to kiss him. He put his right arm round her neck, and with the other he drew a razor from his pocket; she screamed and commenced struggling; I ran into the street calling for the police. On returning after five minutes I saw prisoner letting himself out of the back door; the kitchen was in great disorder.

Cross-examined. Prosecutrix appeared to "be frightened of prisoner and very nervous of him; they were rowing together. I did not think he came there to murder her. I am certain I saw him take the razor out of his pocket. It was not an accident.

PETER COOPER , divisional surgeon, Blackheath, said that on December 10 he saw Mrs. Dye; she was suffering from an incised wound on the little finger of her left hand, and some superficial scratches on the other fingers; the wounds were consistent with cuts by the razor produced. Prisoner also had cuts on his left hand.

Police-constable JOSEPH HAINES, 64 R, spoke to finding the razor produced in the kitchen; the blade was under the table and the handle some distance away.

Sergeant JAMES WILSON, R Division. On the night of December 10 I arrested prisoner for (as I told him) the attempted murder of his wife. He said, "My wife—where is she? Ah, she has ruined me; she gave me the bad disorder some time ago." On being searched I found on prisoner 2d.; he said, "That is 2d. I have got left out of the 4d. my wife gave me." In reply to the formal charge prisoner said, "You ought to have the men who has caused the trouble, her uncle; he knows as much about it as I do. "


WILLIAM CHARLES DYE (prisoner, on oath). I am a bricklayer; I have three children; they are with my mother at Portsmouth. On December 10 I went to see my wife at 131, Victoria Road, Charlton. I had been there every day for a week before that. I rang the bell at the back door as I had done before. She opened the door and said, "All right, come inside"; I went in and she locked the door inside in case her mistress should come home. Mrs. Chilcott came in from he scullery, and the three of us sat down in the kitchen and had tea. My wife was nagging me the whole time. I got up to go, and asked her to unlock the door to let me out; my bootlace came undone, and in stooping down to do it up the razor fell out of my jacket pocket;

I went to pick it up; as we had been nagging all the time I suppose she thought I meant to do her some harm; the pulled the razor from me and the handle broke off; I cut my hand and she cut hers. I am fond of my wife and had no intention of injuring her at all.

Cross-examined. Chilcott had gone into the scullery at the time the razor dropped; when the came back my wife and I were struggling together on the floor. Chilcott's story that the saw me take the razor from my pocket is untrue; this it all made up for me. We had been nagging about the children; I told my wife the could not be much of a mother to go away and leave the children. Two of the children are with my mother, but I keep them; a third child it kept, not by my wife, but by her supposed uncle; it it true that yesterday my mother sent back the other two children to my wife.

Verdict, Guilty of wounding with intent to murder.

Inspector BAXTER, R Division, gave a very bad account of prisoner; he had induced his wife to go upon the streets at Portsmouth, and had lived on the proceeds of her prostitution.

Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.

At prisoner was taken from the dock be shouted to his wife, "I will do fifteen for you when I comes out."

Reference Number: t19090112-16

SMILES, Henry Locke (43, solicitor) pleaded guilty , of having been entrusted with the turn of £75 in money in order that he might pay the said sum to Walter Naman, fraudulently did convert £60, part of the said turn of £75, to hit own use and benefit; a number of counts in respect of other sums.

Mr. Muir and Mr. Graham-Campbell prosecuted; Mr. George Elliott and Mr. Fitch defended; Mr. John O'Connor held a watching brief.

Mr. Muir said that prisoner had acted as solicitor to a society called the United Workmen's Legal Aid Society; any workmen on payment of 6d. could become a member, end the society thereupon undertook the prosecution of any claim for compensation for injuries, etc. Such proceedings almost invariably led to the benefit less of the workmen than of the prisoner and those with whom be may have shared the recovered damages and costs.

Mr. John O'Connor said that he hold a watching brief for another Legal Aid Society, and was anxious that no general attack should be made against such bodies, which might seriously prejudice persons who were unable to defend themselves.

Mr. Justice Grantham held that Mr. O'Connor could not be heard.

Mr. Muir said, the indictment related to seven case a involving in all £196. out of which only £32 10s. reached the persons entitled. On a claim by a workman named Collier for compensation for an accident, prisoner received £30 for compensation and costs; Collier received only £1. For a man named Platt prisoner recovered £33 5s.; Platt received nothing. For one Naman, prisoner recovered £83 6t., including costs; Naman received £15. For Alice Summerfield prisoner recovered £25; she received £8 For a M. Hines prisoner recovered £6 1s.; Hines received 10s. For Alfred Daly prisoner recovered

£73; Daly received £6. For Joseph Lawrence prisoner recovered £12 12s.; Lawrence received £2.

Mr. George Elliott, on behalf of prisoner, stated various mitigating circumstances in the case, and urged that prisoner had been made a tool by others. He was a member of a highly respectable family, and since the launching of these charges has relatives had paid to the persons entitled all the sums mentioned in the indictment.

Sentence, Three years' penal servitude.

Reference Number: t19090112-17

MILEHAM, William Coram (20, coal porter) ; feloniously wounding Caroline Abbiss, with intent to kill and murder her or with intent to do her grievous bodily harm.

CAROLINE ABBISS , 31, Cumberland Street, Islington After keeping company with prisoner for nine months we parted about four months ago. On December 5 prisoner met me in Cumberland Street; he asked who it was I was with last night; I said, my cousin. Prisoner put his arm round me and cut me under my neck with the knife (produced); I fell to the ground; he came back and cut me again in the cheek. I had had no quarrel with him.

Police-constable HUGH HUGHES*, 564Y, spoke to finding prosecutrix in Cumberland Street on December 5; she was bleeding from the neck, and was in a state of collapse; witness conveyed her to the hospital.

Dr.CLARA FOLEY, house surgeon at the Royal Free Hospital, said that prosecutrix was treated in the casualty ward; she had a small superficial wound on the left side of the neck and a deeper one on the right side of the face; neither was dangerous, but the latter narrowly missed an artery.

Detective WILLIAM HUBBARD, Y Division. In the evening of December 5 I went in company with Detective Pearl to Northampton. Buildings, Clerkenwell, and saw prisoner. I said, "Is your name William Mileham?" He said, "Yes. I know what you are after." I told him I should arrest him for stabbing Caroline Abbiss. He said, "I meant to kill her. I was there at six this morning, but someone was with her when she came out, or I should have done it then. She chucked me up because I was out of work. Nobody else shall have her. I will do her in yet. I was waiting for her for three weeks or more." On being formally charged he said, "Yes, I'll do it yet. I saw her this afternoon; she had someone with her; I followed them round Chapel Street and lost them; I came back to Cumberland Street and waited for her and did it on her. "

Detective THOMAS PEARL, Y Division, confirmed the evidence of last witness.

Prisoner denied that he said he intended to kill prosecutrix: all he said was," She made we wild. "

HUBBARD and PEARL declared again that prisoner said, "I meant to kill her. "

Prisoner called on for his defence made no statement. Verdict, Guilty of wounding with intent to murder. Sentence, Three years' penal servitude.


(Wednesday, January 13.)

Reference Number: t19090112-18

BOWMAN, Frederick (45, baker), and CROCKER, Frederick (42, cheesemonger) , both feloniously uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain forged order for the delivery of goods, to wit, fifty boxes of lard, with intent to defraud the Morris Beef Company, Limited, both obtaining by false pretences from the Morris Beef Company, Limited, fifty boxes of lard, their goods.

Mr. Percy Simner prosecuted; Mr. Abinger defended Bowman; Mr. David White defended Crocker.

ANDREW THOMPSON . I am salesman in the employ of the Morris Beef Company, Hibernia Chambers, London Bridge. They are a fairly large firm in the provision market, and deal in Canadian lard by the name of" Morris's Pure Lard." As a rule this lard is stored at the Hibernia Wharf. On December 5 I received a message over the 'phone. It was followed by a note which purported to come from Messrs. Fitch, and Son, confirming the telephonic communication." Please give bearer delivery order for fifty boxes lard as per 'phone. (Signed) Fitch and Son, p. p. A. F. "The heading of the note is Fitch and Son, by the Royal Warrant, Purveyors to H. M. the King, Established 100 years," and then follows their addresses in Bishopsgate Street and Wormwood Street. In consequence of that I gave the delivery order for fifty boxes of lard to the boy who handed me the note. Fitch and Son are customers of ours. The delivery order was made out to the Hibernia Wharf. I identify the lard by certain marks and the name of the steamship on the boxes. The marks on the case produced correspond with the marks on the order. I believed the order was a real order from Fitch and Son for fifty boxes of lard. The market value of the lard was 48s. per cwt., and each box contained 1/2 cwt.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I do not recognise prisoner Bowman. Fitch and Son sometimes give orders by telephone. I cannot say how long they have been a limited company. I took the telephone message. I did not recognise the voice of the person giving the message. I have not since seen the person to whom I gave the order. Orders of that kind are often brought By people I do not know.

To Mr. White. I have had no business transactions with Crocker. I knew him five or six years ago as being in the employment of Fitch and Son. He was, I believe, shop manager. So far as I know he had no control over the notepaper. I do not know that for the last eighteen months or so Crocker has been living by buying and selling what are known as cracked eggs. I do not know that he left Fitch and Son in any trouble.

HERVEY STANLEY ROWLANDSON , secretary to Messrs. Fitch and Son, Limited. The company was incorporated about this time last year. We changed our notepaper a few months before that. The order for the 50 boxes of lard is written on our old paper. My firm deals with the Morris Company principally in lard, but not to any large extent,

about five or six orders a year. I keep the order book. It contains no order for lard on either December 4 or 5. The order produced is not a genuine order and the signature to it is not that used by the firm at the present time. I know both prisoners. Crocker was employed by the firm until about 2 1/2 years ago as shop manager or foreman. Bowman I knew as a customer. The letter produced (found upon Bowman) is, in my opinion, in Crocker's writing.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. Possibly any clerk who asked for a sheet of notepaper could have done it. I do not know a Mr. Cohen in connection with this case. I have known Bowman ten or twelve years as a customer. He was formerly in business as a confectioner and bought butter and eggs of us, but not lard. I cannot say he is a good customer, as we made a bad debt with him. He was a buyer of cracked eggs, which are used in making pastry.

Cross-examined by Mr. White. If anybody employed by the firm came and said he wanted a piece of notepaper, I should let him have it. I do not know what an ordinary shopman could want a piece of our blank notepaper for. There are a few sheets at the present time in the shop. I was in the habit of frequently seeing Crocker's handwriting when he was in the employment of the firm, and am as certain that the letter produced is in his handwriting as one man can be certain of another's writing. Crocker left Fitch's because the was discharged for supplying one of our customers on his own account.

To the Court. In other words he put into his pocket a profit that ought to have gone into the pocket of the firm. He was paid £3 a week, I think; I am not quite sure.

JOHN THOMAS HUTT , carman in the employ of Edward Street. I remember Saturday, December 5. On that day the order on the Hibernia Wharf for the delivery of 50 boxes of lard was handed to me by a Mr. Allen, who is a carman contractor. The order was refused at the wharf because it was not signed by Mr. Allen. I came back and had the order signed by Mr. Allen. Then I went back again and got the goods. Crocker jumped on to the van and rode about 100 yards. He said he wanted to go to Tooley Street. I asked him where I should meet him, and he said we had better meet at the "Bricklayer's Arms" in the Old Kent Road. After I had got the 50 boxes of lard I saw prisoner in the Old Kent Road and drove to the" Bricklayer's Arms." There I met an old friend named Gregory and I asked him to come and have a ride with me. Crocker said to me," I shall want you to take this (lard) to Rye Lane, Peckham, and meet me under the archway." He then handed me the slip produced on which is written," 6d. for a drink; meet me under railway arch at Peckham." There was a 6d. wrapped up in the paper. I knew Crocker as Pitch. I drove on to Rye Lane with Gregory, and after waiting at the railway arch 10 minutes or a quarter of an hour, prisoner Crocker came up and said, "Ton will have to wait a minute or two," and, of course, I waited there. He came back in about 30 minutes or 40 minutes, and said, My customers is all gone. You will have to take these to the stable." I did not know where the stable was, and he said it was in the Atwell Road, which is about two or three

turnings away. When I got to the Atwell Road the stables were shown to me by Gregory. There were two chaps there and also prisoner Crocker. I delivered the lard and these young fellows put it in the stable. I did not notice whether there were any marks on the cases, but I saw the name of Morris. The lard was delivered at about a quarter past five as near as I can tell.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I do not know a man named Cohen. Allen is a master carman in the Borough Market and also a greengrocer. I have seen Allen since he gave me the order. I know Crocker, but I never saw Bowman before I saw him in the police court.

Cross-examined by Mr. White. It did not strike me as somewhat peculiar that I should be asked to take these goods first to the "Bricklayer's Arms," then to the railway arch at Peckham, and then to unload in a stable. Crocker knew I had the order because he was standing by when Allen gave it to me, and when I started he got into the van. I had never seen Crocker before December 5.

SAMUEL GREGORY , carman, gave corroborative evidence as to Crocker handing the last witness the piece of paper in which 6d. was wrapped, to the waiting under the railway arch at Peckham Rye and the subsequent deliver of the lard at the stables. He noticed that the name of Morris was on the boxes.

CAROLINE MORRIS , wife of George Morris, 6, Bournemouth Road. My husband has a shed in a mews or yard in Atwell Street. I saw prisoner Crocker on December 5. He called at my house and asked to see Mr. Morris. I told him my husband was out, but would be in in a few minutes. Then he said, "You know Mr. Bert Bowman!" I said, "Certainly I do." Then he said, "I want Mr. Morris to mind a few boxes for me until Monday." I said, "Yes, where is he to fetch the boxes from?" He said, "I have got them in my van, but the horse is so lame I shall want him to cart them away on Monday." I said, "Yes, he can do that. I have got a key, and if that will fit you can put them straight into the stable." I showed him where the stables were. I afterwards saw the van coming down the Bournemouth Road and the two carmen inquiring for Atwell Road. I did not see the boxes unloaded or in the stable on the Sunday, as it is very seldom I go round to the stable.

To Mr. White. Crocker did not say that the goods belonged to Mr. Bert Bowman, but he said that he came from him.

GEORGE MORRIS , husband of the last witness, spoke to seeing some boxes of lard in his shed on Sunday, December 6. The boxes were marked" Morris and Sons." He identified prisoner Bowman, whom he saw in the Green Lanes. Stoke Newington, on the following Monday, when he was delivering six out of 25 cases of the lard at the shop of a Mr. Allardyce. Bowman then directed him to another shop of Allardyce's, and he drove up just past to the bank entrance. Bowman then told him he would not want him for a quarter of an hour and he might as well go and have a bit of something to eat; so he went and had a bit of something to eat, and when he came back his van was unloaded. Bowman paid him 15s.

Louis BATMAN, greengrocer, who hires a part of the stable in Atwell Road, spoke to seeing the 50 boxes of lard delivered at the stable.

THOMAS JOSEPH ALLARDYCE , baker, Harringay. I have three shops, 93, Green Lanes; 27, Grand Parade, Harringay; and 7, Palace Parade, Hornsey. On Saturday, December 5, prisoner Bowman, whom I had known before, came to my shop and offered me some lard at 44s. a cwt. Ultimately I agreed to give him 40s. It was sold as damaged goods. At first I said I would have 3 cwt., then I was persuaded to buy 5 cwt. and eventually 7 cwt. were left I arranged that some of it was to be sent to my shop in Green Lanes, and some to my shop in Harringay. I paid him £4 in cash on account, and subsequently when Bowman called I paid him by cheque the sum of £10. The market price of the undamaged lard was 46s. or 48s. I was not there when the lard was delivered, and I did not see it until the police-sergeant came on the Tuesday.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. Bowman called on me about 6.30. I do not know that he was waiting an hour to see me. It was my usual rest time up till half-past six. I have known Bowman 15 years, and so far as I knew he was a man of the highest respectability. For years he was a confectioner, and alter that up till within a short time of this occurrence he had a farm where pig-breeding was carried on. I did not know he had given up the farm and become a general dealer. He was a man I would trust. He came about this lard in the ordinary way; there was nothing secret about it. I consider I offered him a fair price for a damaged article. I think it was United States lard. He made no demur to taking a cheque. The cheque was crossed. I did not ask him where he got the lard from.

Detective-sergeant FREDERICK PUSEY, M Division. On December 9 I saw prisoner Bowman just after he bad left this house in Forest Road, Walthamstow. I said, "Your name is Bowman, is it not?" He replied, "Yes." I said, "I am making some inquiries respecting 50 cases of lard which you have been dealing with, which have been obtained by a false order from the Morris Meat Company, London Bridge." He said, "I know nothing about any lard." I said, "You had better be careful, because I have traced some of the lard to you, which you have sold to Mr. Allardyce." He then made a statement to the effect that a man named Cohen whom he met round Smithfield Market had offered him 7 cwt. of which he had left six boxes at Mr. Allardyce's Green Lanes shop and eight at the Harringay shop. Then he said, "I did not go with the carman, but met him there. I saw Mr. Allardyce after I had delivered the goods and drew a cheque from him for £10. I changed the cheque in the Mile End Road. I met Cohen in a public-house at the corner of Brady Street, Whitechapel, at eight p.m. on Saturday. That is the first time I saw him that Saturday. I do not know who Cohen is or where he comes from. That was the first time I knew anything about the lard." I said, "You went to Atwell Mews, Atwell Street, on Monday morning and brought 25 boxes of lard away in your own van, to which was attached a grey pony." He said, "That is quite right." The pony was mine, but the van did not belong to me." I then told him I

should arrest him and convey him to Southwark Police Station, where he would be placed for identification with other persons. There he was identified by the man Gregory as the man who had shown him the way to the stables on the date that the stuff was stolen. I searched him and found upon him a quantity of memoranda, and amongst other things the following letter: "Dear Fred,—I thought the matter over after our con venation with 'Mac' yesterday. As they are apparently watching you, it seems to me to be asking for trouble to go on with anything just at present. I will drop a line as to meeting later in the week.—Yours truly, F. C." I saw Crocker on the morning of December 18 as he was leaving his house at Balham Hill. I said "Mr. Crocker" to him twice. Ho said, "That is not my name." I said, "What is your name?" He said, "Mr. Seaton." I said, "I have reason to believe your name is Crocker." He said, "Come back to my house; you can ascertain my name is Seaton." I said, "I am quite positive your name is Crocker. I shall arrest you for being concerned with a man named Bowman, now in custody for forging and uttering an order for 50 boxes of lard, the property of the Morris Beef Company." He said, "You have your duty to do; I have nothing more to say." I conveyed him to Southwark Police Station, where he was placed with nine other men, and identified by two or. three of the witnesses as the man giving Gregory and Hutt the piece of paper and telling them to go to Peckham Rye. He was subsequently charged and made no reply. I conveyed him in a cab to Tower Bridge Police Court. On the way he said, "It is quite right all out the witnesses. I could have told you that this morning if you had asked me. I was there when the lard was got from the box, and I arranged with Bowman to help sell it, but we were too late for the sale on Saturday. There were 50 boxes altogether, and the only place I thought of was Mr. Allardyce's shop at Herringay. I went with the van, but I took no part in selling it. Bowman did that." I subsequently went to Allardyce's shop and made inquiries, but instead of finding 25 boxes I only found 14. The box produced is one I brought from Allardyce's.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I have made inquiries about Bowman. I cannot say he is a highly respectable man. He has been a bankrupt, I believe. After he was turned out of his shop he did a little bit of jobbing round the wharves and warehouses. One day about 18 months ago a carman dropped a sack of sugar at 327, Whitechapel Road for Mr. Bowman. The carman was arrested, and Bowman's sister, who lived at the place, gave evidence at the Thames Police Court that the sugar was taken there for some other person; otherwise she would have been arrested for receiving it. Two men are now in custody and awaiting trial at Chelmsford who have been at his farm receiving stuff there. One is MacPherson, the" Mac" referred to in the letter. They had been getting bullocks, sheep, and pigs by worthless cheques. Bowman gave these men a reference to get a banking account at Walthamstow. I do not know whether the two men have been convicted, but they are awaiting trial 1 took Bowman's statement down in Forest Road, Epping. I cautioned

him and told him to be careful. I have tried to find the man Cohen spoken of by Bowman in the neighbourhood of the Whitechapel Road. I did not inquire for him at Smithfield Market, where I have no doubt there are a number of people named Cohen to be found.

Cross-examined by Mr. White. I have also made inquiries concerning Crocker. For some years he has been known by the name of Seaton. He was discharged from Fitch's for not doing his duty in a proper manner. He was a buyer and salesman, and I think the firm found out that he was buying goods from another firm at 60s., and having them invoiced to Messrs. Fitch at 68a. I got my information from Mr. Hugh Fitch. After Crocker left Fitch's, as far as I can gather, he went to a man named Shaw, and he was to receive one third of the business that he took into the place. I do not think he was there more than six months. He introduced as a customer Frederick Bowman, of 327, Whitechapel Road, which was a place where prisoner Bowman used to have stuff left I have no information that Crocker worked at Sainsbury's, obtaining employment there on the strength of the character he received from Fitch's. As to what he has been doing in the last few years I could say a lot. There are no previous convictions against him.


FREDERICK BOWMAN (prisoner, on oath). For the greater part of my life I have been a baker and confectioner at various places, Walthamstow last. I gave up the confectionery business, and went into pig breeding at Temple Mills, Leyton. I still have the farm, but I had a lot of ill luck in breeding, and the page died off. I then went into the salvage line, dealing in salvaged goods from shipping companies, damaged wheat, and so on. I have known Crocker I suppose about twelve years. On the morning of Saturday, December 5, I got off the tram at the "Thatched House," Leyton, and there I saw Mr. Frederick Cohen. I cannot tell you where he resides, but I have met him at Smithfield and at various sales. He hat no place of business that I have ever heard of. Altogether I have had three dealt with him. I bought tome damaged wheat of him, which was delivered at Temple Mills. Then in September I bought some damaged maize, about 3 cwt. or 4 cwt., and after that some tallowy oats, I suppose about 20 qrs. Cohen told me that this lard had been damaged by sea water, and he asked me if I could tell some for him, and I said I would try. The tame day I met Crocker at Aldgate and told him what had happened, and Crocker asked me where be could find Cohen. I told him he would be at the "Bricklayer's Arms" tome time in the afternoon. Crocker wanted to sell some of the lard. That was all that took place between us. I did not know that a forged order had been presented to Messrs. Morris purporting to come from Messrs. Fitch. I had no hand in that At to Gregory's statement that he taw me in Peckham at 5.30 on that Saturday, I was in Harringay at 5.30, waiting for Mr. Allardyce to get up. I have a brother named Bert who resembles me very

much in appearance. It would take about an hour and a half to get from Peckham to Harringay. My arrangement with Cohen was that all I could get over 36s. per cwt. was to be my profit. I did not ask Cohen where he got the lard from. Dealers do not as a rule ask each other where they get damaged cargoes from. I did not open a case to look at it, and did not see any of it till I saw it on the Monday. On the evening of the Saturday I saw Cohen about, 8 o'clock at a public house at the corner of Brady Street, Whitechapel, by appointment. I met him there because I had no business place, and he had none as far as I know. I told him a had sold Mr. Allardyce 5 cwt. of the lard, and I thought he would not mind taking 7 cwt. Cohen said, "Have you got any money?" I said. "Yes, I have got £4 on account," and I gave him the £4. He asked when he was to deliver it, and I said he was to deliver it before 12 o'clock on Monday at the Green Lanes. He said, "All right, it shall be there." I do not know Allen. I saw the lard for the first time on the Monday at the Green Lanes in a van. I did not see Crocker between the Saturday and the Monday, but I saw him at Green Lanes. I think he came up to say he could not sell any of the lard. If I had told Cohen I was going to sell the stuff to Allardyce he might have gone there and traded on his own account, and I should not have got any profit from him. I also gave the cheque for £10 to Cohen and he handed me back 30s., my commission. That is all the profit I made out of the transaction. I did not know that the lard had been deposited in Morris's stables till the detective told me. The letter found upon me I suppose I received six or eight weeks ago. "Mac" was a servant who worked for me some time ago, looking after the pigs. "As they are apparently watching you" refers to the police. There had been a robbery within a few yards of the piggery, and "Mac" told me, one morning that the people round there were all being watched on account of it "It seems to me to be asking for trouble to go out with anything just at present" has reference to a project of Crocker's as to betting. He said what a fine opportunity there was for making a book over this way, as the Great Eastern people employed 8,000 men, and he thought it would be very fine business.

Cross-examined. I have tried to find Cohen, but have been unable to do so. He does not haunt the places I am accustomed to go to. I was willing under the circumstances to find a job wherever I could. I was always open to earn money.

To the Court. My brother is not here. I do not think he could be brought here by the morning, as he has gone away.

Cross-examination continued. I told Inspector Pusey that Cohen was a Jew. I could not tell him where he could be found; I should like to find him myself. I have never been to Harringay from Peckham, and am not aware that the journey can be done in three-quarter of an hour.

FREDERICK CROCKER . (prisoner, on oath). I have never had any charge brought against me before this. I have known Bowman ten or twelve years. On December 5 I met him in the neighbourhood of Aldgate Station. He told me he had some lard for disposal and asked me if I could dispose of any, as I was well known in the provision trade. I said I thought I could. He told me it was damaged lard. Up till the end of November I had been with Shaw and Co. Previously I had been dealing in cracked eggs, which are used for confectionery purposes. He told me I could see the lard at the "Bricklayers' Arms" between three and four the same afternoon. I went to the" Bricklayers' Arms" and there saw Cohen, whom I had seen twice in the company of Bowman and knew as a dealer. I asked Cohen about the lard he had for sale, and he said it would be there presently. We were in conversation for some little time, and he then gave me a small packet and told me to take it across to the carman (Hutt) and tell him to go to Rye Lane, Peckham. Afterwards I went on to Peckham myself in accordance With Cohen's instructions. I have no stable at Peckham. Cohen gave me the address of a man named Morris and said, "If you go to that address and mention the name of Bert Bowman he will store this lard until Monday." I had previously told him it was no use attempting to sell lard on a Saturday afternoon. I went to the address given me by Cohen and saw Mrs. Morris. I asked her permission to store the boxes in the stable, and mentioned the name of Bert Bowman. She said she knew Bert Bowman well and I could do that, certainly. I had never seen Mrs. Morris before that date. The statement of the carman Hutt that I got on to his wagon and rode for 100 yards going to Tooley Street is absolutely untrue. Before I left Cohen at the" Bricklayers' Arms" he gave me 4s. or it might have been 5s. After I had spoken to Mrs. Morris I went back to where the van was standing and told the carman Hutt to take the boxes to the stable in Atwell Street. I was not with Bowman after, and left him in Tooley Street. He was not with me in Peckham. If Gregory says he saw me and Bowman together that afternoon that is wrong. The boxes were unloaded by the Carmen and two young fellows who were in the stable at the time. I saw some of the boxes at Harringay on the Monday—I presume they were the same. I saw Bowman there. With the exception of the 4s. I received nothing else from Cohen. When I was in Fitch's employment I had opportunity of getting hold of their notepaper but I never had any of it after I left their employment. I left there about June, 1906, for the reason that I had been engaging in transactions on my own account. That came about in this way: A man named Pearson, who had been in the employ of the firm for some time, was discharged as he was getting rather old—there was nothing against his character. He came to me some time afterwards and said he had nothing to do and had a family dependent on him and if he could get some goods for sale he could get a living; could I help him? After considertion I said yes; I would buy some goods and he could sell them. So

I bought goods in the market and this Pearson sold them. It came to the knowledge of Mr. Edwin Fitch and Mr. Stanley Fitch. They called me up into the office and said that they heard I had been engaged in outside transactions, they would not have that, and I must leave their employment. Mr. Stanley Fitch gave me a written reference. After that I went to Sainsbury's. There is no truth in the suggestion that I traded with Fitch's money or that I had goods invoiced to Fitch's at more than cost price and took the balance myself. I asked Mr. Fitch if there was any imputation of dishonesty as to my transactions and he said none whatever.

Cross-examined. At the time of this transaction of December 5 I was in no regular employment. I had just left Shaw and Company. I have been on, bail, but have not since seen anything of Cohen, though I have been to the places where I had been in the habit of seeing him. I did not tell Sergeant Pusey I was at the docks when the lard was obtained. I told him I arranged with Bowman to help sell it. I told Pusey my name was not Crocker but Seaton. That is the name I have been going by for three and a half years. I first saw Hutt at the "Bricklayers' Arms." I did give the paper to Hutt with directions, enclosing a coin of some description. On the Monday following I did not see the boxes actually delivered at Allardyce's shop in Green Lanes, but I saw them on the van. I did not notice how many there were. I did not go to the other shop. Fifty boxes were stored in Morris's shed. I have no knowledge where the rest are. Having seen them stored I did not worry about them any further. I admit that the letter found on Bowman was written by me. I could not see my way to going into betting transactions while Bowman's place was being watched in consequence of something that had occurred at Temple Mills. With 8,000 men there employed by the railway company I thought there was a very good chance of making a starting-price book.

Verdict, Both guilty.

Sentence, Each nine months' hard labour.

Mr. Simner asked that the lard might be restored to prosecutors.

The Recorder said the police would no doubt exercise proper discretion. This being a case of obtaining by false pretences and not one of larceny, he could make no order of restitution.


(Wednesday, January 13.)

Reference Number: t19090112-19

STAFFORD, George Walter (33, clerk) pleaded guilty of feloniously marrying Annie Rosina Hewlett, his wife being then alive.

Sentence, Four months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19090112-20

HARRIS, Samuel (31, merchant) , corruptly offering to Ernest Alfred Cordell, an agent of Oppenheimer, Blandford, and Company, a certain consideration and gift, to wit, a sum of money, as an inducement to said E. A. Cordell to do a certain act in relation to his principals, affairs and business.

Mr. Travers Humphreys prosecuted; Mr. Muir and Mr. Daniel Warde defended.

ERNEST ALFRED CORDELL , clerk to Oppenheimer, Blandlord, and Co., 10 and 12, Copthall Avenue, solicitors. My firm collect a number of debts for German clients. On July 14, 1908, we had instructions from Scrobell, Tscherner, and Co., of Elsenburge, to collect from S. Harris and Co., 22, Barbican, £44 5s. 6d., and I wrote letter produced threatening proceedings, which I took to 22,. Barbican, and saw the prisoner. He said he knew all about it and he did not owe the money; he had the goods in his possession, but he could not sell them: they were not according to sample, they were not as ordered. I wrote to Germany for further instructions. I afterwards received instructions from Albert Finger, a pianoforte maker in Germany, to collect from prisoner's firm £21 5s. 6d. for a piano supplied. I saw prisoner on August 7. He said he bad sent the piano to South Africa,; he did not intend to pay for it, as it was damaged in transit. On October 7 I had received instructions to collect a third debt from prisoner's firm of £38, due to Hilmar Chleintein, of Germany, and saw prisoner. He did not dispute that debt. I then told him our instructions from Scrobell and Co. were that the goods were according to order, that they could not be returned, and that we must have the money. We discussed the matter, and prisoner suggested that perhaps there was some means of getting out of the payment of that debt; he said that if I could write over in my principals' name to Scrobell and Co. to the effect that prisoner's firm had gone away, were bankrupt, or it was no use suing, he would pay me 25 per cent. of what he might realise when he sold the goods. I said, "If you give me time to consider the matter, I will let you know," and promised to call again the next day. I then returned to my office and reported the matter to Mr. Blandford. The next morning, October 8, Mr. Blandford and I went to the chief offices of the City Police and saw Superintendent Stark. The same afternoon I went to 22, Barbican, with Sergeant Newell and saw prisoner, leaving Newell outside. I told prisoner I had considered his offer and was willing to accept it, but before I wrote the letter I required a payment on account. He said I could not have cash; he had not sold the goods and did not know what they would realise and how much would be due to me. I insisted on some payment, and he gave me crossed cheque produced for £5 on the L. and S. W. Bank, payable to my order. As I was leaving prisoner said if I had any further instructions from Continental firms, if I would call upon him he would treat me in the same way. I then left, joined Newell at the doorway, and handed him the cheque, which he returned to me, and I handed it to Mr. Blandford the same day.

Cross-examined. The proposition about the 25 per cent, was only made with regard to the debt of £44; I was endeavouring to collect from prisoner two other debts of £21 and £38. I have been collecting debts for German firms for some time; in about 5 per cent. of such cases the debtors say the goods are not according to sample or raise frivolous defences of that description. I have not known that defence to succeed in court. I have sometimes advised clients to accept a return of the goods. The third time I saw prisoner he said the goods were all right. I never examined the goods. I have not collected the £21 debt. Proceedings are pending to recover the £58 debt, and prisoner filed an affidavit that the goods were not according to sample. On another debt we have ultimately accepted 50 per cent. under instructions from our client. I had six interviews in all with the prisoner between July 14 and October 7. I made no note of those interviews. I am trusting to my memory, assisted by the letters I wrote. On one occasion prisoner pointed to the goods, but I did not want to see them because I told him my instructions were to sue for the full amount. I had a copy of the invoice of the £44. On October 7 and 8 prisoner's manager was present, whom I knew as Pallast. He may have passed through at a previous interview. but those were the only two interviews at which he assisted. On October 7 Pallast said the goods for the £38 debt were all right. Prisoner offered to return the goods on August 10. I told him my instructions were not to accept the return of the goods, and that we must press for payment of the whole debt. Prisoner said he would not pay for them because they were not according to sample—not what he expected when he ordered. I saw him again in the street in September and asked him to return the invoice. I told him I wanted it to prepare the indorsement of my writ. That was a bluff to let him think we were immediately proceeding, and to see if he would pay something on account. On October 7 prisoner did not offer to take the goods at a reduced price. On October 8 he asked me what name he should make the cheque out in, and I gave him my card. He asked if I would accept a crossed cheque. I said I did not mind as I had a banking account of my own. He said, "You do not want to cash this to-day, do you?" I said, "No, not particularly." He led me to believe there was not sufficient money in the bank. I believe prisoner's banking account has been examined, but I do not know how it stood.

Re-examined. We have not been paid either of the three debts of £21, £38, and £44. I made a note (produced) of the interview of October 7. (Held that the note could not be put in evidence.)

WALTER F. H. BLANDFORD , partner in Oppenheimer, Blandford, and Co., solicitors. I have a large number of debts to collect for German clients. Cordell attends to the business when they are within the limits of county court work. On July 14 I had instructions from Scrobell and Co. to collect £44 5s. 6d. from prisoner and signed letter produced. I also instructed Cordell to collect the two other debts mentioned from prisoner of £21 and £38. On October 7 Cordell had an interview with me; we saw Superintendent Stark the next morning and Cordell subsequently handed me cheque produced. I subsequently

obtained the Attorney-General's content and took out a summons at Guildhall.

Cross-examined. A warrant was afterwards obtained upon the sworn information of H. A. Scott, who stated that prisoner was departing for America on Wednesday next, that his wife had already arrived in America, that he had disposed of his household furniture and was living at temporary apartments at Stoke Newington. I believe that information was not correct. I have inspected prisoners banking account. On October 8 there was a credit balance of £40 14s. 10d.; payments in of £80 12s. 7d., and payments out of £61 16s. 9d., so that unless the two payments out were made first there would be an ample balance to pay the £5 cheque.

Detective-sergeant WILLIAM NEWELL, City. On October 8, at three to four p.m., I went with Cordell to 22, Barbican, on the first floor. of which are the offices of Harris and Co. Cordell went into the office; I went up a few stairs and saw him through a window apparently in conversation with two other persons. After about 20 minutes Cordell came out and handed me prisoner's cheque for £5 (produced), which I returned to him. On October 31 I served upon prisoner at his office the summons charging him with the present offence. He said, "I know all about it I know I gave the man £5, but I did not bribe him." The summons was returnable on November 19. In the meantime a further information by Scott was sworn, a warrant was obtained, and I arrested prisoner, on November 17, at his office. I told him I had a warrant for his arrest. I said, "This warrant has been granted upon an information sworn at the Guildhall to the effect that you are about to go to America, that you have sold your furniture, your wife has gone to America, and you are about to go in the course of a few days." He said, "I have not sold my furniture. My wife has been to America on a visit to relatives there and she has returned already. I have no intention of going to America." I asked Him for the counterfoil of the cheque and he produced book containing the counterfoil (produced) of the cheque, which is "V 191728" The counterfoil is blank. All the previous counterfoils are filled up; the subsequent counterfoils down to October 19 are filled up; there are some blank ones at the end of the book. Prisoner also handed me paper produced containing list of items amounting on one side to £688 14s. 10d. and on the other to £547 16s. 7d., including an item of £5, and showing a balance of £140 18s. 3d.

Cross-examined. The account would show a credit balance of £140 18s. 3d. From inquiries made I believe prisoner's statements as to the information sworn by Scott to be true. When I arrested him he was carrying on business in the ordinary way so far as I could see.


SAMUEL HARRIS (prisoner, on oath). I carry on business at 22, Barbican as merchant and warehouseman, I am 31 years of age, have been in England about 20 years, and have been in business as

general merchant about 12 years. I have been 1 1/2 years at 22, Barbican; previously for about 18 months in Houndsditch; and previously to that for about 3 years in Fore Street as fancy leather goods dealer. I have never been bankrupt or compounded with my creditors. My private house is 13, Coburg Place, Stamford Hill, where I have lived for three years, paying £45 rent besides rates and taxes. The furniture belongs in great part to my wife. My liabilities are about £700 or £800 and my assets much more. Three months ago I was solvent. My business is chiefly with German firms, from whom I buy goods through agents or upon samples sent over. In February, 1908, I did business with Scrobell and Company, of Elsenburge, Saxony. They sent me samples of hair-cloth, of which I ordered ten pieces, which were delivered three months afterwards. They were not according to sample; I wrote to Scrobell and Company stating that I could not do with the goods at all, that I had ordered hair cloth and that they had sent me starched canvas. I had a copy of the letter, but is has disappeared; I showed it to Cordell when I first saw him in July. I told him that 1 could not do with the goods; showed him the goods, and he compared them with the sample which I produced to him. I asked him to write to Scrobell and Company and ask them to take the goods back, and he said he would do so and let me know. About five weeks later he called, brought a duplicate invoice, said he was going to take the goods back and he would call to-morrow morning with a barrow and take them after checking them with the invoice. I said he could do so with pleasure, that I could not sell them and that I bad no use for them. I put them out in rows to show that they were exactly as per invoice. He did not call again. About six weeks later in December I met him in the street and asked him why he had not taken the goods away. He said he was rather busy and would let me know in due course. He has called a few times and seen my manager. On October 8 he called, and I gave him the cheque for £5. My manager told me that he had arranged with Cordell to pay 25 per cent of the price of the goods. I told Cordell that the goods were there for him to take away but as my manager had arranged with him to give him 25 per cent., as I wanted one matter settled, I would not argue about it but would accept his offer and give him the 25 per cent., otherwise he could take the goods away. Cordell said, "Can you give me the cash?" I said, "I can give you the cash, a crossed cheque or an open cheque—anything you want." I asked him whom I should make the cheque out to and if he had got the receipt. He handed me card produced and said, "You can make the cheque out to me." I asked my manager if I could give him the cheque. My manager said it was all right I gave him the crossed cheque for £5 because it would be the same as a receipt. I told him if he was not satisfied he could take the goods back as I could hardly sell them at any time. I told him that if he would bring up a receipt I would give him an open cheque for the balance. I had quite sufficient money at the bank to meet the cheque. I am under an agreement to leave a balance of £50 at the bank. I did not give it as a bribe as stated by

Cordell. I was served with a summons in this case and afterwards arrested, My wife had been to America last summer to see her relatives and had then returned. I had not disposed of my furniture or given up my house. I had just bought some fresh furniture. I bad no intention of leaving the country. The statements in the information of Scott on which a warrant was obtained are absolutely untrue.

Cross-examined. My manager's name is Seelenfreund. He, has been with me about nine months as my manager; he has never been in partnership with me. He does not speak English as well as I do, but he understands it, and I speak to him both in German and English. The Payment of £5 to Cordell was a regular business transaction. I have no entry of it in a book. I gave Newell the account showing my receipts and payments. I do not keep books beyond my letter book and the invoices. I have marked the invoice with this payment. I have not brought the invoice here as I did not think it necessary. Cheques are usually made out by my manager and the counterfoil filled up. Making out the cheque myself I might leave the counterfoil blank if I was in a hurry. I cannot exactly remember why I did not fill up the counterfoil of Cordell's cheque. As a crossed cheque has to go through the bank, I consider it as good as a receipt. I usually get a receipt as well. I asked Cordell for a receipt, and he said he was going to bring one up in a day or two, so I did not give him all the money. I thought I could trust him with £5. I had seen him several times, and he represented himself as a solicitor or a partner in the firm. He must have misunderstood me or misunderstood my manager. I can hardly believe how he comes to say what he does. I ordered the goods in February, 1908, and received them in April or May. They were ordered on the usual terms of payment in thirty days. I wrote letter produced dated April, 1906, to Scrobell and Co., in German, stating "We are willing to give you a remittance as soon as we receive your goods, and we are rather astonished that you are always asking for more references. We will also in future, if you wish, pay you cash. As this it a cash transaction, we will remit you as soon as we receive the goods." Cash means thirty days after receipt. We might remit either by a bill or by cash. Scrobell and Co. then sent the goods. I wrote them Stating they were not what I had ordered. I showed a press copy of the letter to Cordell. The letter was in German; the copy is mislaid. I cannot find it. My manager wrote the letter. Cordell read it. My manager showed it to him in my presence. The letter was in German. Cordell cannot read German, but my manager read it over to him, and he looked at the letter to see the date. Cordell said he would write to the firm, tell them all about it, and let me know. He came again and said he would take the gods back the next morning. He said, "I shall take the goods back. I will call for the goods to-morrow morning, as you complain of them." I ordered hair-cloth, and they sent canvas. I showed Cordell the sample. Anyone could see the difference. He told me he would call for the goods the next morning with a barrow or with a man. I think that statement is in

my affidavit. I do not know why it was not suggested to Cordell in cross-examination. I told my solicitor of it. Three or four weeks afterwards, when I met Cordell, I asked him why he had not been for the goods. He told me he had been too busy. The goods were standing there in my warehouse until he got the cheque. I cannot swear that I did not see Cordell on October 7. I have sold the goods between the date of the summons and my arrest to Tempest and CO., clothing manufacturers. I believe the samples are in my place. I have got them still.

HERMANN SEELENFREUND . I have beer prisoner's manager since January 1, 1908. I am an Austrian and have been previously employed in Austria as foreign correspondent. In July, 1908, Cordell called for payment for goods for Scrobell and Co. Prisoner refused to pay or the ground that the goods were not according to simple. I was present at the interviews on October 7 and 8. On the 7th Cordell saw me; I gave him a cigarette, which he had nearly finished when prisoner came in. Cordell asked if we had still got the goods. I showed them to him, and asked him," How could you expect we could sell goods which you could buy for 3d. or 4d. a yard, when they are invoiced at 1s. 1d. or 1s. 1 1/2 d?" Cordell said, "What do you propose to do?" I said to him, "You cannot send the goods back because your manufacturers will have to pay duty, as they have remained here such a long time, but if you will take 25 per cent off the invoice price I will try to persuade the governor to buy the goods for 25 per cent." The prisoner came in in the middle of that conversation; I told him about it, and he said to Cordell," What are you going to do? If you are willing to sell me the goods for 25 per cent. I will pay you in cash or with an open cheque." Cordell said he would consider it and come again the next day. On the next day, October 8, Cordell came; I and prisoner were present. Cordell asked for payment. Prisoner refused to pay, and I begged prisoner to pay him at least something on account—that he should make me keep my word—that as I had arranged to pay 25 per cent. he should pay something so that I should know that the business was completed. Prisoner asked me what he should do. I told him as Cordell was a partner in the firm, and he possessed the invoices, we could give him a cheque—that was my opinion. I spoke to prisoner in German. Prisoner then gave him the cheque. Cordell gave me this card (produced). I said to prisoner, "This is the address of Mr. Cordell; you can give him a cheque in his name." At none of the interviews was anything said about giving £5 to Cordell for anything except on account of the purchase of the goods.

Cross-examined. I have been in England about four years—since 1905. I have been in business on my own account as manufacturers' agent, and was first employed by prisoner in January, 1908. I did not keep books either for myself or prisoner. I do not generally get a receipt when I give a cheque, as that is the same as a receipt. I used to fill up the counterfoil when making out a cheque for myself, and airways did so when writing one for prisoner. Prisoner did not always do so when he wrote a cheque himself—he does not write

very quickly. Prisoner is a merchant dealing chiefly in soft goods; also in china. He deals in anything in which he can make a profit; he bought a piano from Finger. He kept no books to my knowledge; I kept none in his business. If he wrote a cheque he put down the amount—on a piece of paper. I think Cordell first called in July. On October 7 I asked him," Why do not you take the goods back?" because prisoner had told me in the beginning of October if anyone called for the goods I should bring them up. Cordell asked on October 7 if we had still got the goods. I considered they were only worth 2d. or 3d. a metre and they were charged at 1s. 1d. or 1s. 2d. We did not send the goods back to Germany as I knew they would have to pay the duty—I thought Cordell would get another customer for them. On October 7 prisoner said to Cordell," What are you going to do? Are you willing to accept 25 per cent. for the goods? I will pay you cash or an open cheque." Cordell said, "I will consider and I will come to-morrow or the day after." I think he was to send a wire to Scrobell and Co. That was not a wire to say that Harris and Co. were not worth suing—it was about the settlement. Prisoner was to pay 25 per cent of the amount of the invoice—that was what he offered on October 7. He came the next day—the goods were still there. Prisoner said, "What is your decision?" or something like that. Cordell replied, "I want the money." Prisoner said, "I cannot give you the money, because I have got the goods still left—I cannot give you it all because I have not sold the goods." Then I told prisoner, I have agreed yesterday that you will buy the goods for 25 per cent. Do not make me a fool—why do not you give him something at least on account?" Cordell was asking for the whole of the money. I do not think we have the sample—I sent the manufacturer the sample, I think, when I wrote that the goods were not according to sample. When Cordell came I do not think we had the sample—it had gone back to Germany—we had a piece—there were four or five pieces; it may be the samples are still in the office. The goods were sold at the end of October—a day or two before the summons—not afterwards. I do not know whom they were sold to as I was not in the office at the time. I had nothing to do with the sale. I believe they were sold for £18 or £20.

Verdict, Guilty.

Sentence, Six months' hard labour.

Mr. Wards asked for facilities in prison to see the defendant with a view to appeal.

The Common Sergeant said he had no power to grant the application, but no doubt the facilities required would be afforded. He had no wish to encourage appeals, for it seemed to him that the time of the Court of Criminal Appeal was seriously wasted by appeals which were groundless.

Reference Number: t19090112-21

BROOKS, Percy Charles (32, agent) , stealing one cheque book, the goods of Robert Sitton; forging and uttering a certain order for the payment of money, to wit. a banker's cheque for the sum of £6 10s., with intent to defraud Charles Gillard; forging and uttering a certain order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for the sum of £3, with intent to defraud Henry Capelli .

Prisoner pleaded guilty of obtaining £3 from Henry Capelli which plea was accepted by the prosecution.

Sentence. Six months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19090112-22

FISH. Alfred William (43, painter) pleaded guilty , of feloniously marrying Marion Elizabeth Allwood, his wife being then alive.

Prisoner having been two months in prison, and having a good character, and there having been intimacy before the second marriage, he was bound over in £20 to come up for judgment if called upon.


(Wednesday, January 13.)

Reference Number: t19090112-23

PAYNE, Henry Thomas (37, electrician) pleaded guilty , of fraudulently converting to his own use £2 4s. 2 1/2d. entrusted to him as secretary of a loan and investment society by Charles Frederick Whelpdale, £2 11s., entrusted to him by Miss Sophia Wright, and other moneys.

Sentence, Five months' imprisonment in the second division.

Reference Number: t19090112-24

DIXON, Robert pleaded guilty , to attempting to commit suicide. He was released on his own recognisances in £5 to come up for judgment if called upon.

Reference Number: t19090112-25

HARRIS, Frederick (28, carman), was indicted for stealing two rolls of cloth from Edward Hitchens and others. and feloniously receiving the same.

Prisoner was tried at last Sessions with one Edward Wilson (see p. 193); the Jury then disagreed.

On the present trial the evidence given in December was repeated, prisoner again giving evidence on oath.

Verdict, Not guilty.

Reference Number: t19090112-26

CRANE, Robert William (22, barman) , attempted unnatural offence. Verdict, Not guilty.

Reference Number: t19090112-27

COOK, Granville, pleaded not guilty of maliciously publishing a defamatory libel concerning May Hawthorne ; not guilty of unlawfully publishing and threatening to publish a libel upon her, with intent to extort from her certain moneys; and guilty of feloniously sending, uttering, or causing to be received, knowing the contents thereof, a letter demanding money of her, with menaces.

Mr. Curtis Bennett prosecuted; Mr. Forrest Fulton defended. The first and second counts were not proceeded with.

Convictions proved. July 20, 1906, ten months' hard labour, attempted fraud; April 25, 1898, 12 months for false pretences; July 25, 1900, three years' penal servitude for larceny; April 29, 1907. two terms of hard labour, 21 months each, concurrent.

(January 15). Prisoner, on apologising for the libel, and promising not to molest or annoy prosecutrix again, was released on his own recognisances in £25 to come up for judgment if called upon.

Reference Number: t19090112-28

MEECHES, Eugene (19, waiter) pleaded guilty , of stealing a banker's cheque, value 1d., the goods of Joseph Herman Hart; forging and uttering a banker's cheque for £7 7s., with intent to defraud.

Mr. H. D. Cornish prosecuted.

Detective-sergeant GEORGE MILES, S Division. I produce papers I found at prisoner's lodgings, with impressions of keys and of holes of the keylocks, found in prisoner's possession, also some ingenious tools. Prisoner had evidently been practising the writing of cheques and the signature of the Messrs. Hart.

Sentence, three months' imprisonment, second division; certified for expulsion under Aliens Act.

Reference Number: t19090112-29

PLANT, Thomas (31, porter) pleaded guilty , of attempting to obtain by false pretences from Sarah Ann Brown £4, her moneys, and feloniously forging and uttering an order for £4; also to obtaining by false pretences from William Frederick West 213/4lb. of cheese, the goods of William James Stamp . Several previous convictions were proved. (January 18).

Sentence, 12 months' hard labour on each indictment; to run concurrently.

Reference Number: t19090112-30

JONES, David (38, dairyman) ; feloniously marrying Lottie Nash, his wife being then alive.

Mr. Hart prosecuted; Mr. C. A. Palmer Chizzola defended.

Police-constable THOMAS RICHARDS, 564 Y. I was present some years ago at the marriage of prisoner with Mary Jones, at the Tregaron Registry Office, near Aberystwyth, Wales. I see the wife in Court.

Miss. ELIZABETH JONES. Prisoner is my father. I reside with my mother at 27, Park Street, Liverpool. My father used to live there with us. Four years ago last March he left. I have since received several letters from him. My mother and I still live in the same house. Recently my mother received from him a pamphlet (produced) addressed to her in his handwriting.

Cross-examined. I have not answered any of prisoner's letters, and do not know whether my mother has answered any.

LOTTIE NASH , domestic servant, 363, Holloway Road. Early in 1897 I was assistant manager to the City of London Union. Prisoner came there in January, 1907. He ultimately proposed to me I asked him to inquire whether his wife was dead or alive; and he said he would do so, and would produce papers to show that she was dead. Before I married him I asked him several times to do this, and he said, "Can't you trust me?" He said he could get them; but he never told me definitely whether he was free. He said his wife was dead, and I married him on May 3, 1908, at St. Paul's Church, Holloway. I lived with him as his wife for three months and a fortnight. I then left him because he accused me of misconduct.

Cross-examined. I left him before I heard of his having been previously married.

EMMA JARMAN , 80, Kingsdown Road, Holloway. Prisoner and the last witness, my sister, were married from my house. I witnessed the marriage.

Detective-inspector DAVID EDWARDS, Y Division. On December 27, at Cardiff, I arrested prisoner, on warrant, but did not caution him. He said, "I thought she was dead." On my further charging him he said, "I heard she was dead." I produce copies of his marriage certificates, dated February 12, 1886, and May 3, 1908. I produce documents found at his lodgings.

Prisoner's statement before the magistrate: "I wrote; I received no reply; and took it for granted that she was dead."


DAVID JONES (prisoner, on oath). I was for 21 years in the Liverpool Police. Just before joining the police I married Mary Jones. After I left the police I entered the dairy business. My wife and I did not agree very well, and at the end of three years I sold my dairy business to my father-in-law. According to this arrangement I was to leave Liverpool, and did so about March, 1904. In 1905, though I had written to her several times, I had not heard from her. In 1907, while acting as porter and superintendent of labour for the City of London Union at Shoe Lane, I met in the Casual Ward a man named Ellis, a carpenter from Liverpool, who told me that the dairy business was sold, and that my wife was dead. I did not ask him for particulars. I do not know where Ellis is now. I wish I did. In consequence of what Ellis told me I told Lottie Nash that I was a widower, and married her. I had written on several occasions to my daughter, at 27, Park Street, but could get no reply. Subsequently to my interview with Ellis I met at Wandsworth, in October, 1908, a fellow-dairyman, who told me he had heard that my wife was still alive. I posted to her address the missionary pamphlet produced, thinking that if she were alive I should get a reply. I do not remember whether I sent a letter also. My address was inside. I cannot say what it was written upon.

To the Judge. I lived at Liverpool till about four years ago, and when I left my wife was alive and well. After I saw Ellis, the casual in the workhouse, I did not make any inquiry as to whether my wife was alive or dead. There I made a mistake.

Verdict, Guilty.

Detective-inspector DAVID EDWARDS, recalled. In October last prisoner proposed marriage to a Miss Owen, living in New Oxford Street. She has written to me about it, and I have seen her. Prisoner has been rewarded for assisting the police on several occasions.

Sentence, Six months' hard labour.


(Thursday, January 14.)

Reference Number: t19090112-31

HUME, George (40, tailor), was indicted for and charged on Coroner's inquisition with the wilful murder of Bertha Hume.

Mr. Travers Humphreys and Mr. Oddie prosecuted.

Prisoner, on being called upon to plead, made no reply. On the question whether he was "mute of malice" or was unable to plead, Dr. Scott, medical officer of Brixton Gaol, was about to be called, when prisoner pleaded "Not guilty. "

FANNY WILLCOX , 5, Loampit Hill, Lewisham. Next door to me prisoner and his wife and child have been living for twelve months. I last saw Mrs. Hume on November 15; she was with prisoner and the child. On November 16 in the morning I saw prisoner sweeping the doorstep; I asked him "How is the missus?" He said she was poorly and he had given her some medicine and she would be better soon; then he said she had gone away. Later in the day I saw him again; he said his wife was still in bed; he said, "Do you know Mrs. Helmsley?" I said, "No"; he said, "Mrs. Helmsley made a terrible mess outside on Tuesday; I had to clear it up, and I threw an old brown hat in with it. "

DAVID STERRY ,. an inspector of the N. S. P. C. C. I have known prisoner since April, 1908; he has done odd tailoring jobs for me. On November 13 I went to his shop about a coat I wanted repairing; I noticed on the floor of the shop what appeared to be sawdust. On the 16th I met prisoner in the street; I said, "Have you done my jacket?" He said, "No; I have done my b—lot in; come and have a drink; I'll tell you something that will surprise you." I declined the drink; he had been drinking but was not drunk. I have since examined the spot where the woman's body was found; it is close by where I saw the sawdust.

SARAH E. CHAPLIN identified as having been worn by Mrs. Hume a ring found in possession of prisoner.

Police-constable JOHN SMITH, 208R. On November 16 about 7 p.m. I was (in plain clothes) in High Street, Lewisham, when I saw prisoner with his little boy in his arms; he appeared to have been drinking heavily. I considered he was not fit to take care of the child; I got someone to take the child away, and I took prisoner to the station. On the way he said, I suppose you think you have got a decent job." Later on he said several times," Look at them; they are making dumb motions at me"; there was no one in sight.

Inspector CORNELIUS GARNER. I was at Lewisham Police Station on November 16 when prisoner was brought in; he seemed strange in his manner; I sent him to the infirmary. On November 20 I went to prisoner's shop, 3, Loampit Hill. On removing the linoleum I found that three of the floor boards had been cut through, taken up, and replaced. On removing them I found lying underneath the body of the deceased woman; the head was bent back and the legs protruding

upwards; round the neck was the cord (produced), tied tightly. An old brown hat was lying beside the body. There was no ring on the woman's hand.

JOHN H. MCARDALE , attendant at Lewisham Infirmary, said that prisoner was admitted on November 16; he was incoherent and made rambling statements; he was placed in the Mental Ward. On being searched there were found upon him the two rings produced (the woman's wedding ring and the ring spoken to by Chaplin).

Dr. ROLAND V. DONNELAN said he was called by the police to 3, Loampit Hill on November 20, and saw the body of the dead woman before it had been taken from beneath the flooring. He subsequently made a post-mortem examination; there were on each side of the neck finger marks besides the marks of the cord; the cause of death was strangulation; the woman bad been dead from six to eight days when the body was discovered.

Inspector ALBERT HAWKINS. On December 3 I saw prisoner in the Lewisham Infirmary. I told him I was a police officer and should arrest him for the wilful murder of his wife on November 15 or 16. He said, "I almost forget all about it If I had not been jealous of her it would not have happened, but I could not stand the disgrace. I knew I had done something and I was going to give myself up." At the station, on the charge being read over to him, he said, "Right, I will have to work the date up.

Dr. SCOTT, medical officer, Brixton Prison (called by the Court). During the time prisoner has been under my observation (since December 3) his conduct has been very irrational, at times violent; his sleep has been disturbed; in my opinion he has, and has had for some long time, genuine insane delusions. From my observation of the man himself, and a careful study of the statements in the case, my conclusion is that at the time of committing this crime he was insane and not responsible for his actions.

Mr. Justice Grantham, in summing up, told the jury that prisoner had been in the Army and had had sunstroke in India. At the time he committed the act he had been drinking, and alcohol was the worst thing a person who had had sunstroke could take.

The jury found the prisoner Guilty of the act, but insane at the time he committed it, and not responsible for his actions. Ordered to be detained during his Majesty's pleasure.

Reference Number: t19090112-32

WEISS, Henrich (21, waiter), and WOLTZ, Roger Emile Fenelon Felix (19, waiter) pleaded guilty , of sending two letters to Messrs. Joseph Lyons and Co. demanding, with menaces, the sum of £500.

Prisoners bore good characters, and stated in mitigation that it was only a joke.

They were released on their own recognisances in £20 each to come up for judgment if called upon.

Reference Number: t19090112-33

FOSTER, Walter Charles pleaded guilty , of the manslaughter of Dorothy Jane Davis on December 26 last.

Prisoner having paid £20 to the parents of the deceased child and bearing a good character, the Court imposed three days' imprisonment from date of Session and discharged him on payment of costs of the prosecution.

Reference Number: t19090112-34

CATT, Leonard (20, labourer) ; an abominable crime. Verdict, Guilty.

Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.

Reference Number: t19090112-35

GARCIA, Lucas (33, fireman), and WHITE, Dennis (30, ship steward) ; attempting to discharge a loaded pistol at Alfred Young (1) with intent to murder him, (2) with intent to maim him or to do grievous bodily harm, (3) with intent to resist their lawful apprehension.

Mr. Bodkin prosecuted.

THOMAS WOOD , coachman, 19, Daleham Mews, Hampstead. About 10.30 p.m. on December 15 I was walking in Belsize Lane, when I saw prisoners standing near a tree. As I came along they separated and walked a little way. White crossed to my side and Garcia walked on. I followed him. I watched White, who was crouching, when I suddenly found Garcia in front of me. He pointed something at me that looked like a revolver. I thought at first somebody was having a game. He said, "Put them up—put them up!" He bad a small mask on, covering half his face, through which I saw his eyes. I looked at him a littler time, and then he said, "I mean it—I mean it!" Almost at the same time there was a movement behind me and I saw White, who also had on a mask. I was terrified and instantly ran. Later on someone spoke to me, and I afterwards saw prisoners in custody. I went to the police station and charged them and gave my evidence the next day.

To White. I am sure it was Garcia who held the revolver to me. Your mask was much larger. It was not very dark—there was a lamp behind. To Garcia. The lamp was just behind you. Detective ALFRED YOUNG, S Division. About 8.30 on December 15 I was on duty near Swiss Cottage, where I saw prisoners and watched them. They were apparently loitering. I lost sight of them and got my bicycle and returned to the neighbourhood, and, after searching about, I saw them on either side of the road. I heard someone call out, and I rode behind them for about 50 yards. I heard someone say, "Hold them up!" I looked up and saw three men—one ran off in the direction of Fitz James Avenue. I pretended to examine my machine and passed them and met Police-constable Street. I told him to stop the two men coming along. I got off my machine and laid it up against the kerb. I went up to the prisoners and said, "What are you doing loitering about here?" They said, "We are not loitering about—we are strangers here." I said, "What did you stop that gentleman in Belsize Lane for?" They said, "We have not stopped anyone." I went to arrest White, when he pulled out a revolver. Before he could use it I held it down, and as we struggled he was trying to use it. I heard a click and saw a very slight flash. He said to Garcia, "Come here, you heifer?" He came towards me and I kicked him in the stomach. I took the revolver and handed it

to Police-constable Hills. Other officers came up and prisoners were secured. The flash I saw may have been the light on the nickel plate of the revolver (produced). It was loaded in five chambers. This is one of the cartridges (produced), and this envelope contains the other four out of the pistol. I found a little scratch on this one where the percussion cap is. On prisoners I found black masks—made out of kid gloves, I should say. On Garcia I found these ten cartridges, similar to the others (produced).

To White. When I arrested you you were both together and Police-constable Street in uniform. I saw you coming up the street after I came along on my bicycle. I did not lose sight of you. I did not say it was not Garcia who first had the revolver.

To Garcia. You were in my view all the time. You were walking together on the right-hand side of Belsize Lane. It was quite possible for you and White to exchange anything without my seeing it.

Police-constable FREDERICK STREET. 297 S. I was spoken to by Young on December 15, and saw prisoners coming in the direction of Belsize Lane. I crossed over and heard Young say, "I am a police officer. What are you doing here?" They replied, "Nothing; we are strangers here."" What did you stop a gentleman in Belize Lane for?" They said, "We have not stopped anyone." He said, I am not satisfied with your answers. I shall take you into custody." I then arrested Garcia and Young went to arrest White, who drew a revolver from his coat pocket, and a fearful struggle ensued. Young called out," Come here, Street. He has got a firearm." I went to his assistance and let go of Garcia. White called out, "Come here, you heifer!" and Garcia came towards Young, who put out his foot and kicked him. I blew my whistle and Police-constable Hills (667) came. Prisoners were secured and taken to the station.

To White. I was standing there when Young arrested you. There were four of us all in a heap. You were about one and a half yards from me when you took out the revolver. I did not hear a click or see a flash.

Inspector GEORGE COSGROVE, S Division. I was in charge of the station when prisoners were brought in. This revolver was loaded in five chambers. The hammer was down on a live cartridge.

Inspector GEORGE WALLACE, S Division. I unloaded the revolver. I noticed that on the cap of the cartridge under the hammer there was a scratch and a slight indentation. I have experimented by pulling the trigger. It sticks or hitches on the fifth or sixth pull. They are self-revolving chambers.

To White. I cannot say what is the cause of the scratches. The indentation, of course, is done by the trigger. The hammer would come down, but not with sufficient force to explode the cartridge. You cannot get the trigger up far enough.

EDWIN JOHN CHURCHILL , gunmaker, 8, Agar Street, Strand. I have had a life experience of firearms. I have examined this revolver. It is in very bad working order. It would be possible to fire it. It hangs up every now and again on pulling the trigger,

and does not come down with sufficient force to explode, but would make a mark on the cartridge. That occurs about every fifth pull, otherwise there is nothing to prevent its exploding. There are some scratches on three. There is a slight scratch on this as if the chamber had been tried to be pushed round to bring under another cap, or to admit of the hammer being pulled.

By the Court. I did not fire it. It has never been fired.


DENNIS WHITE (prisoner, not on oath). I only wish to say that on the night of December 15 I had the revolver all the time, and it was not Garcia who presented it at Mr. Wood. When Young arrested me I put my hand in my pocket, and when I pulled the revolver out he got hold of my wrist, and I never presented it at him at all. There was no click or flash. Your common-sense would tell you if it flashed it would explode. When Detective Wallace tried it at the police court it went off all right, but not now. I suppose they have been pulling it about. There was no intention on my part to injure the detective, but only to get away from him. I leave it to yourselves to give me the benefit of the doubt. Garcia never had anything to do with the revolver. It was all through me that Garcia came out on this Thursday night to commit this burglary he has pleaded guilty to, and also on the night of the 18th. It is through me that he is in the dock now.

LUCAS GARCIA (prisoner, not on oath) complained that he had not received his discharge book on being paid off from the ss. Pydla on November 24 at Southend, for which he had applied while in Brixton Prison, and that he had been with White about a week before he was arrested. Verdict, Guilty on second count.

On a further indictment, for feloniously breaking and entering the dwelling house of Leonard George Clayton and stealing there in two overcoats, one revolver and other articles, his goods, prisoners pleaded guilty.

Previous convictions were proved against White.

Sentences, White, five years' penal servitude; Garcia, three years' penal servitude.


(Thursday, January 14.)

Reference Number: t19090112-36

MOORE, Edward (41, engineer) pleaded guilty , of breaking and entering the warehouse of Henry John Morgan and stealing therein a quantity of millinery and other articles, his goods.

Prisoner has several times been convicted. Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19090112-37

DILLNER. Walter (24, clerk) pleaded guilty , of attempting to obtain by false pretences from the Continental Tyre and Rubber Company of Great Britain, Limited, the sum of £200, with intent to defraud; feloniously attempting to obtain from the said company the sum of £200 by means of a forged telegram, knowing the same to be forged', with intent to defraud.

Prisoner, who it a native of Leipsic, was stated to have manipulated the telegram so cleverly that even the manager of the company was deceived. The forged telegram having been put in the company's letter box had the appearance of having been delivered overnight. In the morning prisoner called for the £200, and was asked to call again at 3. In the meantime the Continental house was communicated with, and the forgery discovered. Prisoner was stated to have come to this country with an actress, who left him stranded in an hotel without money.

Sentence, Nine months' hard labour; certified for expulsion under Aliens Act.

Reference Number: t19090112-38

INGLIS, Jane Emily (50, nurse) pleaded guilty , of procuring a certificate of admission to the Midwives Roll by false and fraudulent certificate in writing.

This it the first prosecution under indictment since the passing of the Midwives Act of 1902, although in several cases summary proceedings have been taken. The certificate signed by Dr. Frederick March, practising at Bradford, in February, 1904, was as follows: "I certify that Jane Inglis has to my personal knowledge been in bona fide practice as a midwife since 1889, and that she is trustworthy, sober, and of good moral character." In the year 1889 Dr. March had some obstetric cases in which prisoner acted as midwife. Subsequently to 1904 complaints reached the local authority of Bradford, and as the result of investigations prisoner was struck off the roll of midwives, it appearing that in 1902 she had been tried for procuring abortion in the case of a person who had died of peritonitis and sentenced by Mr. Justice Grantham to five years', afterwards reduced to three years, penal servitude. In 1898 she was tried on a similar charge but acquitted.

The Recorder postponed sentence until next Sessions, prisoner meanwhile to remain in custody.

Reference Number: t19090112-39

STORER, Joseph (28, labourer) . Burglary in the dwelling-house of Otto Beit and stealing therein one table cover, his goods.

Mr. R. S. Ellis prosecuted.

Police-constable JOHN DAVIS, 30 YC. I was in Aldford Place, Park Lane, on the night of December 14-15, and saw prisoner standing at the corner of Aldford Street. I kept him under observation about 20 minutes. Then he walked down Aldford Street about 100 yards, looked up and down for about five minutes and returned to Park Lane. I and another constable went down Aldford Street into Park Lane and having suspicions I got over the wall of No. 26, Park Lane, a house belonging to Mr. Beit and surrounded by a wall and garden. After about ten minutes I heard the sound of glass being broken and

went for assistance. Constables arrounded the place and Constable Mills got over the wall and afterwards handed prisoner over to my custody. On the way to the station he said, "There is another man in this whom I met in Edgware Road about 11 o'clock. He was a stranger to me. I have been led into this. I only went over there for a sleep, that is all. "

Police-constable FREDERICK MILLS, 56 C. I scaled the wall of No. 26 and saw prisoner in the garden about 20 yards or 30 yards in front of me. I concealed myself in the bushes and when prisoner turned and came back I tripped him up and took him into custody and handed him over to last witness. I then rang up the housekeeper and informed him of what had taken place and on making further search of the premises found a window open where entry had been made. Later I found a table cover concealed under some bushes in the garden. The cover it valued at £5 and the caretaker identified it as the properly of Mr. Beit. It was impossible for any other man to have left the premises without being seen. When I tripped prisoner up he said, "All right, do not hurt me. I only came here for a sleep. There is no one else but me. "

GEORGE FROST , caretaker, 26, Park Lane. I locked the house up on the night of December 14. I live there with my family. The house formerly belonged to the late Mr. Alfred Beit. Mr. Otto Beit, the present owner, does not live there. At 1.20 on December 15 I was called up by the police. I found the north drawing-room window broken open. The table cover (produced) found by the police at the bottom of the garden I identify as Mr. Otto Beit's property. It was the only movable thing that could have been taken, Mr. Otto Beit having removed all the works of art, etc., to 47, Belgrave Square. There were some heavy tables which could not be moved. I found no trace of any other man. There were footmarks on one of the sofas resembling prisoner's. The house might have been taken at uninhabited, but there is a board up and at the windows silk blinds, which are drawn down at night, to that it would look like a house with the family out of town. The table cover is worth £5.


JOSEPH STORER (prisoner, on oath). I have had no occupation since I left the army ten weeks previous to the night in question. I was in the 1st Battalion Grenadier Guards nearly 12 years. I have lost my dischargee. On the night in question I saw a friend in a house in Edgware Road who was going to help me on the way to South Wales, where I hoped to get employment. While I was in there a man whom I had never seen before, but should know again, asked me to give him the price of a night's lodging. I told him I had only 9d. When we came out of the place he asked me which way I was going and we walked down Park Lane together. When we got to the house in question he said, "There is a house to let. We might find an outhouse where we could sleep," and with that ha scaled the wall. I did not like the idea and walked down the street and back

again and about 10 minutes afterwards I went over the wall. Walking round the front of the building I saw a window broken, and, looking in, found the place was furnished, whereas I had expected to see an empty house. I knew then this man had broken in and my first thought was to get him arrested. I did not know how to act at the time, and was thinking of shouting for assistance when I heard a police whistle. I went towards the policeman when he came over the wall and told him there was a man inside the house or there had been, and I wished to have him arrested because I knew very well if he was not arrested it would put me in a very funny position. I was then taken into custody. The house was not surrounded as the police say, and a man could easily have got away. I have also served for 15 months in the Derby Borough Police Force and have been all through the South African War, and I do not think I should go and make a fool of myself like that. I have always earned my living and have never been in trouble before.

Cross-examined. I left the Grenadiers in 1903 and then joined the Derby Borough Police, but as I was in ill health I left and went back to the army. I have no one here from the Derby Police Force to speak for me. I did not think it necessary. I have had no fixed abode for the last five weeks. I have been stationed in London, and know the West End pretty well, but had never heard of Mr. Alfred Beit.

Verdict, Not guilty, the Jury thinking the evidence insufficient.

The Recorder observed that he could not understand how a man only ten weeks discharged from the army, could have come to be in such a position as the accused if his character was all right. He was afraid his character was not as satisfactory as he should have liked to have seen it; the fact that he had served his country during the war had no doubt influenced the Jury in coming to their decision.


(Thursday, January 14.)

Reference Number: t19090112-40

CROSS, Florence (16, flowermaker) pleaded guilty , of having been. entrusted with the sum of £2 18s. 4d., belonging to Elisabeth Stevens, the sum of 14s. 7d. belonging to Elizabeth Higgins, and the sum of 14s. 7d. belonging to Annie Smith, to deposit in the Post Office Savings Bank, did fraudulently convert the same to her own use.

Released on recognisances of her father and herself in £10 each to come up for judgment if called upon.

Reference Number: t19090112-41

STEPHENS, George Edward (65, porter) pleaded guilty , of having been entrusted with one sovereign, the moneys of Frederick Fudger, in order that he might get the sovereign changed for silver and bringing the silver back to the said Frederick Fudger, fraudulently converting the same to his own use and benefit. Sentence, One week's hard labour.

Reference Number: t19090112-42

WILMER, Ernest Herbert (41, salesman) , having received certain property, to wit, £33 in money, for and on account of the employees of Messrs. Towers and Co., Limited, fraudulently converting the said property to his own use and benefit.

Mr. Cohen Smith prosecuted.

FREDERICK WRIGHT , storesman, Towers and Co., Limited, Paul's Pier Warf. Upper Thames Street. On January 4, 1906, a slate club was started amongst the employees of my firm called the Tower Loan and Investment Society, of which I was treasurer and the prisoner secretary. We started with 13 members. It was prisoner's duty to receive subscriptions weekly and hand the money to me. December 21, 1906, was the day fixed for paying out, when it was my duty to hand the money to prisoner. I saw prisoner in the messroom on December 19; he asked me for the money. I handed him all I had—£33. There were then 11 members. Prisoner was to pay out on December 21 at 12.30 a.m.; he did not come to work on the 20th or attend to pay out. The same morning I went to his house at 10 a.m. He was not there. I next saw him at the Mansion House in custody. Prisoner had not authority under the rules to deal otherwise with the money. According to the books, prisoner had money in his hands besides the £33.

Cross-examined. No one else was present when I paid prisoner the £33. I took no receipt. I kept the money in a bag. I had given prisoner receipts in the loan book for moneys I received and which I was liable to repay. That book is missing. Prisoner ought to have it; it was kept in prisoner's locker and signed each week by me. I last saw it in December. I held five shares, one for myself and four for my wife, of 6d. a week each. I had share book (produced), showing money paid for by me. I had a loan of £1, upon which I paid 1s. interest. My share book (produced) was kept by prisoner and is written up by him; part of the book is torn out. There is nothing entered after August 22, and there is written by prisoner, "Book cleared—amount paid out." I paid my subscriptions; the book had not been cleared. I had £1 or £2 as loan; £2 on May 23, which was paid back by me. My shares were due to me on December 21. I left everything to prisoner. I thoroughly trusted him. Prisoner did not pay all the money to me; he kept a part to make loans to members. The book missing is called the treasury loan book. I have never seen paper produced purporting to be a statement of the amounts received and paid. Book produced contains my signature to five payments. Prisoner paid me money after October; if I had the treasury book I could prove it. In May, four or five weeks before I left for my holidays, prisoner gave me £1 10s. for my loan, to which was added two weeks subscriptions of 2s. 6d. each. Book produced is not the one in which I signed for the money I received from prisoner. I had £33 during the year, which I kept locked up in my house and handed to him on December 19; it is entered in the treasury loan book. The sums paid me do not appear in book produced. Prisoner's locker watt opened by the night foreman in the presence of five other members; he forced the lock. The

first book I looked for was the treasury loan book. Prisoner was arrested on December 28.

Detective JAMES DUNNING, City. A warrant was granted on the sworn information of Wright on December 23, and I arrested prisoner in Peckham Road on December 27. I told him 1 was a police officer and held a warrant for his arrest for embezzling £44 2s. 3d. He replied, "No, it is nothing near that amount; it is something like £25." I conveyed him to Bridewell Police Station, where I read the statement to him that Wright had made. When I reached" the sum of £33" prisoner said, "Wright never handed me a penny on the 19th, and I never received any money in bulk from him. I collected 6d. per week from each of the members. I had been living a little above my means, and I thought I should make it up next week, but I got into a worse mess. Thirty-three pound in cash never existed in this club at any one time." Prisoner had no money whatever upon him. Yesterday was the first time I saw the books.


ERNEST HERBERT WILMER (prisoner, on oath). All the share books are here and they are made up including all amounts paid to Wright with the exception of the sum of £2. There were 32 shares in the club. The entire income for the year, including interest and fines, amounts to £44 2s. 3d. There were no expenses but there should be deducted from that £3 8s. 3d. in the hands of Wright. The amount Wright paid did not balance the loan he had out, making the total sum due from him £6 17s. 9d. Moreover other shares were not fully paid up. On my shares I had nothing to come. The book missing is the book of moneys received by me from Wright for the purpose of making loans to members. I used for my own purposes a certain amount of the money each week in the hope of being able to make it up and in that way appropriated £25 or £26. I never received the £33 from Wright, as stated, on December 19, which I am charged with embezzling. I admit taking £25 or £26 belonging to the club and using it myself, receiving it at various times from the commencement of the year and not accounting for it, so that my deficiency was gradually growing larger and larger. I last received money on December 12 about 30s. which I applied to my own purposes. The warrant alleges that I received £33 in cash from Wright on December 19 and that I had also in hand on that date £11 odd. That is false because there was no such money in hand. The information on which the warrant was obtained is false.

Held: Immaterial to prove tract amount received on exact date: that the indictment is sufficiently sustained if the bulk of the money was received and fraudulently appropriated by prisoner.

Verdict, Not guilty of receiving and fraudulently appropriating £33 on December 19: Guilty of receiving and appropriating 30s. on December 12; Guilty of receiving £25 (including 30s.) week by week and appropriating same.

Prisoner was proved to have been convicted at Guildhall on April 28, 1904, receiving three months' hard labour for embezzling Sentence, Four months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19090112-43

LOCKETT, Jas(50, labourer). . Carnally knowing Mary Ann Jane Lockett, a girl over the age of 13 years and under the age of 16 years, he not having reasonable cause to believe that she was of or above the age of 16 years.

Mr. W. Clarke Hall prosecuted.

It appearing on the opening that there was no corroboration of the prosecutrix's statement, at the suggestion of the Common Serjeant, no evidence was offered, and the jury returned a verdict of Not guilty.

Reference Number: t19090112-44

MCLOUGHLIN, Edward, otherwise Oliver Cromwell Patten (42, porter) pleaded guilty , of stealing one case and one diamond necklet, the goods of Thomas Wordley, Limited . MCLOUGHLIN, Edward, and PENDER, Thomas J., were indicted for stealing 23 rings, the property of Robert Jas. Stirling.

Mr. Granger and Mr. Fletcher prosecuted; Mr. Huntly Jenkins defended Pencer.

ARTHUR HENRY DREW . I am now assistant to Attenborough, 27, Buckingham Palace Road, pawnbroker, and was employed up to December 31, 1908, by R. J. Stirling, 61, Great Portland Street, pawnbroker. On December 18 McLoughlin came to 61, Great Portland Street and asked to see a half-hoop ring marked £21 which was in the window; it was shown to him by the assistant manager, Mr. Novelli, in my presence; prisoner asked us to put it aside for his wife to see it the next day. On the next day he came alone in the evening and said he had changed his mind about the half-hoop ring, but would like to see a marquise ring. I showed him one on a card; he did not like that, and asked to see the tray. I then showed him a tray containing 20 marquise, half-hoop, and single stone rings, value over £400. While he was looking at the tray another man came in who had left a ring a few days previously to be altered in size, and stood by McLoughlin. McLoughlin then asked to see a certain ring on the tray. I took the ring off with one hand; he then snatched the tray and ran out of the shop; he was much nearer the door than myself. Three of the rings fell on the floor and he carried off the remaining 23 rings of the value of £352. I immediately reported to the police and gave a description of McLoughlin and three other men. McLoughlin was ten minutes in the shop on the first day. December 18. Last Friday morning, January 8, 1909, I picked McLoughlin out from eight other men at the Mansion House Police Court. The other assistant went with me but could not identify him; he had not the same opportunity of seeing him as I had; he only had a side view from the end of the shop. On Monday I gave evidence against McLoughlin at Marlborough Street Police Court, when I saw the prisoner Pender in the beck of the court, apparently hearing the case, and I identified him as a man who was outside the shop and who had misdirected me; when I ran out after McLoughlin Pender got

in my way and told me McLoughlin had gone down a side street, which I ran down and failed to find him in. I had also seen Pender looking in the shop door several times in the afternoon of December 19. When I returned, not finding McLaughlin, Pender asked me if I had found him. I said, "No." He said, "What an extraordinary thing." I identify Pender now as far as it is possible to identify him; the man who was outside the shop had a moustache; Pender has none; of course I did not see very much of the man.

Cross-examined by McLoughlin. I said at the police court that, in addition to the man who had come for a ring left to be repaired, a third man had come in and stood at the door, that I had called out" Hold him," and that the third man remained, and afterwards purchased a ring for 2s., while I had run out after the man I identify as McLoughlin; that Pender had said the man ran down a side street. I did not know McLoughlin's name. (To Mr. Huntly Jenkins.) In connection with this robbery there were three men in the shop and one outside. I did not pay so much attention to the man outside as I did to McLoughlin. The man outside had a dark moustache and a hat on. When I identified Pender at the back of the court he had no hat on and no moustache.

Inspector JOSEPH SIMMONDS, D Division. On January 8 McLoughlin at the Mansion House was placed with eight other men of a similar style and build, and was at once picked out by Drew as the man who snatched the rings in the shop. Before the identification McLoughlin was asked if he had any objection to make with regard to the men he was put up with; he said "No." Drew's fellowassistant was there but was unable to identify McLoughlin. I was present at Marlborough Street Police Court on January 11 when Drew gave evidence; he made a communication to me and I stopped Pender as he was leaving the court and told him I wanted to speak to him. I afterwards told him he would be charged with being concerned with McLoughlin in stealing the rings from the prosecutor's shop. He said, "I know nothing about it. In fact, I do not know where Great Portland Street is." He said he had been a man servant, and resided at the Hope Club, Connaught Street, and that being out of employment he had come into court to hear the cases.

Cross-examined. Pender denied it from the first strenuously. He at once gave his address. The Hope Club is a reputable club for high-class servants out of employment. I have heard that Pender has been in service under Lord Dudley and in the Duke of Connaught's household.

On his Lordship's suggestion, Mr. Fletcher agreed that there was not sufficient evidence against Pender, and the jury returned a verdict of not guilty.

THOMAS PENDER , called by McLoughlin. The first time I ever saw you was on Monday, January 11, when listening to the case.

EDWARD MCLOUGHLIN (prisoner, not on oath) said that he was at the Mansion House on the charge to which he had pleaded guilty when Drew came into the room and identified him as the man who

on February 19 had stolen a number of rings from him. He was not guilty of the present charge.

Verdict, Guilty.

Prisoner was convicted in June, 1908, of stealing nine gold chatelaine bags, value £136, from the shop of Messrs. Sidney. He was then unknown, but was stated to have come from Liverpool. He had now given no information about the stolen property, none of which had been recovered.

Sentence, Five years' penal servitude on each indictment, to run concurrently. The Common Serjeant said that if prisoner thought fit to assist in the recovery of the stolen property by giving information to the police, it would be taken into consideration by the Home Secretary. He also ordered that the £16 found on the prisoner be handed over to Mr. String. Also that the prisoner be ordered under the Act (8 Edw. VII., c. 15) to pay the costs of the prosecution, and (so far as the Statute gave power) that he be further imprisoned until the costs were paid.


(Thursday, January 14.)

Reference Number: t19090112-45

BOWLES, Roger (42, clerk) pleaded guilty , to an indictment of 16 counts for embezzlement and falsification of accounts as a clerk and servant, and to an indictment of 13 counts for the fraudulent misappropriation under the Act of 1901 of 13 sums of money, all the property of Alexander Joseph, his master. Sentence, Two years' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19090112-46

WHEATLEY, William John (14) pleaded guilty , of attempting to carnally know Winifred Alexandra Amy Cole, a girl of the age of seven years, and of indecently assaulting Edith James and Winifred Alexandra Amy Cole.

On his father's promising to give him a good birching, prisoner was released on his own recognisances in £5 to come up for judgment if called upon.

Reference Number: t19090112-47

BEECHAM, Harold (15) pleaded guilty , of attempting to carnally know Charlotte Henrietta Nelms, a girl of the age of six years.

On his father's promising to give him a good birching, prisoner was released on his own recognisances in £5 to come up for judgment if called upon.

Reference Number: t19090112-48

MAIR, Barnet William (27, agent) ; stealing from a post-office letter-box two postcards, and feloniously receiving the same.

CLARA LINSTROM , housemaid, 16, Marchwood Crescent, Ealing. On the night of November 25 I posted the two postcards (produced) addressed to a friend in Denmark. They are still stamped, but are not postmarked. I next saw them in possession of the police at Marlborough Street.

Chief Inspector ELIAS BARR, New Scotland Yard. On December 8, at prisoner's lodgings, 53, Gloucester Crescent, I searched his luggage and found in a trunk this "sticky pad" (produced), used for withdrawing letters from letter-boxes. The postcards produced I found in the same trunk. It is evident that the pad has come in contact with the cards.

Mrs. FLORENCE GRANTHAM, 53, Gloucester Crescent, London, identified as prisoner's the trunk mentioned by the last witness.

Verdict, Guilty of stealing.

Reference Number: t19090112-49

MAIR, Barnet William, and NAPIER, Stanley Arthur (22, artist) ; obtaining by false pretences from Parr's Bank, Limited, the sum of £370, with intent to defraud, and unlawfully receiving the same, knowing it to have been obtained by false pretences.

Mair pleaded not guilty. Napier pleaded guilty of receiving; the other charge against him was not proceeded with.

PERCY FREDERICK NICHOLS , cashier at Parr's Bank, 9 and 10, St. Martins Place. On November 5 last I cashed a cheque dated November 4, for £370, purporting to be signed by Wood and Co. I paid bearer £300 in notes and £70 in gold. I produce an Exhibit showing the numbers of the notes.

WALTER ASHFORD , partner in the firm of Wood and Co., commission agents, 4, Adam Street, Adelphi. On November 12 I found that four cheques were missing from near the end of my firm's chequebook (produced), still in use, and that two cancelled cheques, returned from the bank, were also missing. These cheques were drawn in my handwriting and signed by my partner, Mr. Wilde. They would serve the purposes of a forger. This cheque (produced) is not in my handwriting, but in a very fair imitation of it; and the signature is a good copy of Mr. Wilde's. A fair number of people have access to the desk in which the cheque-book is kept.

HERBERT WILDE , partner of the last witness. I did not sign the cheque (produced), nor authorise anyone to sign it.

HENRY DAVIS , assistant to the Messrs. Brabbington, jewellers, 298, Pentonville Road. At 2.15 on November 5, two persons arrived in a taxicab at my employers' shop, and entered. Prisoner Mair was one. the other was a prisoner I saw subsequently at Marlborough Street Police Court. I picked them out from a number of others. Having entered my shop, the men asked to see some sleeve-links. They bought these (produced), one pair for 27s., and another for 42s.—one pair for each. This three-stone diamond ring I sold for £50 to prisoner, who paid for it in £10 and £5 banknotes, the former dated September 17, 1907, and the latter November, 1907.

FRANK BULL , assistant to the Messrs. Brabbington. I remember seeing the previous witness serving the prisoner and another man on November 5. They paid him in notes, which on the same evening I collected from his till and used in part payment of £79 odd to a dealer named Philip Corre?, for jewellery sold and delivered.

PHILIP CORRE , dealer in jewellery, 42, Bushy Hill Road, Peckham Road. On November 5 last I received from the Messrs. Brabbington

about £75 in notes, which I lodged next morning with the London and County Bank, Camberwell Green.

GEORGE RICHARD LANGLEY , manager of the Camberwell Green branch of the London and County Bank. On November 6 Mr. Philip Corre paid in to his account certain notes. The numbers of these produced agree with the numbers of those paid in. He lodged other notes besides these. In due course all the notes would be sent to my head office, and paid into the Bank of England on the following day.

CHARLES JOHN WILLIAM produced certain note received on November 7 from the London and County Bank.

Detective-sergeant ALBERT BURTON, New Scotland Yard. I arrested prisoner Mair and found on him the ring, Exhibit 32, a plain pair of links, Exhibit 30, and a pawnticket, Exhibit 39, for another pair of links, pledged at Attenborough's, Brighton, on December 7.

Verdict, Guilty of receiving.

Mair confessed to having been convicted of felony on April 22, 1907, in the name of Herbert Random. Napier confessed to having been convicted of felony on May 25, 1907, in the name of Cecil Ernest Swanham.

Reference Number: t19090112-50

MAIR, Barnet William, and NAPIER, Stanley Arthur , were further charged with forging and uttering a request for the delivery of a cheque book by the London and County Banking Company, and a cheque for £680, purporting to be drawn on the same bank by Thomas Vernon Fox; also with obtaining the said sum by false pretences and with receiving it knowing it to have been so obtained.

Both prisoners pleaded not guilty of forging and uttering the request for a cheque book. Mair pleaded not guilty of forging the cheque for £680, and Napier guilty of uttering. Both pleaded guilty of receiving the said sum knowing it to have been obtained by false pretences. The pleas were accepted.

Sentence, Each prisoner to Five years' penal servitude on each indictment; sentences to run concurrently.

Orders for restitution made, subject to an affidavit by an official of the London and County Bank.

Reference Number: t19090112-51

WEBB, Samuel (29, window cleaner) , attempting to carnally know Eliza Emily Groom, a girl of the age of six years, and on a second account with indecent assault.

Verdict, Guilty of indecent assault. The police evidence showed, several convictions for offences of the same kind. Sentence, Two years' hard labour.


(Friday, January 15.)

Reference Number: t19090112-52

MAWBY, Tom Edward, was indicted for and charged on the coroner's inquisition with the manslaughter of Charles Peter Steward.

Mr. Muir, Mr. Leycester, Mr. Ingleby Oddie, and Mr. S. Packer prosecuted; Mr. George Elliott defended.

After the opening of the case by Mr. Oddie and reading the depositions, Mr. Justice Grantham said that he could see no case of culpable negligence to go before the jury, upon which the prosecution withdrew the charge, and a verdict of Not guilty was entered.

Reference Number: t19090112-53

PATEY, William (49, manufacturer) , feloniously sending to Samuel Patey and Henry William Patey knowing the contents thereof a letter threatening to kill and murder them.

Mr. Harvey, who appeared for prisoner, intimated that he would plead guilty to sending the letter, but he denied that he had any intention of doing the prosecutors any harm.

Mr. George Elliott, for the prosecutors, Mr. Henry William Patey and Mr. Samuel Patey, said that they were solicitors, and the prisoner was a relative of theirs. They had no vindictive feeling against him, and their object in taking the proceedings was merely to secure their personal safety, and also in the interests of the prisoner to restrain him from doing anything which might be to his own detriment. Prisoner had conceived the idea that relatives had prevented him receiving some money which otherwise would have come to him. Counsel desired in the strongest possible way to protest against any suggestion that the prosecutors had been parties to any conduct prejudicial to the prisoner.

Mr. Harvey having addressed the court on behalf of the prisoner, Mr. Justice Grantham allowed the prisoner to be released at once on his entering into his own recognisances in £100 to keep the peace and to come up for judgment if called upon.

Reference Number: t19090112-54

FLETCHER, Frank Herbert (42, painter) , feloniously wounding Charlotte Rowe with intent to murder her; second count, with intent to do her grievous bodily harm.

Mr. Ernest Wetton prosecuted.

CHARLOTTE ROWE. I have lived with prisoner for 17 years and have known him from a boy. I have had six children by him. On December 5 we were living at 350, Lillie Road, in two rooms. We had notice to quit. He was out of work, but did odd jobs. I have not worked recently, but have all my life. He would bring me home some days 1s. 6d., sometimes 5d. and sometimes 2s. Prisoner came home on December 5 about 7.30. He said, "You have moved the things, I see." I said "Yes." He said, "Very well; you had better make haste and clear the lot now." He did not think I had any occasion to clear away the beds; but I said I was compelled to clear them, so I cleared them. My little boy took out the last thing Prisoner said, "You and I will be in the room together and we will go to the coroner's court together," and he threatened me with a knife. He stopped my going out of the door, so I got out of the window on to a flat and into the next yard and in the streets and escaped. I went to Adney Road to Mrs. Bradshaw's, who took in my few things and three of the children. That was on Saturday night On Sunday prisoner sent me a note. He had taken the other children

to his brother. I don't know where prisoner went. The note said, "I have been here for the second time to speak to you, and now have sent you this note. If you don't come out I shall come in. I shall be waiting for an answer.—Mrs. Fletcher, care of Mrs. Bradshaw, 35, Adney Road." I went out to him. He said I was having a nice game with him, and we were all working together against him, and he had a good mind to strangle me as I stood in the street. I told him I was going to get a fur to put on my neck. I made that excuse, and with that I ran away from him to his brolher's, 5, Link-lane Grove. I had my little girl with me. He told her to go home. He said whenever he wanted to speak to me I had my son or my daughter with me. We went away together. I did not see him again till the following Thursday, when he came to his brother's and asked for me. I said, "I can't see him," so they told him I was not there. He demanded my 'baby and took it away. It will be three in May. I went out afterwards and met him with the baby. He was sitting on the coping peeling an apple for the baby. As he came to meet me I saw the knife in his hand and drew back. I told him to put the knife in his pocket. He said, "If you are frightened you had better go on with Sarah, who has gone to Mrs. Bradshaw's." I went there and came out again with his sister-in-law. I then asked him to let me have the baby. He said he would not, and was going to take it into lodgings. I said, "Let me kiss her." He said I could not touch her. I said I would, and he took the child away and came back again, and said I should have it on condition that I met him the next morning. I promised I would, with the child, and he gave it back to me. I was to meet him in the Broadway, Hammersmith, at 8.30. I got there at 8.35. He was not there, but I saw him at the corner of Humbolt Road, Fulham, a quarter of an hour's walk on. I had taken my baby into Mrs. Bradsharw's. We had a few words, and he asked me to have a drink with him. I said I did not want drink, but if he had any money would he give it me for my children. He said, "No; come and have a drink," and I went to the" Halfway "house to satisfy him. I had a glass of shandy ale (ale and ginger beer), and he had a glass of ale. We came out and had a few words. He asked me what I was going to do. I said I wanted to get home to my children, and had he any money. He said all he had got was twopence. He asked me what I intended to do. I said, "I don't want to live with you no more. I am going to get home to my children." He said, "Wherever you go I go. You have given me the slip twice before, but you don't do it to-day." I said I could not go to a place with the children—no one would let me a place with him hanging round me the worse for dunk. He wanted to get me towards Hammersmith. I said, "I am not going that way." Then I walked across the road and he stumbled, as he crossed by the off-licence house, against the kerb and I went over the opposite side. He then pushed me, and said, "You want to see me over there," pointing towards the Jubilee Police Station, I said, "Indeed, I don't," and I turned to go away and then felt the knife in my neck (large pocket-knife produced). He had said I should never live with another. I said I did

not wish to. He had been drinking rum, I think. I walked towards the kerb, when he gave me another dig in the neck. I said, "Oh, my God! You have cut my throat." This is his knife. I did not see it then. It if the same knife with which he threatened me on December 5. I ran into the off-licence house and the person there told me to go out and I ran into a little furniture shop on the opposite side. I think be followed me, but what took place I can't tell you. A policeman came, and I was taken to the West London Hospital, where I remained a fortnight.

To Prisoner. I can't say that you were ever a lazy man. You looked after some property for two or three years. Through the summer work was very slack. You were willing to work when you could get it. You knew the furniture was going. I said I would get what I could for the sofa, but it would not be much as it was broken. I mended the small things on Sunday. You had been working on odd jobs that week and brought me home a shilling. I did not say, "You can do the beet you can." I said, "No doubt you can find a lodging somewhere." I offered you 6d. and you refused to take it. You took your knife and said, "I have a good mind to put this across your throat." That was when I got out of the window. You told me to go to the workhouse. I said, "You can go, but I shall not go there with my children, and you can do the best you can. It was not the first or second time I told you to leave me throught the dreadful way you carried on with the drink. It is not the first time I have had my home sold up through your drink. When you met me at Lillie Road on Friday morning you had had a lot of drink, and I said, "You are drunk." I was five minutes late. You said if I had met you you would have been at work instead of drunk. You called for a glass of ale and a glass of shandy for me. I said, "Don't you have spirits, or I am going out." You said, "No, I will have a glass of ale." When you stumbled, you stumbled by the off-license house on the opposite side. We crossed over, and you caught me by the coat and said, "Come this way." I said, "No," and we crossed over, and you said, "Where are you going now?" I said, "I don't know; you want me to go there," and with that you pushed me with your four fingers. I said, "I don't want to go there," and I turned and moved away, and you put the knife in my neck. You had no apple in your hand. I saw you put your hand in your pocket. I did not see the knife till I felt it in my neck. Then you came across to me and gave me a second dig, and then you came over to me on the off-license side and the policeman, came and took you.

JOANNAH FERGUSSON , 273, Lillie Road, Fulham. I am the wife of Charles Fergusson. I saw prisoner on the morning of December 11 with Charlotte Rowe, whom I believed to be his wife. They were at the corner of Humbolt Road. I was in my shop (secondhand furniture). They seemed to be having a few words, and then, crossed over and went the other way down, and came to the corner and stood outside Humbolt Mansions. He seemed to be talking to her and touching her with his left hand, and he pushed her brick and struck her with his right hand. I did not see the knife until he came opposite

my door. When the woman got away from him the ran over to the Hambolt Road to Mrs. Fielder, and Mrs. Fielder said, "For God's sake, woman, go away; you can't come in here," and she came over to me and said, "Do let me come in; he will kill me." I said, "yes, poor woman, come in. I will let you come in," and I led her into the back room of my shop. Her throat was cut and bleeding. When I took her in I said, "Stay there." and she said, "Don't let him come in," and I said, "No, he shall not harm you here," and I went and got the poker. He did not try to come in because I had the poker in my hand. He till stood there. There was a lot of people standing by, and I called for assistance, but nobody would come. I stood on the step with the poker in my hand till the policeman came. When he came up I went in and attended, with the constable, to the poor woman. She was bleeding dreadfully. She must have bled to death if it had not been for the constable. She was then taken to the West London Hospital. Prisoner did not appear to be drunk.

AGNES FIELDER , 284, Lillie Road, Fulham. I keep the off-license house. I first saw prisoner on December 11 with the woman. They passed several times. I was shaking a duster at the door and I stopped and watched them, and they stood at the corner of the shop. They did not seem to be quarrelling particularly. I heard prisoner say, "What are you going to do?" She said, "I don't care what I do. I will stay here if you like." Then they turned round the corner of the shop and back to the corner of the Brecon Road and across to Humbolt Mansions. Then I saw a struggle, and he stopped her about four yards from the shop. He then stabbed her with a knife. I only saw him stab her once and then I fainted. She came across. I could not have her in there, as I was alone at the time. He had a knife in his hand when he came across to her.

Police-constable CLARKE, 319 T. I was on duty at the time and place in question when I saw a crowd of people, and someone shouted, "Make haste, policeman, there is a man cutting a woman's head off." On arriving outside the shop I saw prisoner standing on the kerb, and asked him what he had been doing. He said, "I am sorry for what I have done. I am heart-sick." I did not see the injured woman. Another constable attended to her. I took prisoner into custody. He was sober.

To Prisoner. When you got to the station you were chewing tobacco, and each time you wanted to go out to the back I was instructed to take you out. I did not see a knife on you when I arrested, you, but I found it in the left-hand pocket of your overcoat. It was smeared with blood. This is the knife. Both your hands were smeared with blood, and you wiped them with your handkerchief.

WILLIAM HERBERT SUTTON , M. R. C. S., house-surgeon at the West London Hospital. I was in charge on December 11 when the woman was brought there at about 11.30 a.m. I first saw her in the outpatients' department with her neck tightly bandaged, which I did not interfere with in case of further hæmorrhage. She was taken up to the operating theatre and the bandages removed. I do not remember whether the constable bandaged it; it was very well done. As soon as

I took off the bandages there was a very free veinous hæmorrhage from fair-sized veins, and those had to be secured and the hæmorrhage stopped. It was a large incised wound on the left side of the neck of Y shape. The main limb of the Y ran transversely across left of the neck down to the other two limbs of the Y, which ran upwards on to the side of the face, so that really there was one big wound going across like that and another like that. (Describing.) I should say two wounds were inflicted. Those were the only wounds I saw; they would be consistent with the woman being stabbed twice. If she had not had treatment immediately I think she would have bled to death. They were serious wounds from the point of view of hæmorrhage. Fair-sized veins were opened up. I think the knife produced could have produced the wounds. She was in hospital from December 11 till December 29. I think she has quite recovered.

To Prisoner. I do not think the wound could have been caused by your falling against her with a knife in your hand while peeling an apple. On the whole, reviewing the nature of the wounds, I do not think it could have been an accidental stab.

Prisoner, in defence, repeated in substance from the dock the story indicated by his cross-examination of the woman, and stated that the stab was caused by stumbling against the woman while he had the knife in his hand peeling the apple. Verdict, Guilty on the second count.

Inspector RICHARD NURSEY. For the last eight months prisoner has done very little work. He has been employed doing odd jobs; previous to that, for about two years, he was looking alter some small property to keep in repair, and on account of his drinking habits he lost his employment. The woman regularly used to go out to work and her daughter, aged 15, who lived at home to look after the youngest child, had to complain to her mother of prisoner's indecent conduct towards her. The mother then left her work and would not go out. His drinking habits have led up to this trouble. He has been convicted of stealing. In 1890 he was discharged from the army after a service of about seven years, and his conduct was good. Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.

Reference Number: t19090112-55

BANFIELD, Charles (24, bookbinder), and SANDERSON, Arthur (25, tinsmith) , committing an unnatural offence on Henry Parker.

Mr. Muir, Mr. Graham-Campbell, Mr. Inglesby Oddie and Mr. A S. Carr prosecuted; Mr. Warburton defended Banfield. Mr. C. D. H. Black defended Sanderson.

Verdict, Not guilty.


Friday, January 15.)

Reference Number: t19090112-56

BURKETT, Arthur Frederick (27, clerk), and DERING, Hugh Weston (48, inventor) pleaded guilty , of conspiring together by false pretences on divers dates between May 1 and November 20, 1908, to obtain from the London and County Banking Company, Limited, divers large sums of money, with intent to defraud; of conspiring and agreeing together that the said Arthur Frederick Burkett, being a clerk to the said company, should, with intent to defraud, destroy, alter and falsify divers books, valuable securities and accounts which belonged to and were in possession of the said company, and should with intent to defraud make divers false entries in and omit divers material particulars from such books and accounts; that Burkett did with intent to defraud omit from a certain book called a ledger belonging to the said company the following material particulars, to wit, from the debtor side of the account of Ernest Albert Hill; on July 20, 1908, £200; August 7, 1908, £200: September 4, 1908, £200; October 16, 1908, £200; that the said Hugh Weston Dering with intent to defraud, did aid, abet and procure the said Arthur Frederick Burkett to commit the said offence; that the said Arthur Frederick Burkett, with intent to defraud, did destroy certain valuable securities belonging to the said company, to wit, four banker's cheques for £200 each, and that the said Hugh Weston Dering, with intent to defraud, did aid, abet and procure the said Arthur Frederick Burkett to commit the said misdemeanours; that Burkett, being a clerk to the said company, did, with intent to defraud, alter and make certain false entries in books called check-ledger books, belonging to and in possession of his said masters, to wit, on July 20, 1908, August 7, 1908, September 4, 1908, October 16, 1908, October 28, 1908; and that both by false pretences obtained from the said company and the Union of London and Smiths Bank, Limited, certain money, to wit, on July 21, 1908, £180; August 8, 1908, £180; September 5, 1908, £182; October 17, 1908, £190, in each case with intent to defraud.

Burkett entered the service of the London and County Bank in January, 1899, and served in a number of different branches, his conduct being extremely satisfactory. In 1904 he came to the Oxford Street branch, and at the time of his' suspension in November last, was earning a salary of £150 as ledger clerk. Dering, whose real name is Hugh Hill, had an account with the bank for some years, at first in the name of James Simpson, and latterly in the name of Dering. Burkett was in charge of the group of ledgers beginning with D, and in May or June last year, a series of irregularities was committed in Dering's account by delaying the making of debit entries, the effect being to show that the account was in credit when really it was not. On July 18, Burkett was transferred to another group of ledgers and had no longer control of Dering's account, and to meet that state of things on account was opened in the name of Ernest Albert Hill, Dering's brother, with a cheque for £50 drawn by prisoner Dering on his Chancery Lane account, which was in the name of Simpson. That money was really the money of the London and County Bank, as Simpson's account on the Chancery Lane Bank was kept in credit by means of the delay in entering debits. Hill then proceeded to draw the four cheques for sums of £200 each, which were paid to the credit

of Simpson in Chancery Lane. The cheques having been examined as to the genuineness of the signatures would be passed to the person having control of that particular group of ledgers. Burkett stole the cheques and destroyed them, so that from the time that they were entered upon the sheets and in the books kept for the purpose, they disappeared. That they were destroyed with Dering's knowledge appeared from the statement be made to the inspector when arrested. The fraud was discovered through some carelessness on the part of Burkett in reference to another account Burkett was said to have been led into the matter by Dering, and to have received only £65. Sentences: Burkett, 15 months' hard labour; Dering (against whom there are two previous convictions), three years' penal servitude.

Reference Number: t19090112-57

HARRIS, Edward (commercial traveller), and NATHAN, Nathaniel (bookmaker's clerk). Harris conspiring and agreeing together with a man whose name is unknown by false pretences to defraud such of his Majesty's liege subjects who might be persuaded to deal with them in the purchase of horns; Harris conspiring and agreeing with a man whose name is unknown to obtain by false pretences from Rose Brennan the sum of £5, from Pearl Keener the sum of £6, and from Herbert Sparrow the sum of £2 and one gold ring, in each case with intent to defraud; Harris obtaining by false pretences from Rose Brennan the sum of £5, from Pearl Kesner the sum of £6, and from Herbert Sparrow the turn of £2, in each case with intent to defraud; both conspiring and agreeing together by false pretences to defraud such of his Majesty's liege subjects who might be persuaded to deal with them; both conspiring and agreeing together to obtain by false pretences from Ethel Mason the sum of £6, from Alice Catlin the sum of £3, from Charles Smith the sum of £4, and from Elizabeth Saint the sum of £2, in each case with intent to defraud; both obtaining by false pretences from Ethel Mason the sum of £6, and from Alice Catlin the sum of £3, in each case with intent to defraud; both attempting to obtain by false pretences from Elizabeth Saint the sum of £2 with intent to defraud. The false pretence alleged in the case is known as the "Buffalo horn trick," and consists in representing as rare and curious the horns of common oxen slaughtered for food.

Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Leycester. and Mr. H. B. Roome appeared for the prosecution; Mr. L. S. Green defended Harris; Mr. Martin O'Connor defended Nathan.

ETHEL MASON , wife of John Mason, 53, Hamilton Street, Deptford, newsagent and confectioner. On May 12 prisoner Harris came into the shop and asked me if I could direct him to the whereabouts of a retired sea captain of the name of Bowman, to whom he wished to present a costly present he had brought from abroad that morning in return for a kindness the captain had done him some years ago. Harris added that he had promised the captain that if ever he came to England he would give him something for what he had done for him. I told him I was sorry I did not know anyone of that name He then pulled out a handful of money, gold, silver and copper, and

said he would pay me for my trouble. I told him I did not wish for anything, and I was sorry I could not tell him where his friend lived. I also asked him if he had been to the post office or tried to find the name in the directory. He then called in Nathan, and asked for a drink and I got him a bottle of ginger ale. Nathan brought in a parcel done up in canvas. Harris went outside under the pretence of going to the post office to find out where this Captain Bowman lived. While he was away Nathan undid the packet and displayed the three pairs of horns produced. He said they were beautiful things and cost a lot of money and it would be a pity to have them cut up to make combs. Harris, he said, could not take them away again if he could not find his friend, as it would cost too much. Harris, when he came back said that his friend, the retired sea captain, had gone back to America because this climate aid not agree with him. He fell on his knees and cried that his heart was breaking. He then asked, "Was I a kind, Christian lady, and would I be so kind as to take them?" I did not say I was a kind, Christian lady, but I said I would like to do a kindness to anybody. Harris said he had paid half a crown that morning for the canvas the horns were tied up in. He also said it had cost him so much to bring them and it would cost him as much to take them back, and he would rather leave them with me for the sum of £6 for a present. He said the horns were worth £50, and that in a few years' time they would be even more valuable. Nathan then chimed in and said that a Jaw had offered £12 that morning. Harris replied, "No, my man, if you mention that man's name again I shall discharge you. I will not pay you the five shillings I promised you and your dinner." He seemed to be angry with Nathan and said that a Jew a few years ago had sold him what was supposed to be a gold watch, and when he was going to give this watch to a friend as a present the friend laughed at him and said it was only brass. He then asked me if I knew where there was in Deptford a place where they made combs. I said I was sorry I could not tell him. He said he would rather have them made into combs than that the Jew should have them. While the conversation was going on my brother Arthur Palmer, who lives in Peckham, came in. He said the horns looked worth the £6, and I should not be doing any harm in letting the money go. Nathan whispered to me that if I would be kind enough to let Harris have the money he could get back to his ship that afternoon, and he (Nathan) would in the evening bring the Jew who had offered him £12 in the morning. I said if I could get my £6 back that was what I wanted. It was my husband's money, who was out at the time. I fully believed the story about the horns. When I gave Harris the money he said, "Are you sure it is good English money," and I said, yes, I was sure of it. He spoke in broken English, and I made sure he was a foreigner. He said he had employed Kaffir boys to kill the animals for him, how many I could not say, and he bad paid a large sum of money to have the horns prepared. The animals, he said, were quickly dying out and becoming extinct. Nathan never brought the Jew who he said had offered £12 for the horns. My husband, when he came home in the evening, went

"to the police court and a warrant was issued on Friday, May 15. The next time I saw prisoners was on October 19 at Enfield Town, where they were in custody at the police station. I picked them out from seven or eight other men. I have no doubt about them being the men. Nathan said he had been hired to carry the parcel by Harris when the latter came off the ship, and he was to have five shillings and his dinner.

Cross-examined by Mr. Green. My brother examined the horns. I fully believed that they were very valuable. My brother advised me to pay the £6.

To Mr. O'Connor. I picked out Harris without any hesitation and afterwards picked out Nathan. Nathan, on May 12, was dressed in a black felt hat and dark overcoat and seemed to have two or three days' growth of hair on his face, or it may have been a week's. Harris told me never to part with the horns. The largest pair, he said, represented the father, the second site the mother, and the smallest site the baby.

ARTHUR PALMER , tobacconists' assistant, 280 Old Kent Road, gave corroborative evidence as to the conversation and the purchase of the horns.

ELIZABETH SAINT , wife of John Saint, confectioner, High Road Freezywater, Waltham Cross. On Thursday, October 15, about half past 12, prisoners came to the shop. Harris came in first and asked me if I could tell him where a Mr. Bowman lived, a sea-going captain I told him I did not know any such person and referred him to the Post Office. He said he had brought some buffalo horns as a present from South America for Captain Bowman and his lady, who had nursed him through sickness there. Nathan then said that a Jew had that morning offered Harris £11 for the horns, but Harris would not take the money because the man was a Jew and the Jews were bad people, and he was very much against them because a Jew had once sold him a watch as gold which turned out to be brass. Harris went out to the post office to see if he could find Captain Bowman. When he returned, after having also consulted the directory, he said that Captain Bowman had resided at Waltham Cross, but had gone back abroad because the climate did not agree with him. Harris seemed to be in considerable trouble. He went down on his knees and made the sign of the cross and said he would swear by the Blessed Virgin that he was a Christian. He said to me, "Are you a Christian lady" and I said, "I believe so." I said to him," I cannot help you in any way; you will have to take them back again." He said he could not take them back as he would have to pay duty for them at every port. I told him there was a public house opposite and he might get rid of them there. He said it had cost him £35 to get the animals captured, but as I was a kind Christian lady he would let me have them for £2. I told him I had not the money to spare as I had a big tobacco bill to meet that afternoon. Then Nathan asked could I get the money, and I said I could not. He said, "You have a bank, have not you" I said I had, but I could not get the money in five minutes. Nathan then said, "If you can only get the money I will bring the Jew that

offered me £11 this morning." Harris was there all the time. Nathan also said, "See what you will be making out of it." They undid the parcel and showed me the horns, which they said were buffalo horns and that the animals were nearly extinct. Harris seemed in great distress, and tears came into his eyes. He kissed my hand in the shop, as I was a kind, Christian lady. I did not object, as I did not know he was going to do it. He offered me 1s. for my trouble. I, of course, said I did not want anything.

To Mr. Green. I was not particularly anxious to purchase the horns. Sometimes I thought the tale was correct and then that there was a doubt in the case. Harris offered to take part of the money in stock. I am sure he mentioned the word "buffalo. "

JOHN L. C. SMITH , shoemaker, Waltham Abbey, about one minute's walk from the shop of the last witness, detailed particulars of a similar visit made by prisoners on October 15. Harris, in broken English inquired for a Mr. Balsmans, and then followed the details of the alleged nursing and the valuable present from abroad. Being unable to get information of his supposed friend, Harris said, "My heart is brake; my heart is brake, because I do not find my friend," and, as in the previous case, went on his knees and swore by the Virgin. He offered the horns for sale for £4. Witness identified prisoners at Greenwich on December 1 without difficulty.

ALICE CATLING , wife of William Herbert Catling, of the "Volunteer" beerhouse, Enfield Wash, identified prisoners as having called upon her on October 15 offering these horns for sale, which Harris said were worth £25 or £30. Harris asked if there was any place in the neighbourhood to which he could take them to have them cut up for knife handles. He offered the horns for sale for £4, but witness found she had only £3, which Harris snatched out of her hand, saying, "Thatwill do; that will do." Harris asked her to wish him a safe voyage and kissed her hand before she could prevent him. Some time afterwards prisoners were brought back by the detective-sergeant. Witness was in the private room, and Harris came in saying, "Where are you, lady?" She went into the bar, and Harris gave her back the three sovereigns, saying, "You are satisfied, are not you?" Witness replied, "I was satisfied when I bought them, because you represented them to be valuable horns brought from foreign parts." Prisoners were taken before the magistrates at Enfield, where she gave evidence. They were discharged, and afterwards arrested on a warrant, and witness gave evidence at Greenwich.

Detective-sergeant THOMAS HOWARD, N Division. On October 15 I saw prisoners in Sun Street, Waltham Abbey, at half-past 10 o'clock in the morning. Nathan was carrying a large package done up in canvas and tied with string. I saw them enter a small boot-repairing shop (Smith's). In company with Sergeant Wren, I followed them to Enfield Wash. Where they entered several other shops. I made inquiry at the shops they visited—five altogether. The last place they visited was the "British Volunteer." After they came out I went up to them and stopped them. I told them we were police officers and suspected them of having committed fraud in connection

with this buffalo horn business and asked them to come back with us. Harris said, "We have committed no fraud. We have to the the tale' to get a living. Harris could speak English properly and I should not have mistaken him for a foreigner. I said to Nathan, "What ship do you Crime off?" He said, "None. I have only done what I was told to do." I told them we had been watching them and they had been" telling the tale" about these horns in various places. Then we went back to the beerhouse. Nathan also said. "I know nothing about it. He was going to give me 10s. to carry them for him." When we got to the beerhouse Harris called out, "Lady, lady, where is the lady?" Mrs. Catling came forward into the bar, and as she did so Harris thrust three sovereigns into her hand, winking at her, and nodding his head. He said." You were satisfied, lady, were you not!" Mrs. Catling said, "Yes, I was, because I believed what you told me—that they were valuable and had come from abroad, but I am not satisfied new, because I have found out that they are no good." They were afterwards charged at the Enfield Petty Sessions. A receipt for the purchase of the horns for £2 7s. 6d., dated September 28, was produced by prisoners, and they were discharged. This warrant in Mrs. Mason's case was then executed.

Detective-sergeant FRANK BEAVIS. On October 19 I saw prisoners detained at Enfield Police Station. After they had been put up for identification I told them I had a warrant for their arrest. Harris said, "I shall fight the case on its merits. I have to sell my goods and I have to put in polish on when 'telling the tale,' but I do not do it with intent to defraud." They were asked by another officer whether they were satisfied with the identification, and they said yes. Nathan said he had only been working with Harris about three weeks, and that he would be able to prove that Mrs. Mason had made a mistake.

To the Recorder. Harris was boom in Stepney. I have no reason to believe he is a Roman Catholic. I have reason to believe he is a.

Cross-examined by Mr. Green. With reference to the bill for £2 7s. 6d. found on Harris, I called upon Mr. Gore, who said that was the actual price paid to him for a set of horns. Gore said he had obtained the horns from a Mr. Wilson, of 35, Jewry Street, Aldgate. Each pair of horns, according to Mr. Wilson, cost five shillings in the raw state, and £2. 7s. 6d. was a fair price for them when they were polished and mounted. A lot came from the Cape, a lot from South America, and some from the Stages, but they were not buffalo horns.

To Mr. O'Connor. Harris denied that Nathan was the man who was with him on May 12, and Nathan said the same. Nathan is well known in the district he lives in.

The Recorder. What is his occupation? Witness. He makes a book on the course. When he does not do that he makes a book in the streets.

Re-examined. Wilson has a sort of curio shop in Jewry Street, and Gore, who is supposed to dress the horns, has an underground cellar only.

MARTIN HOLLAND , 52, Red Lion Street, horn polisher and mounter. I have been engaged in this business for 20 years. The pair of mounted horns produced to me are ox horns and worth about 16s. in their present state. I should say that they come from South America. Some fo the horns come over on the animals and some are imported by shiploads for sale. In a raw state I should think they are worth about a shilling a pair. The most I should give for either of the three sets is 15s. 6d. in their present condition. If retailing them I should want a bit more, 25s. or 30s. a pair. If they were real buffalo horns they would be worth at least three times the money.

Cross-examined by Mr. Green. I am a journeyman. Looking at the largest pair I should say they were the horns of a Texas steer; the second pair may be South American or from the Cape; the third pair, Cape or American. Looking at the horn itself it is difficult to say what part of the world it comes from unless I saw the marks on the parcel. Without marks no one could tell even by examination. I have never brought any in the raw state, but they can be bought at the glue boilers in Bermondsey, wholesale. I should be surprised to hear that the wholesale price of the large horns is 5s. a pair. In the raw state they have to be scraped and filed, pumiced, papered, polished and afterwards mounted. To finish a pair would take me three days. With a lathe I could do the finishing in two days. 17s. 6d. would be a fair rate of pay for the three days' work. In offering 15s. I should not be losing much, as that would be under the actual cost of production, but a good deal would depend upon the class of work. The material resembling skin put between the horns when mounting is called Iceland frieze, or caracul. Imitation caracul such as has been used here would cost 6d. or 9d. a yard. It would take the yard to mount the three pairs. I have never bought any of the material. I should think 3s. or 4s. per yard would be an excessive price for it. I should describe the horns as of medium colour. Some people prefer dark horns to light.

To Mr. O'Connor. There is a great different between buffalo horn and cow horn.

(Saturday, January 16.)

PATRICK MCDERMOTT RICHARDSON , customs officer employed at the London Custom House, stated that no duty was chargeable upon the importation of horns of this class.

Mr. Green submitted that there was no case to go to the jury against Harris and if none against Harris, none against Nathan. Prisoners admittedly made false representations as to the value of these goods, but all they came to was exaggeration of value, and the case therefore came within the principle of simplex commendation.

The Recorder said that did not agree with his copy of the abstract which charged that Harris falsely represented that he was a sailor by calling, that he had just returned from abroad, that he had brought certain animals' horns from abroad, that he had hired Nathan to carry the horns, that they were the horns of a rare animal, and further that Harris was searching for a friend to whom he desired to give them, that a Jew had offered £12 for the horns, and that the horns were worth £50. These and other false pretences could not come under the head of simplex commendation. In the case of R. V. Goss (29 L. J., M. C., p. 90), Chief Justice Erle,

in dealing with this question, said that the decision in R. V. Bryan went "upon the sound principle that indefinite praise upon a matter of indefinite opinion cannot be made the ground of an indictment for false pretences." That was the principle on which these cases of simplex commendation all rested.

Mr. Green referred to the judgment of Mr. Justice Crompton in R. V. Bryan (26 L. J., M. C., p. 84) and also to the cases of Regina V. Lee (8 Cox, p. 233) and Regina V. Levine and Wood (10 Cox, p. 374).

The Recorder said he should leave the case to the jury.


AARON GEORGE HANMER , 406, Hackney Road. I am in the horn and ivory trade. The large pair of horns produced are Spanish horns. The second size are also Spanish horns, but are sometimes sold as Cape horns, not to devolve the purchaser, but because Cape horns is a trade term. Cape horns are not more valuable than Spanish horns. Cape horns are light in colour, and therefore light horns are generally called "Cape." Light horns are the more valuable. The smallest size are American; they can be told by the redness of the tips. I but horns from Mr. Wilson, of Jewry Street. The best are picked out for mounting. Of the others the tips are worth 1s. per lb. for button making, and the hollow parts are used for comb making. Some tips are worth 2s. per lb. for umbrella handles. The largest sized horns in a raw state are worth from 3s. to 6s. per pair. Mr. wilson's charge is 5s. per pair for the two larger sizes; the smallest size would be worth 2s. per pair at the outside. The cost of polishing would be about 16s. The cost of caracul is from 4s. 11d. to 5s. 11d. per yard. The cost of buying and polishing being about 36s. a set, I should want about 30s. per pair for such horns as are produced, and for a set of three pair £3 5s. That is to the trade; of course, from a private customer I should want more. £3 5s. would include my profit, that is rock-bottom price, and having regard to the cost of the up-keep of my premises, I do not consider it is excessive.

Cross-examined. I but the caracul of Lee's, in the Hackney Road, for 4s. 11d. a yard. 9d. a yard is ridiculous. I was born in the trade. The lowest price is 2s. 11d., and you can go up to 10s. and 11s. per yard. The 4s. 11d. is a medium quality. I can produce a receipt showing that I have paid 4s. 11d. per yard. I have a shop and a factory at the back where I employ men. I sell mainly to the trade, but also to a private customer if he comes along. I have eight hands. I charge to the trade £3 5s. for a set of three pairs. To a private customer I should charge a fancy price. I should be doing a very good deal if I sold a set for £6. I have never sold to Harris. I had not seen him before this. If I had seen anyone offering them for £2 I should have fetched a policeman, thinking they were stolen. These horns come from bullocks. In India they are known as water-buffalo, and are beasts of burden. People would be mad to use such horns to make glue while they can get hoofs. I know the firm of Young and Sonz, spa road, Bermondsey, as buyers of hoofs and waste. I have never bought horns at their place at 18s. per dozen. The horns produced are well polished, but nothing extraordinary, rather of medium quality as far as work is concerned.

HENRY JAMES GORE , 22, Paris Street, Tooley Street, horn turner and polisher. I work for my brother George. I have known prisoner Harris about four or five years as a customer buying polished and mounted horns. The horns produced are our work. So far as I am aware, Harris does not speak with a foreign accent. I should not mistake him for a foreigner. I believe he is a Hebrew. The price of a set of three pairs of horns is £2 7s. 6d. That is what Harris used to pay when he bought horns of me. I have no books showing sales to Harris. We only work by the piece, and we do not keep books for that work. We buy the horns of Wilson, in Jewry Street. I have my book to prove that we pay 5s. per pair for the large and middle sizes. The smallest size we get from Young and Son, Spa Road, Bermondsey, it 1s. 6d. per pair. These horns would be described as mottled horns in the trade. My brother was apprenticed to the trade. To do a set of horns costs us as good as 30s., including the original cost of the horns, but without the skin. We give 5s. 11d. for the caracul. I produce some of my old receipts showing that I bought of Messrs. Boutle and Drewett, of Borough High Street, at that price. The stuff is 54 inches wide, and it would take half a yard to mount three pairs, costing 2s. 11 1/2 d., or say 3s. (Witness produced horns in the rough state.) I have never known horns of the larger sizes to be bought at 1s. 6d. per pair; it is humbug.

Cross-examined. We have got a shop underneath No. 22, Paris Street, but we do our work at home. I am not a bootmaker, but a leather dresser by trade. I am my brother's assistant. He, being deaf and dumb, must have somebody to superintend his work. His affiction was caused by a fall when he was 14. I have only worked for him for the last seven years, since I caught anthrax and gave up leather dressing. I gave evidence in this Court on January 13, 1898, on my brother's behalf, the same as at the present time. I was called as a witness for the defence of a man named Wolff Abrahams, Mr. Green. Can we go into the result of another trial here?

The Recorder. The witness is now being examined as to credit. He can be cross-examined as to the circumstances under which he gave evidence and as to what the nature of the trial was.

Cross-examination continued. The horns in that case were exactly the same as those in this case—ordinary bullock or cow horns. The larger horns are, in my opinion, Spanish, and the smaller South American. My charge is a sovereign a pair for polishing. The price has gone up a lot since I gave evidence before. I may have said on the former occasion. "I should charge 10s. for polishing a pair." The price of horns has also gone up. I first came to know Harris three or four years ago through him coming to my brother and giving him an order. In that case the price was £2 5s. for the set.

Re-examined. The sentence on Wolff Abrahams was three months' hard labour.

JOSEPH SLIPPER . 7, Paradise Row, Bethnal Green, horn dresser and polisher. I have been in the trade all my lifetime—nearly 60 years.

I have bought many hundreds of horns similar to those produced. The price per pair is 5s. or 5s. 6d. for the largest, and for the second size 3s. 6d. to 4s. I buy them of Mr. Myers and Mr. Wilson. I have never been able to obtain them for 1s. or 1s. 6d. per pair. The smallest size we get as low as 1s. 6d. I should charge £2 10s. to the trade for a set finished and mounted, but, of course, more to a private customer. I myself pay 7s. 11d. a yard for caracul. I obtained a diploma at the Crafts' Exhibition at the People's Palace. I sold some horn hat pegs to the Duke of Fife at the Exhibition.

Cross-examined. The Duke never came came back to me for a second set. They were ordinary horns of the stealer kind mounted on mahogany.

EDWIN ERNEST ELLIOTT , 122, High Street, Walthamstow, and JACOB OTTO, Mile End Road, were called as to Harris's character.

NATHANIEL NATHAN (prisoner, on oath). I first saw Mrs. Mason when I was put up for identification alter being discharged at Enfield. It is a case of mistaken identity. On May 12 I was in the billiard room of the "Black Boy," Mile End Road, at the time I was stated to have called on Mrs. Mason waiting for my governor to arrange about going to Chester for the" Cup" race next day. His name it Falk. I met him soon after twelve o'clock. It was arranged that we should not go. Business, he said, was none too good and the expenses were very great. The people amongst whom I was placed for identification at Enfield were all of the labouring class. I have never worn a beard in my life. I shave every other day. When I was arrested at Enfield I had been with Harris barely three weeks. I did not find selling horns good business. Harris asked me to go with him, as I was not doing anything. I was to receive 5s. a day. Harris told me what to say. I did not think there was any fraud in what he was doing or I should not have gone out. I admit that I said to Mrs. Saint that a Jew had offered Harris £11 for the horns. which Harris would not take, because a Jew had once taken him in over a watch.

Cross-examined. I was in Harris's employ about four months. I have been to Chester once, about three years ago. I have been to other races with Falk. I used to use the "Black Horse." Falk could find me there if he wanted to. I have never heard of a case one of this sort before. When Harris engaged me he told me I was to wait outside the shop till he came out. Then I was to go in and say he had been offered £10 for them and two suits of clothes. In any shop I went into I was to say the lady was a Christian lady. I always said the lady in the shop was a Christian lady. The first time we went out was to Bayswater, where we sold one pair of horns for £4. We sold four sets altogether, including the set sold to Mrs. Catling. Harris spoke with a foreign accent. I remember that on one occasion he said "My heart is brake; I do not find my friend." I have seen him cry. I admit that I helped him to get the money. If I had known the full consequences I should not have done it. As to whether it was right to tell a lie to get money, it is often done.

MOSS PHILLIPS , 4, Latimer Street, Stepney. I remember May 12 last. I was then billiard marker at the "Black Boy." I remember seeing Nathan in the billiard room about quarter past 11 o'clock. He played billiards with my brother. I remember it was May 12 because I asked Nathan if his was going to the Chester race meeting. He replied, "I do not know; I am waiting for my governor." I know that May 12 is the first day of the Cheater meeting. The Chester Cup is run on the day following.

Cross-examined. I used to have a lot of racing men come in to play billiards. The game between Nathan and my brother lasted half an hour or perhaps a little longer. Nathan won, but there was no money on; I should not allow that. Nathan paid for the table. I ceased to be marker one week in August after being there nine months. Nathan was the first customer I had that morning.

To the Recorder. I was asked to give evidence on behalf of Nathan about three months ago.

JOSEPH PHILLIPS , clerk, 5, Latimer Street, Stepney Green, brother of last witness gave evidence as to playing billiards with prisoner Nathan in the morning of May 12. Afterwards they went downstairs to the bar, and while they were drinking together Mr. Falk came in. JOSEPH FALK, 19, Whitefield Street, Forest Gate. I am a commission agent and attend race meetings. Nathan has been my clerk, working together with me. On May 12 I was considering whether I should go to Chester and called at Nathan's house. He was not in. I then went on to the" Black Boy" and arrived there about a quarter to 12. I had conversation with Nathan about our going to Chester. Nathan said he did not feel very well, and I said, "Well, it does not matter; I shall not go, as the expenses will be too great."

Witnesses were also called to the character of Nathan.

Verdict. Both guilty of conspiring to defraud. With regard to the count charging them with obtaining a sum of money by false representations from Mrs. Mason the jury disagreed, there being one dissentient.

Mr. Bodkin pointed out that the second count charged a conspiracy with regard to Mrs. Mason, Mrs. Catling, Mrs. Saint, and Mr. Smith, and if the jury were not agreed about Mrs. Mason they might he agreed with regard to Mrs. Catling, Mrs. Saint, or Mrs. Smith. Elimmating the name of Mrs. Mason the count remained a good count upon which a verdict could be returned.

The Foreman said the jury were agreed that there was a conspiracy to defraud the three last named persons, but they was not find prisoners guilty of false pretences.

Mr. Bodkin pointed out that that verdict was inconsistent, count four charging false pretences within regard to Mrs. Catling, and count 5 in regard to Mrs. Saint. The jury found that prisoners conspired to defraud those persons and the evidence was that they were defrauded by being induced to part with their money and it was therefore inconsistent to say that the offence of false pretences had not been proved.

The Recorder. I quite agree, and that is why I hesitate to take a verdict on the second count at all. It is an inconsistency but, of course, there may have been an antecedent agreement to defraud these persons which was not in fact carried out.

Mr. Bodkin. It is inconsistent to say the money was not paid the result of conspiracy although the conspiracy was to obtain money.

Sentences. Harris, 18 months' hard labour; Nathan, 15 months' hard labour.


(Friday, January 15.)

GOLDBERG, Louis (21, manager), and GOLDBERG, Aaron (20, traveller), found guilty at last Sessions (see page 208) of incurring a debt or liability by means of fraud other than false pretences, came up for judgment. They were released on their own recognisances in £20 to come up for judgment if called upon.

Reference Number: t19090112-59

PELOPIDA, Antonio (32, mosaic worker) ; feloniously wounding Luigi Orsi, with intent to do him grievous bodily harm. Mr. Wren prosecuted; Mr. Purcell defended.

LUIGI ORSI ,7, Tysoe Street. Clerkenwell (through an interpreter). Prisoner was a lodger in my house. On the afternoon of November 28 I went to his room to see him about my furniture, and asked him for his rent book, saying. "I believe you are behind three weeks." He looked for the book, and said he could not find it. He said he could not pay because he had no money. He said he would not pay me by any means. I said, "Well, on Monday I will summon you." I turned round to leave the room and he struck me on the head. I do not know with what. I do not remember anything more. I did not feel anything.

Cross-examined. Prisoner, who Lad a sick child, had complained of singing in the house. I had given him a week's notice. He had already removed a lot of his furniture. The balance of the furniture was mine. I did not see prisoner take up a chair. I did nothing to provoke him.

MARIE ORSI . wife of the last witness. On the afternoon of November 28 I heard shouts in my house. Going upstairs to prisoner's room, I found my husband on the floor, and, with assistance, took him to the hospital.

Police-constable ALBERT HOLBROW, 452 G. On the afternoon of November 28 I removed the prosecutor to the Royal Free Hospital.

Inspector GEORGE ALLISON, G Division. On the afternoon of November 28, in the first-floor back room of 7, Tysoe Street, I found on the floor a pool of blood, and at the side of the held picked up the iron bar produced, which was stained, apparently, with wet blood.

Dr. DAVIES, house surgeon at the Royal Free Hospital. Prosecutor, on being brought to the hospital, was conscious; he was bleeding

severely from both ears and from a scalp wound. There were two wounds, one of which was contused, a triangular flap of the scalp being raised from the skull in the right parietal region, and behind that was a small, superficial scalp wound. At the bottom of the former wound, which was extremely serious, were several loose pieces of bone. An immediate operation was necessary, but for which the patient could not have recovered. The wound must have been inflicted with some heavy instrument, such as the iron bar produced, used with very considerable force.

Sergeant JAMES CUNNINGHAM, G Division. On November 30 I arrested the prisoner, who said, "I am sorry. The man asked for his rent and said he would break my neck if I did not give it to him. I then hit him. I am sorry for his family and mine."

Inspector ANDREW KYD; G Division. Prisoner, when charged, said, "Yes; I understand. I am sorry." Cross-examined. Before the magistrate the charge of attempted murder was withdrawn.


ANTONIO PELOPIDA (prisoner, on oath). For about five months I bad been lodging in this house, and until recently had regularly paid my rent. After receiving notice to quit I had to go to work at Coventry for 10 days. On returning I took another room, and on November 28 began to move my furniture. When about half had been moved, Orsi came in and locked the door. He asked for the rent book, and my wife said she had put it in a little box already sent to the new lodgings. Orsi said, "You got to pay me before you can go from this place." I said that when I finished moving I would some back, clean out the rooms, and give him half his money. He said, "You cannot go outside this room before you pay me in full." I said, "I cannot pay you the lot to-day, for I have had my young girl three weeks in bed. I cannot pay 'you three weeks' rent to-day." He said, "I will break your neck." Then he turned round, and I saw him put his hand on a chair, which he took up. I never saw anyone so upset with anger. I looked round for something to defend myself with. Then I struck him—I suppose with that iron that was shown here.

Cross-examined. I believe there was nothing on the chair which the prosecutor took up. The room contained two chairs of his and two of mine. It is not true that there were only two chairs, each of which had boxes on it.

ARTHUR OWEN CARTER , of Carter and Co., caustic tile manufacturers, 29, Albert Embankment. I have employed the prisoner for about two years, and have found him a steady, well-behaved workman.

Inspector ALLISON, recalled After the prisoner had gone I examined his room, which contained not more than two chairs, on which were piled a few small boxes and one or two pictures.

Verdict, Guilty.

Sentence, Six months' imprisonment, second division.

Reference Number: t19090112-60

ELVIN, Herbert (27, labourer)) , attempting to carnally know Winifred Oldfield, a girl of the age of 14 years; second count, indecent assault.

Verdict, Guilty of indecent assault.

The police evidence showed that prisoner had joined the navy in 1896 and served till 1900. He had deserted twice, outstayed his leave, and had finally been discarged for wilful disobedience and general bad character. He had since worked for several contractors, who spoke well of his work. His wife had sued him once for assault, but had not appeared.

Sentence, Two months' hard labour.


(Saturday, January 16).

Reference Number: t19090112-61

RYLAND, Gertrude (31, no occupation) pleaded guilty , of feloniously causing to be inserted in the register of deaths for the parish of St. Pancras a false copy relating to the death of Florence Annie Louise Ryland; uttering to William P. Piper a copy of the said entry knowing the same to be false: making a false answer to the Registerar of Brith and Death relating to the death of the said Florence Annie Louise Ryland: obtaining by false pretences from William P. Piper the sum of 30s., with intent to defraud the Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly society; feloniously causing to be inserted in the Register of Deaths for the parish of St. Pancras a false entry relating to the death of Thomas Henry Wilson Ryland; uttering to A. T. Catt a copy of the said entry knowing the same to be false; making a false statement to the Registrar of Births, etc., relating to the death of the said Thomas Henry Wilson Ryland; obtaining by false pretences from A. T. Cat the sum of £10 2s. 6d., the moneys of the Royal London Sum of £ 2s. 6d., the money of the W.P. piper the Friendly Society, and obtaining by false pretences from Hannah Hill the several sums of £48, £7, and £58, in each case with intent to defraud.

Mr. Bodkin, who prosecuted, stated that prisoner was the wife of an ostler and she had been guilty of a series of frauds, including the forgery of her husband's, her infant daughter's, and other persons death certificates, and of causing fictitious entries of deaths to be made by the Registrar of Births, Deaths, and Marriages for the parish of St. Pancras. This she had done for the purpose of obtaining insurance money. She had thus obtained sums of 30s. and £10 2s. 6d. from the Liverpool Victoria Legal Friendly society and £13 16s. from the Royal London Friendly Society. Under the pretence of lending the money to a well-to-do gentleman living in the Camden Road, she had defrauded Mrs. Hill, a widow, of sums amounting to over £100, which represented the whole of her savings.

Prisoner was convicted at Scarborough when but 17 years old of stealing a banknote. She was married in 1903 and was the mother of four children.

Judge Lumley Smith said the prisoner had been guilty of a number of frauds of a serious description, and she was evidently a very fraudulent and deceptive woman. He sentenced her to 15 months' hard labour.


(Monday, January 18.)

Reference Number: t19090112-62

PEARSON, John Hesketh (22, civil engineer); manslaughter of James Talbot.

Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Leycester, and Mr. H. D. Roome prosecuted; Mr. Muir and Mr. Oddie defended.

Police-constable JAMES SMITH, 52 A, produced a plan embracing part of Whitehall and Parliament Street on the scale of 64 ft to 1 in., and gave details of the position of various streets, distances from point to point, position of the refuges, etc.

Police-constable THOMAS TRAINOR, 148 A. On September 30 I was in Parliament Street. About 2.20 p.m. I saw a crowd near Charles Street and a car numbered F. C, 305 backed on to the kerb on the Charles Street side of Parliament Street. An old man (Talbot) was lying on the ground unconscious, his feet towards Charing Cross and his head towards Parliament Square. I noticed a wound above his left eye, and there were marks of blood on his face. Prisoner said, "My car has knocked this old man down. You put him in the car and direct me to the nearest hospital." He added, "I was driving the car." Deceased was taken in the car to the Westminster Hospital, and I went with accused to Cannon Row Police Station, where he wss charged with causing him bodily harm. He made no reply to the charge. He was taken before the magistrate (Mr. Curtis Bennett) at Bow Street next morning. By that time the old man was dead and prisoner was charged with manslaughter.

REGINALD STEPHEN TOWNSEND , house surgeon, Westminster Hospital. I took charge of deceased when he was brought in. He was unconscious, and did not recover consciousness before his death, at shout half-past seven in the evening. At the post-mortem examination I found that seven ribs on his right side were fractured and had lacerated the right lung. The pelvis was fractured on the right side and the tibia of the left leg. There was a wound over the left eye. The injuries I have described were the direct cause of death. The body was apparently that of a healthy man for his years. The injuries were such as would have caused the death even of a young man of 25

Cross-examined. The blow on the head might have been caused by the hood of the motor car striking deceased, or any blunt instrument. The fracture of the leg might, have been caused by the wing of the car. As to whether if a man were thrown violently to the ground, that

would be the kind of injury that would cause fracture of the ribs at those angles, I think he roust have had a severe blow directly. A man would not fracture seven ribs simply by falling on the road. It is possible he might do so if he fell from a great height or was flung violently to the ground. The arteries of the brain were deteriorated and calcified, that condition being due to age. Deafness is frequently due to degeneration of the arteries in the middle ear owing to calcification I am not prepared to say what force would be necessary to cause the injuries to deceased, but a car weighing two tons tvavelling at 15 miles an hour would have been sufficient to cause them.

Re-examined. I think the injury to the left leg might have been caused either by a direct or an indirect blow.

JOHN STOKESBURY , compositor, 52, Shardeloes Road, New Cross Deceased was the stepfather of my wife. He was in his 85th year. He had been for a great number of years in the Education Office, and had retired only 18 months ago. I cannot account for his having been allowed to remain on so long, 65 being the ordinary age of retirement, but I believe that when the Education Act of 1870 came into force, people were allowed to go in at a certain age merely as writers; he was not on the staff. I knew him very well. Hit health was good and he was exceptionally active and vigorous for a man of 84, and enjoyed walking exercise. His sight was good and he had only used glasses for reading or writing. His hearing was fairly good, and he could hear people speaking in ordinary tones in a room, and he could hear a motor horn. I have been out walking with him. He would generally look round before he ventured off the pavement.

Cross-examined by Mr. Oddie. Deceased was for more than 35 years in the Education Office, and had been in the habit of crossing Whitehall very frequently. He was only slightly deaf. I do not know whether he looked up. I should say the speed of the motor car did not give him the opportunity to get out of the way.

The Recorder. You are not going to suggest, are you, that people are bound to get out of the way of motor cars because they blow a horn?

Mr. Oddie. No, but if nobody took notice of the horns, accidents would be so numerous that the hospitals would have to be enlarged.

The Recorder. Other steps would have to be taken to regulate the procedure of motor vehicles. People of this advanced age are in many cases deaf, and people of other ages are also deaf. The blowing of the horn does not constitute any valid excuse in law.

Inspector SAMUEL ROGERS, A. Prisoner, having first been charged within causing grievous bodily harm was re-charged in the evening with manslaughter.

EDMUND HERBERT STEVENSON , civil engineer, 38, Parliament Street On September 30, between quarter and half past two, I was walking from Charing Cross down Whitehall on the east side. When I had just passed the entrance to the Board of Trade I hear a peculiar sounding horn. I turned and looked northwards up Whitehall and saw a red touring car coming down on the outside of the southern bound traffic. I saw it had a long funnel-shaped horn on the top of

the bonnet. I have five heard since that it is an electric horn. The car was coming clown on the west side of the crown of the road. The south-bound traffic practically filled half the road, the other half being practically empty. The car was running on what would usually be occupied by the north-bound traffic, in the centre of the roadway, and well outside the south-bound traffic, and going at a faster speed than I have ever seen a car go on that particular piece of road. The born was being sounded very often; I think I heard it four or five times, a short, sharp blast. I kept the car in view the whole way. The rapid spend at which it was travelling attracted my attention. Just before the car skidded I lost sight of the front part of it behind a vehicle, but I could still see the body. From the action of the car I should say the brake was put on hard and suddenly. Why I watched it was because I was so afraid of it being nipped at the refuges at Charles Street. From the line the car was taking I was very much afraid of some accident happening there. I did not see the old man at all. When the brakes were put on the car was about opposite the north corner of Charles Street. When, the car was checked after going forward in a straight line for a very short distance, 3 ft. or 4 ft., the back part of the car swerved to the right and made a complete half-circle, and seemed to hang for a moment, an appreciable moment; finally it made a complete revolution and a quarter and ran. back to the north corner of Charles Street against the kerb, with the back towards the Home Office and front to the road, stopping the traffic going north on the west aide of the road. It was a very large and powerful car, and took up a good deal of room. I saw deceased lying in the road nearly opposite the middle of Charles Street, a little above the refuges. The road was quite dry, and it was a very hot day. Up till the time the car was checked there did not appear to me to have been any variation in its speed.

Cross-examined. As there was no traffic going north, there was no reason why the car should not overtake the south-bound traffic. The road in front to Parliament Square was clear, and there was no danger unless the car met something or somebody going ai that pace Nobody crossed within my light. A difference of a mile or two an hour would not be appreciable at the pace the car was going. Where the road is broad, as in this case, and you see the car approaching at a considerable angle you can judge of the pace at which a car is going, and in this came there was the south-bound traffic to compare with. The south-bound traffic extended north and south as far as one could see. I saw a yellow horse omnibus which the oar passed on the off side. As to the suggestion that the pace of the car was only 15 miles an hour, I can only say that people who say that are either no judges of pace or else are deliberately misstating the facts. As an engineer I consider I am a judge of pace to a certain extent. I am a gas and water engineer, a mechanical engineer, but not a motor engineer. I have ridden a good deal in motors, but do not drive myself. This road is paved with wood. I have heard that the tyres of this ear had non-skid studs on them. I have seen brakes applied to cars going at 15 miles an hour, and at even a greater pace, without

skidding, but if a car was being driven at the very rapid pace that this car was and brakes were suddenly applied I should expert it to skid. I said before the magistrate that between the refuges opposite the Home Office and the refuges opposite Charles Street the driver had a clear run; that was because there was no north-bound traffic. I said also I thought the pace was dangerous to the people in the car, but I did not say it was not also dangerous to the public. If the car had run into the refuges it would have been overturned and the occupants doubtless injured. I apprehended danger at the refuges between Charles Street and Derby Street where the space is more contracted than it is opposite the Home Office. I was afraid that the omnibuses which stop south of these refuges might pull out. I think I said before the magistrate that there was no danger in the pace per se, but only having regard to what might happen. This it the first time I have said the car was going at a greater speed than I had ever seen a car going at on that road, but I said before the magistrate that it was going at more than double the speed of the motor cabs that were going south.

WILLIAM YOUNG , 110, Sussex Road, Holloway. I am in the employ of the London General Omnibus Company and drive a pair-horse bus from Camden Town to Victoria. I was driving southwards in Parliament Street, about 2.30 p.m. on September 30, and was about two yards or three yards from the kerb. As a rule, the track of my omnibus leaves apace for another line of vehicles near the kerb, and I have a right by the rule of the road to occupy the centre space between the refuges, and the northern traffic does the same. I was driving at between six and seven miles an hour at the time, and was just opposite Richmond Mews when I heard the frequent sounding of a motor horn and the vibration of a motor engine. Such traffic as there was was some little distance in front of me and he got past the refuge. I saw deceased start to cross the road from opposite Lyons's tea shop., Having started, he went on continuously, without stopping Or hesitation. He had plenty of time so it as I was concerned. I was 20 yards from the old gentleman when the car passed me on the off-side. There was nothing to prevent the driver seeing the deceased. I have been driving an omnibus for 25 years. The car went straight on and knocked deceased down. The gentleman turned the driving wheel and the car skidded right clean round. Deceased was struck by the near side front wing. I think it is possible that when the car skidded round the back part of it may have struck him as well. I should think the car was going 30 miles an hour. Deceased fell directly the car touched him, and I noticed the car swing round and come to rest opposite the Home Office. When struck deceased had passed the head of my off-side horse, so that if I had gone on in a straight line I should not have struck him. There was a clear view for the driver of the motor car to see the man in front of him 20 yards or 25 yards ahead. So far as I could see, there was nothing to prevent the driver turning to his left past my horses' heads and going behind the old gentleman. If he had done so he would not have knocked him down.

Cross-examined. The car was in the centre of the road a good long way from me. Deceased suddenly hurried forward, but I do not think the car would have missed him if he had not done to. The driver turned the car a little to the right instead of to the left. If he had turned to the left he would have passed behind him. If I had been in the same position a the driver I should have gone behind deceased, and it is the rule of the road that if there it anybody passing over the crown of the road you pass behind them. I did not see a motor cab in iron of me, into which the accused might hate run if he had tried to pass behind deceased. I said before the magistrate, "I saw the driver of the car turn to the right to try to avoid him." I meant by that he tried to avoid him after he was struck. Anyone might do that. You might knock a man down and try to avoid running over him. It looked as though the driver ran straight into deceased. I do not say he did it wilfully; at the same tine, when there was plenty of room for him to go on the near side, why did not he steer on the near side? I am certain it was the near side front wing or dashboard that struck deceased. If several witnesses say that the near side front wing did not strike him at all they are wrong. In my opinion it would be impossible for the back part of the car to strike him before the car skidded. Deceased was six or eight yards from the refuge in the direction of Charing Cross. When the old gentleman was getting out into the middle of the road I heard he car sound its horn. He did not turn, but continued to walk across and took no notice at all. Before he stepped off the footpath he looked to the right and looked all round, and I assume he thought he had plenty of time to cross the road, which he had. When the horn was sounded he commenced to hurry.

The Recorder. There is no doubt that the great danger in crossing he road now is the danger arising from crossing in front of a slowmoving vehicle when there is a quick-moving vehicle on the offside. I have noticed it again and again. Probably the old gentleman thought he could get safely across the road, not knowing that this motor was coming at this rapid pace.

Mr. Oddie. Of course, a motor car is entitled to overtake traffic?

The Recorder. Yes, provided that proper caution is exercised.

GEORGE LEO DE ST. MACAIRE WATSON . I am a private secretary employed at 5, Cavendish Square. About 2.30 on September 30 I was in Parliament Street, walking towards Charing Cross on the west side. Just north of Downing Street I saw this red motor car coming down in the opposite direction as nearly as possible the middle of the road at what I considered a dangerous and excessive pace, approximately twice that of the ordinary traffic. I heard the sounding of the horn, a very raucous kind of sound. There was very little traffic going north, less than the normal. The car was clear of the south-going traffic. As it passed me I turned and followed its career. It swerved occasionally to the right in passing its own line of traffic. but I did not observe any slackening of speed. I lost sight of it, I think, behind a hansom, and shortly afterwards heard a kind of thud and the cries of the people and went back to the scene of the accident.

I cannot pretend to judge exactly the speed of the car within a mile, but in this case I can certainly say it was going at twice the speed of the ordinary traffic—I should say 24 or 25 miles per hour.

Cross-examined. One could not judge of the speed of the car if one were behind it in a narrow lane or corridor, but in a wide thoroughfare like Whitehall there is an appreciable angle of vision when the car is 100 yards or 150 yards off. There was no traffic in front of the car. I came to the conclusion that the pace was dangerous because the car might get nipped in the traffic further down. I thought the pace was dangerous to the people in the car. I had, in fact, a very strong presentiment; I give it to you for what it is worth.

Re-examined. In one way I have had experience of speeds. I am familiar with 100 yards racing. The 100 yards is run at the rate of about 20 miles an hour, and it flashed upon my mind that no man could have travelled quite so fast as that, that nobody could "live with that motor car.

ALFRED HENRY BRIDGEMAN , clerk in the Colonial Office. On September 30, about 2.20 p.m., I was in Parliament Street on the west side, near Charles Street and Downing Street, a little to the north of the Home Office door. My attention was attracted by the sound of a horn or hooter, and looking towards Charing Cross I saw a car outside the traffic going south, travelling so fast that I stopped and watched its course. I should say the speed was high and excessive. I turned round to watch it. The speed was not slackened after passing me. I saw deceased in the middle of the road, but only momentarily, as my view was intercepted by the body of the car. The course of the car was slightly diverted to the west or right side, and just after that I heard what I describe as a thud. The car immediately swung round to the right and swept across the road, resting with the back wheels against the pavement, opposite the come Office. The car was well clear of the south-going traffic.

Cross-examined. When I first saw the car the road was clear in front of it. The horn was sounded many times. I agree that it is difficult to exactly estimate the speed of the car. I am not a motorist and have not ridden in a motor car with a speedometer. Deceased had no protection from the refuges at all. He seemed to me to be going straight across to the corner of Charles Street.

HERBERT LOWE MAUD , agent, Anerley. On the day in question I was walking towards Charing Cross on the west side of Parliament Street." When I got to the Local Government Board I noticed the peculiar sound of a horn or syren, and looking up saw the car coming southwards. It was then about 150 yards off, practically in the centre of the road. I did not actually see the accident. I saw the body being placed in the motor car.

Cross-examined. I estimated the speed of the car by the way it was passing the other traffic. I say it was going twice as quickly as the other traffic. I have never driven a motor car.

Re-examined. I have been a cyclist, and that gives one some opportunity of judging speed.

JOHN SAMUEL FOSTER , civil servant, in the receiving department at New Scotland Yard. On the afternoon of September 30 I was on the pavement close to Grindlay's Bank, which is north of Lyons's tea shop. I noticed the motor car coming from the direction of Charing Cross. It was then about 40 or 50 yards away in the middle of the road, but nearer to the off side than to the new. It was going very fast, but I am not a judge of speed; I should say about 30 miles, an hour. It was going more quickly than the ordinary motor cab, and that is what made me notice it. I have never seen a vehicle in Whitehall going as fast as that. I watched it coming towards me and then turned and followed it. So far as I could see, the direction of the car was not altered. I noticed the old gentleman crossing the road a little to the north of one of the refuges; he was going straight across. The car hit him and knocked him over, and skidded round and backed on to the pavement near to Charles Street. The deceased was struck by the wing on the near side of the car; it seemed to me to be the front wing. He may also have been struck by the back part of the car, but when the car turned round, the body of it obscured my view. I saw the deceased fall on his face. I went up to see whether he was killed.

Cross-examined. If the deceased had been struck by the back part of the car as it skidded I do not think I could have seen him struck, because the car went round. I should say that people who say deceased was only struck by the back part of the car are mistaken. I saw the front part of the car hit him and knock him away. I do not set myself up as a judge of speed, but I have a rough idea of it. I told the coroner I thought the speed was about 30 miles an hour.

ERNEST FLEIG , omnibus conductor. On September 30, about 2.30 p.m., I was collecting fares on the top of the omnibus driven by the witness Young. I heard a motor horn behind me and looked round. The omnibus was then opposite the Duke of Buccleuch's house, between Whitehall Gardens and Richmond Terrace. When I saw the car it was abreast of Whitehall Gardens. I should say the speed of the car was 25 miles an hour. I did not notice the old gentleman till the car was very nigh on top of him. The oar skidded round and I could not see which part of the car hit him. Our omnibus was leading its particular line of traffic as deceased crossed in front of us. Just before the car reached him it turned a little to the right. I did not see the car strike the old gentleman; he was hidden from my view. The brakes were applied about, four or five yards from him. I saw no, alteration in the speed of the car.

Cross-examined. I did not notice the deceased look at all towards the car. It all happened very suddenly. I saw the car skid and I took it that that was due to the brakes being applied to it.


JOHN HESKETH PEARSON (prisoner, on oath). I am 22 and live at Brighton. I am the owner of the car, which is a Daimler car of 42 h. p. On the afternoon in question we were coming from Trafalgar

Square down Whitehall. I was taking a friend, Mr. Terrell, to his office in Victoria Street. He was sitting in front with me and a Mr. Preston was sitting in the tonneau behind. The traffic was rather thick coming down and I was unable to go much faster than the ordinary horse-drawn traffic, which was more or less blocking the road, until about 50 or 60 yards before I got to Charles Street, when I got outside the traffic and overtook it. I ultimately got past it near Charles Street. I drew out of the traffic because it was going very slowly. I was behind it the best of the time and I wanted to get past it. Within about 20 yards of Charles Street I saw the old gentleman crossing the road. I did not see any necessity at the time for pulling up, as there was plenty of room to pass in front of him without any trouble at all, only when I got close to him he started hurrying. He was looking straight in front of him and did not seem to take any notice of me at all. His hurrying rather necessitated my changing the direction of my car to pass him in front, which I estimate I would have done by a couple of yards to spare if the car had not skidded. I put my brakes on to prevent me going into the traffic on the other side of the street, and there was a refuge there as well. The studded tyres skid very easily on the hard London streets. There did not seem to be any necessity for me to ease my car. I could have stopped my car in the distance, or I could have eased, by throttling her down to 10 or 12 miles an hour. Ten yards before I got to the deceased I let my clutch out, the effect of which is to take the engine power off the wheels without stopping the engine. I turned the car to the right, that produced the skid, and the car in swinging round hit the old gentleman. I think the part of the car which struck him was somewhere in the neigbourhood of the back wheel; I know it was behind me. The car skiddaed round about three-quarters of a circle and finished up with its hind wheels against the kerb in Charles Street I put the foot brake on but not the hand brake. The foot brake is very powerful and easier to get at in emergencies. I have often had skids in London streets on a dry day. I cannot say that this skid was due to the pace at which she was going. She would skid at ten miles an hour with these tyres if the brakes were suddenly applied.

The Recorder. It is a very alarming thing to be told that if a car is going at a reasonable pace—10 or 12 miles an hour—and you have occasion to put on your brakes it will skid suddenly round in this terrible way.

Witness. You do not always have occasion to put on the brakes and turn the car sharply at the same time.

Examination continued. After the accident I got out. A policeman helped me to put deceased in the car and I took him to the hospital My friends went with me. So far as I remember, deceased was short of the crown of the road. When I overtook the traffic I was very nearly in the middle of the road and between the line of refuges. I was not on the off-side of the crown of the road. I put the speed when I emerged from the traffic at eight miles an hour, because there was a horse 'bus in front of me. At the time of the accident I estimated I was going 15 or 16 miles an hour. With

regard to the evidence of the witnesses who said I was going at 30 miles an hour, in the time I had to accelerate it would have been an impossibility for me to have got up that speed. The distance from where I got out of the traffic to where the collision happened was 50 or 60 yards, as near as I could judge. I could not have got up to such a pace as 30 miles an hour from eight miles an hour in that distance. Fifteen or 16 miles an hour would be a moderate pace that would attract nobody's attention. I have driven a motor for about two years. I think it was the horn which attracted the attention of the crowd, because it is a very loud horn. Mr. Terrell was operating the horn, and I suppose he sounded it frequently because be wanted the traffic ahead to get out of the way. If the car had not skidded I should have pulled up about level with the man, because the car will pull up in her own length, practically speaking, at that pace, but as soon as she started skidding she went round across the road, so I cannot say that I actually did pull her up. If I bad turned to the left and gone behind the deceased I should have gone straight to the refuge. If I had directed her to go behind the refuge on the other side it would have been a very sharp turn, from which my experience of motors would have led me to expect a skid. I could have passed deceased easily if he had not harried.

(Tuesday, January 19.)

JOHN HESKETH PEARSON , recalled, farther examined. At the time I pot on the brakes I was not expecting the car to skid. I never had any idea of it. My experience of driving has been mostly in the country, but I have driven a good deal in town. I should not have expected the car to have skidded if I had put the brakes on in a country road at the pace I was going at because the roads are rougher. As to how it was the car came to travel so far after the skid, this is a very heavy car with rather a high centre of gravity, and as soon as you put the brakes on and lock the back wheels the momentum of the car causes it to swing round. It is harder to make a heavy car start skidding than a lighter car, but as soon as a heavy car starts to skid she will skid to a much greater extent than a lighter car or a car of lower centre of gravity would. The extent of the skid does not necessarily depend upon the pace at which the car is going; it depends upon the suddenness with which the car is drawn up. Taking the same conditions for the same car, it is possible that a skid would be much greater if the car is suddenly pulled up when it is going at a vapid pace than it would be if going at a moderate pace. This was an extraordinary skid, but I have seen a good many skids as bad. It is possible, in my opinion, for my car to skid to that extent, going at a reasonable pace.

The Recorder. In that case, is it safe to drive such a car in London streets at all?

The Witness. You are not always liable to have to pull up your car and turn at the same time—in fact, rarely. It was the combination of turning and putting on the brakes which caused the skid.

Examination continued. The ordinary traffic at the time was going pretty slowly; it was mostly horse-drawn. I was in no hurry at the time. The front part of the car got past deceased entirely. I have every reason to suppose that the car would have passed the deceased if no skid bad taken place. I turned the car to the right because if you pass in front of a man he can see you; if you pass behind he cannot, and it is a very common thing when a man hears a horn to step back impulsively without looking up at all.

The Recorder. Do you consider, as a motorist, that you have the right in London streets to continue at a rapid pace—whatever pace you like—without regard to the traffic in front of you or beside of you?

The Witness. Well, I think this was an unforeseen circumstance; I did not expect him to hurry.

The Recorder. These are things which will happen. People sometimes lose their presence of mind. You do not suggest, do you that His Majesty's subjects haven't the right to cross the road. They have as much right to cross the road as you have to drive a motor.

Cross-examined. There is a speedometer on the car but it was out of action at the time, so that my only method of gauging the pace is my own judgment. I have driven in London ever since I started driving. I agree that the more quickly a car is going the more likely it is to skid if the brakes are suddenly put on. The probability is that if I had been going at 25 miles an hour I should have smashed the car against the pavement. I think there was probably the width of the car between deceased and the left hand refuge. When I was at Charing Cross the traffic extended something like 40 or 50 yards down the street; I could not tell you exactly. I could not tell how long I was kept waiting by the traffic. I was not getting impatient at all. I had overtaken all the traffic before the accident happened, traveling upon the off side of it. I cannot remember that I passed on the near side of the traffic going in the same direction. I may have passed on the near side of a motor bus higher up the street, but I do not think I did so near the accident. The horn was sounding more or less continuously. I was not sounding it myself. For a good distance we had traffic in front of us. Probably Mr. Terrell saw this old gentleman crossing the road and sounded it to warn him. He was not sounding it at my direction. At the time of the accident the speed would be still increasing. I have never tested what pace I could get up to from eight miles an hour in 50 or 60 yards. I have had the car five or six months. I do not remember whether the engine was working at its fullest power at the time. You cannot open the throttle absolutely immediately, because it is rather apt to choke an engine. If I had wanted to stop the car I should just do it by throttling her down I was on top speed. The car would accelerate more quickly on the second speed than on top speed. In the same way if you have a high gear bicycle it is harder to get going quickly than if you have a low gear bicycle: it is exactly the same principle. I said at the police court I could see that he was an old gentleman and that I thought he would keep on at the same pace as he was going or else stop. When

I first saw him he was a good deal to the left of me. I thought he was going to keep on until I was about ten yards in front of him, Travelling at 15 miles an hour the car would cover 22 ft. per second, so that the distance would be covered in about three seconds. It would not be practically simultaneous; three second is a very appreciable time. The car would pull up in her own length, which is about 14 ft. or 15 ft. You always take out the clutch if you are going to stop the car, if you do not stop the engine. I could easily have stopped the car in 20 yards, of I could have allowed down. The first thing I did was to pull out the clutch. I was then within about eight or ten yards. As far I could see the old gentleman never saw me as all, unless he did so at the very last moment. I pulled up by natural instinct. I knew I had gone close to the old man, within a yard or so. I could not say whether he stopped back as the front of the car passed him. I have a theory about it, but I do not know what happened exactly. Pulling out the clutch would have no immediate effect upon the pace of the car, which of course, still retained its momentum, but the diminution of speed would be appreciable in a very short distance, I should say six or seven yards. My view is that the old gentleman, to avoid the accident, ought either to have stood still or gone on at exactly the same pace. It is rather hard to say whether people hearing a motor horn are likely to hurry, but most people look, do not they? They either hurry or step back or remain where they are as the case may be, and they must exercise their own judgment.

The Recorder. What obligation do you recognise devolves under such circumstances upon the driver of the car.

The Witness. I always use as much care and consideration as I possibly can in driving in traffic. A driver certainly ought to pull up if a person crossing a road is right in front of him or is likely to be in front of him.

Re-examined. It is right to blow the horn when overtaking traffic And passing it.

GEORGE GLYNNE TERRELL . I am a civil engineer employed in railway Work. On the afternoon in question I was sitting next the prisoner There was a good deal of traffic starting from Charing Cross. About 50 or 60 yards from the scene of the accident we had an opening and drew out. I was sounding the horn continuously to caution the people to get out of the way. I have driven myself. I am not sure whether it is in accordance with motor car regulations to sound the horn when overtaking traffic and passing it, but we are obliged to carry the horn. About 25 yards from the scene of the accident I saw the old man crossing Whitehall from east to west, some distance from a refuge, The accused slightly altered his course, I cannot say immediately, but very soon afterwards, and turned to the right slightly. As we approached deceased he suddenly quickened towards us, and the drier altered his course again to the right. About seven or eight yards from the accident he applied his brake, and the application of the brake and the slight turn of the car caused the car to skid, and in swinging round it knocked over deceased. Deceased was struck by the hind

part of the car, about the mud guard. No part of the front wing or front wheel struck deceased, of that I am confident I was sitting on the side nearest deceased, and I feel confident that if the car had not skidded the old gentleman would have been avoided altogether. I consider the pace of the car after we drew out of the traffic has been greatly exaggerated, and that the greatest speed attained, which was at the time of the accident, was approximately 15 miles an hour. It never struck roe that the foot passenger was in danger until he ran into us. The defendant having turned to the right, the car skidded, and it was the back of the car that knocked deceased over. If I had been driving myself I should have taken exactly the same step ss the accused took; I do not see that there was any other course to take.

Cross-examined. It was not necessary to slow down when we first saw deceased. I consider it is a driver's duty to slow down if there is danger of knocking people over who are crossing the road or if it appears that there is a risk of doing so. At the time we saw deceased there were no signs of any accident at all. At the pace he was walking across the road he would not have been near the car and would not have been knocked over, even by skidding, but he quickened his pace very suddenly and came into the car, which put the defendant into a more or leas difficult position.

The Recorder. Do you think the public have a right to cross the road in front of motor cars.

Witness. I always think the public have that right and that the other traffic should stop for them.

Further cross-examined. I have not driven very much in London, but I have driven in other towns—Manchester and Liverpool. My experience it that when people hear the motor horn they do not hurry up. but they look round and almost invariably step back; I have very seldom seen a case of a person rushing in front of a car. If I am startled myself by a motor in the street I always stop. It seems to come natural to one to do so. If deceased bad kept on at the same pace at which he was originally crossing he would not have met with the accident. I think we should have been several yards away from. him if he had not quickened. I am perfectly certain he was not knocked down by the near wheel of the car; I should say the front wheel was two or three yards from him. I have never been in this particular car before. I have never seen a car skid so badly as this when only going 15 or 16 miles an hour. I have seen cars turn completely round going at a less speed than this was, but that was where there were tramway lines, and whether they caught it or not I could not say.

HUGH RICHARD PRESTON , manager of the Royal Albert Hotel Brighton. On the afternoon in question I was riding in the tonnesu of the car on the left-hand side. When the old gentleman was struck I should think the pace was not more than 16 miles an hour. When the horn was sounded deceased appeared to take no notice, but walked directly in front of the car. The car was turned slightly to the right when within 10 yards of the deceased, and then we went

on. When the brakes were applied the car skidded violently and knocked deceased down close to where I was sitting. I certainly thought deceased would stop. If the driver had tarned to the left he could have gone between deceased and the left-hand refuge. We were on our way to Brighton., going home. I noticed one or two people turning round to look at us, but I thought they were attracted by the sound of the horn; it has rather a fierce sound. It never occurred to me that they were looking at us because we were going too quickly.

CHARLES JARROTT . I am an expert in motoring matters and have a show room in Great Marlborough Street. I have driven motor cars for about 12 years, and I wrote the chapter in the Badminton Book," How to Drive," and I also wrote another book on" Motors and Motor Racing," which was published about two years ago, dealing with the whole subject of motoring. I have not seen this car, but I know the type. I never met the excused before yesterday. Under the circumstances which have been detailed I should expect extensive skidding to take place if the car was suddenly stopped. Much would depend on the car itself and the road surface. The level surface would tend to increase the skidding, but it is possible to skid even on a dry macadam road in the country on turning a corner. The wooden pavement exposed to a great amount of traffic would get a polish. There is a greater tendency to skid with a long carriage body. I never heard of any rule of the told providing that driven traffic should pass behind pedestrian. One has to use one's own judgment. In the case of a vehicle coming across at right angles, whether you should pass behind it would depend upon whether the vehicle had the right to the road. If you are on the main road a vehicle coming out of a side road would have to get out of the way, but supposing it has got far into the main road, you would have to pass behind it As I understand the law, in the case of a pedestrian on the near side of the road, it would be open to one to drive either behind or in front of him as circumstances might dictate. I have no legal knowledge on the point, except the knowledge of a road-user for many years. I agree that in the case of a motorist overtaking traffic it would be desirable to sound the horn.

Cross-examined. I should say that in 50 or 60 yards, commencing with a speed of seven or eight miles an hour, it would be possible to get up a speed of 20 miles an hour within 50 or 60 yards. In the next 100 yards you would accelerate much quicker and ought to be doing over 40 miles an hour if the oar was running perfectly. I should think it would be quite possible to gain a gain of 25 or 30 miles an hour in a run of 150 yards or 200 yards. This was undoubtedly a bad skid, but I should think it could have occurred with the car going at a speed of only 15 or 16 miles an hour if the brakes were applied very suddenly. It it a thing that an experienced driver would be prepared for. The skidding would have been a serious matter if a fast vehicle, say, a motor cab, coming in the opposite direction had been run into. I agree that it requires a presence of, mind to drive these things in the public streets.

Re-examined. If a car skidded when going at 20 miles an hour I do not think it would upset if it went on skidding. If it goes on skidding it is safe. It is when the car stops that the tendency to upset occurs. If the surface was sufficiently smooth there would be no danger of upsetting. If the car had been going very fast I think it would have been upset when it reached the kerbstone. As to easing the car 25 or 30 yards from a crossing pedestrian. I think that is the course I should adopt. My first impulse would be to case the car until I had been to make up my mind definitely whether I could get torough. In this case the driver probably formed the opinion that he was safe in passing in front of the deceased and took the risk.

BENJAMIN PERRY , Harlesden Gardens, Willesden, also gave evidence as to the accident. When he first saw deceased he was starting to cross the road and was looking straight in front of him. Witness was almost on a line with him. Deceased appeared to hesitate, and the accident happened almost immediately afterwards, deceased being struck by the hinder part of the car.

Captain MONTAGU WEMYSS SUART, retired civil servant, for 20 years in the Colonial Police, gave an account of the accident as he saw it from the corner of Charles Street.

(Wednesday, January 20.)

Verdict, Not guilty. The foreman expressed the desire of the jury to give prisoner the benefit of the doubt.


(Monday, January 18.)

Reference Number: t19090112-63

WARRINER, John (50, cook) ; breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Frederick Thomas Clay, with intent to commit a felony therein; stealing bottles of spirits and other articles, the goods of the said F. T. Clay, and receiving the said property, knowing it to have been stolen.

Mr. H. R. D. May prosecuted; Mr. Wykeham Wickham defended.

FREDERICK THOMAS CLAY , landlord of the "White Bear," 138, Kennington Park Road. At 12.30 a.m. on December 10 I had my house properly closed, and at 6.55 the same morning I found that the door at the end of the corridor had been forcibly opened and 50 or 60 boxes of cigars and 12 or 13 bottles of spirits abstracted. The bottles in Court correspond exactly with those missing from my cabinet. The dummy bottle is not mine. I lost also a towel or d'oyley (produced) which I identify by the laundry number. The tall bottles contain brandy and the shorter whisky.

Detective-inspector ALFRED BALL, K. Division. On December 11 I searched prisoner's house and found nine

bottles of assorted spirits, one empty "Three Star" brandy bottle in the back yard, and the tablecloth (produced) was handed me by the officer who was with me. Prisoner was upstairs. When I read the search-warrant he said, "You will find nothing here." When I told him of finding the property he said, "Well, you have found it; but I shall not tell you where I got it." When the tablecloth was being removed he said, "You need not trouble about taking that; it is my wife's." When I said he would be charged with breaking and entering the "White Bear" he said, "You can't do me for burglary; but you might for buying; for I am fond of a big shilling." On being charged, he said, "I went out early this morning to market, and bought the brandy and whisky. I did not ask any questions. The tablecloth was around the whisky when I bought it." The prisoner lives at 23, Marshgate Lane, Stratford—about seven miles from Kennington. Prisoner keeps a tea and coffee shop in a small private house.

ALICE JENKINS , barmaid at the "White Bear." The tablecloth (produced) was on the cabinet the night before the burglary. I know it by this stain which it bears.

Cross-examined. I should not think that each branch of the Fife Laundry would use the same mark. I picked out the mark at the Police court, and said I was positive that it was the cloth.

ALFRED EATWELL, cabdriver, , 26 Lansdowne Gardens, Lambeth, At 7.40 a.m. on December 11, in the Kennington Road, I saw prisoner and another man standing on the kerb with a him box similar to that produced. They asked me to drive them to Bow Bridge. I did so Prisoner gave me a cigar. The other man alighted at Bow Bridge, and I took the prisoner, with the box, to Marshgate Lane, Stratford. Eight days afterwards I identified him at the police station.

Detective-sergeant JAMES JEFFREY, K Division. On December 11 I Went to the "White Bear" public-house and found that it had been Burgiariously entered. I found this bow tie, similar to that worn by the prisoner. Subsequently to the police court proceedings I served a notice on the prisoner.

Mr. Wickham objected to the word "before" in the form of notice which the Police had been using for forty years, and submitted that this notice was given under The statute of 1866, repealed by that of 1871, which substituted "after" for "before. "

His Lordship. Certainly the word" before" was rubbish.

Mr. Wickham. Then I submit the notice was had. It has exhausted itself and It cannot be amended, seven days' notice being required. I therefore ask that it he ruled out.

Judge Lumley Smith: The precise defining at what period of the trial the mouth Should be given of intention to prove a conviction is obvioue surpi; but the Objection must be overruled.

Cross-examined. The whole of the property stolen was not found at the prisoner's house.

Detective JOHN MARSHALL, K. Division. On December 11 I found at prisoner's house a tablecloth (produced). On October 12, 1906, prisoner was sentenced to nine months' imprisonment in the second

division for receiving a quantity of electric cable which had been stolen. In the present case many other goods were missing besides those found with prisoner.


JOHN WARRINER (prisoner, on oath). I go to Billingsgate Market to buy my fish. On December 11 I arose at 5.30, lit three fires, washed, and went to market at six. I went on board one of the "Red-Cross" cutters—a fish-carrier running to the North Sea from Hull to collect fish—and saw an old shipmate. On board the cutter I got a dozen cigars, which are some of the cigars produced, and tobacco also, from the old sailors. Coming ashore with my friend I met another friend and we went into the only saloon in Billingsgate. Almost anything you can mention can be bought in Billingsgate, being kepi for the use of sailors. While in the saloon I was aceosted by a man with this whisky and brandy in two baskets, who asked me to bay the last eight bottles he had. Being near Christmas I bought them, after a little argument. I did not ask him any question, for I had bought of him three bottles of spirits on the first of the month. He had told me he was a traveller commissioned to sell this liquor. I bought what I thought were eight bottles of spirits; bat one of the bottles was a dummy got up for sale. I was cheated. I paid with money borrowed from my wife. When I bought the bottles the sailor took a cloth off the empty baskets and wrapped the spirits in it so that I should not break them. I had a market-bag containing fish. I took the fish out, put the liquor in, and bought another bag for 2d. to hold the fish. I asked a friend who had nothing to do to go over London Bridge with me. He carried the fish and I carried the liquor. We caught a tram at the Borough, got off at Lambeth New Baths or Lambeth Road, walked about 200 yards up Kensington Road to Walnut Tree Walk, and knocked at the door of No. 62, asking for a man named Fitzgerald. One of the lodgers appeared and I said I had come for a box which I had left there a fortnight earlier. He took the box off the landing and gave it to me. I opened it and placed in it the bag of fish and the bag containing liquor. This was about 7.30 in the morning. My friend and I carried the box to Kennington Road, where the cabman picked us up. I went home. My friend went part of the way with me and paid half the cab fare.

Cross-examined. The friend who came with me in the cab is, I think, at sea. His name is John Williams, not William Quick. I know William Quick. As to the cigars, I knew, without inquiring, where they came from. I did not buy them. They were given to me by a friend.

Re-examined. As to my conviction for receiving stolen electric cable, I cannot remember the date of the occurrence; but on one Saturday in May, whilst I was with my wife at the theatre, three men from the electric-lighting station put the cable in my place. They were hard-working men. I was sorry for them, and in order to be the means of saving their families from ruin I pleaded guilty to

receiving it. I knew that they had not come by it honestly. I advised them to take it back again, but they had not an opportunity. This conviction was about two years ago. I have since been living a respectable life. I did not take anything from the" White Beer."

Mrs. WARRINER, wile of the prisoner. On the morning of December 11 I gave the prisoner 30s. for marketing purposes. I have an independent income.

HERBERT PAYNE , clerk, 62, Walnut Tree Walk, Lambeth. About 7.30 a.m. on December 11 prisoner called on me and asked for Mr. Fitzgerald, the lite landlord of the house, saying he had left a tin box with Mr. Fitsgerald. I gave prisoner a tin box which had been left in my charge to be called for. Prisoner put two parcels into the box.

Cross-examined. I had never known prisoner before. I did not investigate his right to the box. It was the only box there.

FREDERICK LINIB , 212, Camberwell Road. I have been a jobmaster. I was in Billingsgate early in the morning of December 11. A man offered me something for sale. He had some bottled whisky and brandy in a fish basket, with something like a towel on top of the basket over the bottle. I did not buy. About a quarter of an hour after I left the man I went to have my coffee in the only public house in Billingsgate, and saw the same man offering something from his basket to two other men in the public house. I think the prisoner was one. The other was a dark man whom I have seen two or three limes in the market. Except on that occasion I had never seen the prisoner before. Reading of this case in the newspapers, it occurred to me that it might refer to the man whom I had seen selling bottles of spirits. You can buy pretty well anything at Billingsgate. Verdict, Not guilty.

Reference Number: t19090112-64

SMITH, William (28, dealer) ; having received five money-orders of the total value of £95 for, and on account of Gertrude Clee; fraudulently converting the same to his own use and benefit.

Mr. Sands prosecuted; Mr. Burnie defended.

GERTRUDE CLEE . For about nine months I have known the prisoner under the names of" Nelson" and" Scotch Willie," and have known also a man named Edwards, or Fournier. About the beginning of September I had some intention of going with a girl friend to South Africa. A gentleman friend sent me money to pay for the passages. The money arrived about September 15, in money orders for £40 and £10. and three £15 postal notes. The sender did not give me his address. I wrote to him at Kelly's Library, Shaftesbury Avenue, The two postal notes (produced) for £15 each are part of the remittance, and are payable at Port Elizabeth. The others were payable at Donald Currie's office. I changed my mind and did not go to South Africa. I gave those postal orders to Edwards, to whom I said that I was not experienced in money orders, asking could he do anything with them. He took them away with him and came back and told me he could not get any money for them. He said he had left them at the shipping office, and left the £40 order at the post office. I had given

him the orders about September 16 or 17. Next day he told me he could not get the money. I believed him to be acting straight forwardly, and did not take any steps to recover the money. About the beginning of November I happened to see Edwards. In consequence of something that I had been told, I saw "Scotch Willie," or Smith, at the Marlborough Police Court, together with Edwards. Edwards was charged at the court. I said to Smith, "Is it true that you have been to the shipping office and had some money belonging to me!" He said, "No. You can go to Donald Currie's office and see for yourself." Next morning I made inquiries at that office. I next saw Smith and Edwards together at the "Northumberland" public house Wells Street, on November 1. I asked, "What about my money!" and Smith said that he had some of my money and was willing to pay me back; that he had a cheque for £150 and would give me all the money I had if I met him in the course of a week. This (produced) is the cheque he showed me. This, I think, was on a Monday. I waited till next Friday, when he had promised to meet me, but he did not turn up. I went to Tottenham Court Road Police Station and book out a warrant for Edwards.

Cross-examined. I never saw Smith about this matter till I saw him outside the Marlborough Police Court. The orders were made payable to me and to a girl friend of mine, Herbert Ruding. She was known as "Miss Herbert." That was a nickname of hers. Her orders and mine were sent by special messenger to my address at 2, Bolsover Street. Edwards was not to go to Port Elizabeth to get the money. He told me that he had left some of the orders at the shipping office, and some at the G. P. O. It was true that he had left some at the G. P. O. Smith had told me that he had had some of the money and gave me 30s. I have been told that the 30s. was only a commission for doing this business on behalf of Edwards. I wrote to Smith on December 13 that I believed Edwards had given him a few pounds to do this business. I had been told that.

Re-examined. I wrote to prisoner at the request of some of his friends, whom I met in a public house, thinking that, if I wrote in a friendly strain, he would let me know where the money was. About six or seven people were present, all women except one male friend of the prisoner. They told me that "Scotch Willie" was innocent, that he had not had any of the money, and asked me to write to cheer him up.

Detective-sergeant FREDERICK WEST, C division. At 4 p.m., on December 10, I saw the prisoner walking in Oxford Street with another man. Knowing that a warrant had been issued for his arrest, I caught him by the shoulder. He turned round, and before I could say anything, said, "What are you arresting me for? Is it through Gertie Clee?" I said, "Yes," and then put him in a cab. On repeating the charge to him he said. "For God's sake, let me go, Sergeant West. Do not take me. I will give you £50 to let me go." He took from his tie a diamond pin, and said, "I will give you this as well. I would rather you had it than Arthur Newton." He said further, "It is no use denying it; I got the orders changed. Fournier

had his "corner,' and Briggs—a man I know as Ruding—had his. I wrote to the G. P. O. and the shipping office. The order that was sent to port Elizabeth was made payable to Ruding, but we got it cashed. It was Briggs who went to Tunbridge Wells and wrote the letter as though it came from the 'cam'—that meant the gentleman who had sent the money; the 'mug.' That letter authorized us to get the money. I am sorry now that I had anything to do with it. If it had not been for Fournier I should have acted straight to the girl." Prisoner was searched, and I found this letter relating to the cheque already produced. Shortly afterwards the inspector at the police station handed me that cheque, and the following morning, at the police court, I had the cheque and letter in my hand when the prisoner said, "That is my cheque; I must have left it in the cab." I well know by sight the man Edwards, who is prisoner's companion.

Cross-examined. I know well the man Briggs mentioned by prisoner. I know Briggs as Hebert Ruding also.

Re-examined. For the last eight or nine years I have know Briggs by about four names, of which Ruding is one.

Sergeant HENRY FARRANT, D Division. I hold the warrant for the prisoner's arrest. On hearing the warrant read, he said, "I did not have all the money. I saw Mrs. Clee last night, and she told me she had heard that I did not have it all. The others have most of it. "

HAROLD TALLING , clerk to Donald Currie and co. and the Union Castle Line, head office, Fenchurch Street. On September 18, prisoner and another man whom I cannot describe, came to my office and said they wished to book a passage in the as. "Tintagel Castle," sailing on the 26th. They filled up the necessary forms (produced) and the indemnity required by the Caps authorities. Prisoner signed as William Nelson, and the other man as John Edwards. The passage-money for each was £12 12s. and they gave me two money orders, one for £40 and the other for £10. I passed them through the bank in the ordinary way. They said they wanted to travel third class instead of second, and asked that the difference should be refunded. I said, "We can do so when the orders have been passed through the bank and paid by the post office." I issued the passage tickets.

HENRY JAMES SMITH , clerk in the Union Castle Line office, Fen-church Street. On September 23 I received a telephone message: "I am Nelson. It is no use my friend or myself going to South Africa." I told the speaker to write a letter setting out the fact, and on the next day I received a letter (produced) dated from 19, Nott Street, Marylebone Road. After some additional correspondence, I received a letter dated Tunbridge Wells, September 29, signed "F. Hill," authorizing the refund, which was made, less 10 percent.

CHARLES HAMMOND , clerk in the office of the Union Castle Line, Fenchurch Street. On October 2 prisoner called at my office, presenting a refund note, for which the assistant cashier handed him £22 13s. being £25 4s. less a charge of 10 per cent. For refunding.

WILLIAM DODSWORTH , clerk in the Money Order Department, Queen Victoria Street. I produce two postal orders which have been cashed,

and some money orders numbered 40438/9, headed "Port Elizabeth" and issued at that place in lieu of money orders 30378-9-80, payable there. The three orders issued from Throgmorton Avenue total £45, and the orders brought back from Port Elizabeth £44 7s. 7d. the difference representing 12d. poundage on the new orders, 4d. registered letter fee, and a penny for ordinary postage. On September 18, being on duty at the inquiry office, I saw the prisoner enter with two companions. He asked that a cable message might be sent with the three orders from Throgmorton Avenue, so that the orders could be paid in London. One of the men signed the application as Rawdin, as if he were the payee. I told him thav before we could pay we should have to obtain the sanction of the remitter. Both prisoner and Rawdin told me that would be impossible, as the remitter was a gentleman of means travelling about, and having no permanent address. I remarked that this was curious, and that we should have to make inquiries. They left the orders with me, and by instruction I told the applicants that we could not pay as matters stood. I asked them for the remitter's letter, which they refused to give up, saying that it referred to private matters. Prisoner said this first and Rawdin repeated it after him. On the following day the office sent a printed letter to the remitter, 54, Shaftesbury Avenue, but did not get any reply. On September 23, Rawdin came back and said he would be returning to Cape Colony. The orders were then banded back to him, and the amounts advised.

CHARLES FREDERICK HUDSON owner of 19, Nott Street. Marylebone. Prisoner has lodged in my house for about three months, arriving on September 7. I knew him as Rawdin, and another man who lived with him I knew as Smith. I remember my wife taking in a registered letter. This is her handwriting; the date is November 7. On the same day prisoner and the other man left the house.

Cross-examined. Prisoner I knew as Rawdin, not as Smith. Verdict, Guilty of larceny.

Sergeant FREDERICK WEST said the prisoner had been twice convicted in Scotland, and had been sentenced in England on Novemher 24, 1898, to six months, and on September 5, 1899, to twelve months' imprisonment. Prisoner was a most despicable character. He and two others had attempted to blackmail the gentleman mentioned in the case, who had committed suicide owing to the threats of prisoner and two companions.

Sentence, Two years' hard labour.


(Wednesday, January 20.)

Reference Number: t19090112-65

BRESENHAM. Patrick (33, labourer), and BURKE, Edward (36, labourer); both robbery with violence on Michael Beston and stealing from him a purse, a pawnticket and the sum of 3d. 6d.

Mr. Swinburne prosecuted.

MICHAEL BESTON , labourer, 28, Broad Way Charmers, Deptford. On January 1 I met prisoners between 12 and one o'clock in the "Fountain" public-house. I knew Burke well, but the other prisoner only by sight. In the "Fountain" I asked Burke to have a drink and called for three ales. From there we went to the "Druid's Head," Church Street, Deptford, where we were refused drinks. Having been refused we went to the "Centuries" at the corner of High Street, Deptford, and had four or five drinks, for which I paid. We were in there about an hour. From the "Centurion" we went to the "Duke of Cambridge" and had a drink there. From there we went to the "Regent," and finally arrived at the "Oxford Arms," where we were again refused. We were all drunk. I then went to the urinal to make water. Burke followed me cut and Bresenham followed Burke. In the urinal Burke pulled me down and Bresenham pulled the pocket out of my trousers and went through my pockets. I had 3d. 8d. in money, a purse, and a pawnticket. I was not hurt. They ran away, leaving me on the ground, one going in one direction and the other in another. I went home after that, and an hour and a half afterwards went to the Greenwich Police Station and informed the police. Prisoners were brought in about a quarter of an hour afterwards. While I was telling the inspector the charge Bresenham used obscene language and threatened to shoot me if he went to prison over me and called me a f——g bastard. Burke said nothing to me or when he was charged.

HENRY ANDERSON . I am a hand working on the "Band of Hope" barge at Deptford. About four o'clock on January 1 I was standing in Church Street, outside the "Oxford Arms." I saw the two prisoners and prosecutor coming up Church Street together, all the worse for drink, prosecutor being a little worse than prisoners. I heard them call for drinks, which were refused, and they went outside and all three went into the urinal. The next I saw was prisoner Bresenham coming out of the urinal, which belongs to the Borough Council. He was followed by Burke and they went in different directions. When prosecutor came out I noticed that his trousers pocket was torn out on the left-hand side. He said something to me and went in the direction taken by the prisoner Bresenham. I did not see any woman there, I could not say whether prosecutor's pocket was torn out before he went into the "Oxford Arms. "

Detective HENRY HELBY, R Division. On January 1 I was prisoner at Blackheath road Station. He showed me his trousers and I noticed that the pocket had been torn away. I also noticed that his back was covered with slime. In consequence of a statement made to me, I, in company with Sergeant Tarbard, arrested the two prisoners. I saw Bresenham in a public-house in High Street, Deptford, and said to him, "I shall arrest you for being concerned with Burke in robbing a man in a urinal Deptford." He said, "It was not me that fetched his money. It was that one-eyed cow that he was with." He was taken to the station, and, on being charged, said to prosecutor. "I will f——g well kill you, you bastard." His language was very coarse all the time. I searched him and found nothing on him.

Detective-sergeant HARRY TARBARD. I went with last witness to arrest Barke. I told him I should arrest him for being associated with Patrick Bresenham in robbing a man in a urinal in Church Street that afternoon. He said, "I did not have his b—money." I took him to the station where he was charged. Nothing was found on him. He was sober. Prosecutor who had been drunk but was then sober repeated his statement in the presence of the prisoners. Burke said, "I will shoot you if you get time. If I get time I will shoot you when I come out," and was very violent in his manner.

Verdict. Not guilty.

The Recorder agreed that there was not sufficient evidence. Prosecutor was evidently beastly drunk and his evidence was not to be relied on.



(Tuesday, January 12.)

Reference Number: t19090112-66

QUICK, Thomas (30, labourer), and COWLEY, John (28, labourer), both pleaded guilty of burglarly in the dwelling-house of John Farrow Gentry and stealing therein one jacket and one handkerechief, his goods; and breaking and entering the Upton Cross Schoolhouse and stealing therein one poker, one pair of shoes, and certain money—to wit, the sum of ls. 2d., the goods and moneys of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Burgeases of the County Borough of West Ham.

Both had been previously convicted.

Detective-sergeant William Brown, K, stated that prisoners did no work and were habitual criminals, their occupation being breaking into public-houses. Some 20 burglaries in public-houses were attributable to them, and in nearly every case they had poisoned the dogs.

Sentences: Quick, Three years' penal servitude; Cowley, 20 months' hard labour.


(Wednesday, January 13.)

Reference Number: t19090112-67

KNOCK, Ada Jane (39) , indicted and charged on coroner's inquisition with the manslaughter of her son. Bertie Knock , pleaded guilty.

Mr. Travers Humphreys prosecuted.

Mr. Justice Grantham said this was a very sad case. It appeared that the little boy, the son of the accused, was a little troublesome while he was doing some work, and she picked up a piece of iron and threw it in his direction, hawing no intention of hitting him; it would not have hit him if he had not dodged. Apparently he got

Over it and went to school. Some days afterwards, however, he became ill and died, whereupon it was found that his brain had been injured. His Lordship was certain that the accused had no idea of doing any harm to the child and that it was quite unintentional on her part. He passed upon her a nominal sentence of one day's imprisonment, which would entitle her to be at once discharged.

Reference Number: t19090112-68

HORSNELL, George (47, labourer), and HORSNELL, Elisa, were indicted for and charged on coroner's inquisition with the manslaughter of Phyllis Bernice Horsnell.

Mr. Symmons (with him Mr. Bodkin) prosecutes.

MARTHA WERN , 122, Beckton Road, Canning Town. I belong to the sect known as the Peculiar People; my husband is a minister of the sect—that is to say, he preaches. I have had no medical training, but I go among the sick, offering any comfort and advice that I can. On November 29 I called at prisoner's house and saw their little girl, Phyllis Bernice, aged four; she and two other children were suffering from measles. I told female prisoner that the child should be kept warm and given a light diet. On the Sunday following I again called; the child then had bronchitis; I saw George Horsnell and told him I thought the child needed great care. He asked me to get my husband to call, so that the child might be anointed and prayed over. On December. 8 I again saw the child; she had pneumonia; I put on to her hot oil flannels and so on; I prayed, and there was a change of out sect, Mr. Moore, should be sent for, and he came. I did not suggest that a medical man should be sent for. On the 17th I called again; the child was dying. I asked female prisoner whether there was anyone else she would like to send for. By that I did not mean a medical man. If God thought the child should be spared that would happen; we had done all we could. On the 15th there was a special prayer meeting at the house; Moore was present to pray. He is a labourer. I do not assume that he had any power over the child's life; he is simply one of our elders and ministers. There is nothing in our beliefs to prevent one senting for a doctor; everybody is free. My husband is employed, as is prisoner, at the Gas Works; there is free medical attendance for all the employees.

To George Horsnell. I have known you for 30 years. You have been a good father to your children.

Police-constable GEORGE ASTMAN, K 73. On December 17, at 7.15 p.m., I saw the male prisoner at Plaistow Police Station. He said, "I've come to report the death at 3.30 p.m. to-day." I said, "Has she been seen by a doctor!" He said, "No: we do not believe In doctors, owing to our religious belief" I said, "Have you any idea what the child died from?" He said, "She was seized with measles on November 30, but I believe other things set in." I then communicated with the divisional surgeon.

ANGUS KENNEDY , divisional surgeon. On December 17, about 7.30 p.m., I went to 17, Fisher Street; the child had then been dead some hours. On the following day I made a post-mortem examination. I found the right pleural cavity was full of fluid; both lungs were affected with bronchial pneumonia; there was nothing the matter with the heart, but there was an ante-mortem clot in it, indicating a very slow death. The cause of death was pleural effusion following on bronchial pneumonia. Had medical aid been called in, it would have been quite a simple matter to remove the fluid by tapping; that treatment would undoubtedly have prolonged the child's life and might have saved it.

To George Horsnell. I saw no sign of neglect about your house. I cannot say for how long the child's life would have been prolonged had medical aid been called in. I know of no drug that would cure pneumonia. The tapping treatment 1 refer to would remove the fluid.

To Eliza Horsnell. The child appeared to have been well cared for. Bronchial pneumonia is a common result of measles. I agree with Professor Osler that "there is no specified treatment for pneumonia; any drug treatment for pneumonia in ineffectual." At the post-mortem examination there was no other medical man present but myself. I am certain that in these cases life would be prolonged by the removal of the fluid. I have no doubt that you observed all the ordinary precautions as to cleanliness, comfort, warmth and so on.

Police-constable JOSEPH MORRIS, K 67, coroner's officer at West Ham, said that he attended the inquest of the child on December 19; both prisoners, after being cautioned, gave evidence; witness produced their depositions, which were read. From these it appeared that another child of the prisoners' died in February, 1901, from double pneumonia; no doctor was called in. There was an inquest, but no prosecution ensued.

Detective-sergeant WILLIAM BROWN, K Division, deposed to arresting prisoners at the close of the inquest on December 19.

Inspector ALFRED BALL said that on December 19, at Plaistow Police Station, prisoners were formally charged with manslaughter; they made no reply.


GEORGE HORSNELL (prisoner, not on oath) said that he had an honest belief in God. He believed that God was sufficient for himself and his children. When our present King, then Prince of Wales, was apparently dying from typhoid fever, there were special prayers for his recovery and he recovered. The Bible taught the efficacy of prayer. The last act of our Saviour was to lay hands on the sick.

ELIZA HORSNELL (prisoner, not on oath) pointed out that there was no evidence of neglect of the child, and protested that she and her husband had acted conscientiously according to the word of God as in the Bible.

Mr. Justice Grantham, in summing up, referred to the similarity of this case to that of R. v. Chisholm, tried before him in November,

1906 (see Vol. CXLVI., p. 145), and that of R. v. Adcock in June, 1906 (see Vol. CXLV., p. 49). At to the male defendant's arguments with regard to the offering of prayers for the recovery of the King when Prince of Wales, his Lordship said that as far as could be known the life of the King, was saved by the great care and skill shown by his medical attendants; it was idle to say that he was saved not by medical aid, but only by prayer. He did not say that the highly respectable class of people to which the defendants belonged were wanting in intelligence, but they had little education of the world, and most of them had not had an opportunity of seeing the effect of various phases of life and what was done by doctors. They put their narrow interpretation on particular passages of Scripture, without taking notice of the effect of other texts. They preferred to see their children die rather than sacrifice a pet hobby.

Verdict, Guilty.

Mr. Justice Grantham, in passing sentence, said it was shocking to see people glorifying in their obstinacy. It was wicked to let a child die if by taking me ordinary precautions which God had given the power to take—namely, to call in a doctor, its life could be prolonged. Each prisoner must go to prison for Three months, with hard labour. It was not usual to send a woman to prison where there was reason to suppose that she had acted under the influence of her husband, but in this case the woman seemed to be every bit as bad as her husband, if not worse.


(Wednesday, January 13.)

Reference Number: t19090112-69

SWEETMAN, Thomas, otherwise John Hart. (39, labourer), and OWEN Oswald (25, painter) , both attempting to break and enter the shop of the Home and Colonial Stores, Limited, with intent to steal therein.

Sweetman pleaded guilty.

Mr. Austin Metcalfe prosecuted.

ERNEST WOODCOCK . I am manager to the Home and Colonial Stores carrying on business at 60, Stratford Road. On the night of Thursday, December 17, I left the premises at 9.5, and locked them up, that being the usual hour of closing, the shop was stocked with provisions. When I looked up there was an old mark of a chisel on the door. On the morning of the 18th I examined the outside of the shop and found two fresh marks made by a jemmy or some such instrument. There are two locks to the door, and these marks were near the top lock.

Police-constable CHARLES MANNING, 414 K. I was off duty in plain clothes about 9.30 p.m. on December 17, in the Plaistow Road, where I saw prisoner Sweetman with another men, not prisoner Owen. I kept them under observation. They went to the corner of Libra Road in Stratford Road. Sweetman crossed the road and examined the

door of the Home and Colonial Stores. Then he returned to his companion and they went away. I saw nothing more of the other man that night. I afterwards saw both prisoners about 50 yards from the door of No. 60. After they had spoken together for some minutes Sweetman went across to the door again, remained there about half a minute, came back and rejoined Owen. The latter then went into the "Libra" public-house and Sweetman kept on walking in front of the Home and Colonial premises on the opposite side of the way. Owen came out of the" Libra" when the house closed, rejoined Sweetman, and they conversed for about a minute, after which Sweetman went over to the door again. I next heard a sound like the breaking of wood, and Sweetman instantly left the door and walked over to Owen. They went down, the Libra Road, Sweetman being in front and Owen five yards or six yards behind. I went up to Sweetman and spoke to him. I spoke rather loud, and I should think Owen, who was coming up behind could hear what I said. I asked Sweetman," What were you doing in that door?" He replied:" You might have left it a bit longer. We should have had something to eat then." I pulled a screwdriver from his right sleeve and then arrested him. I shouted to another officer with whom I had communicated, and he came and arrested Owen. The officer was in uniform, but had borrowed a cost and cap in order to conceal it. The screwdriver I took from Sweetman was broken at the end, and the broken piece was found embedded in the wood of the doorway.

Police-constable EDGAR GRACE, 276 K. At quarter-past 10 on the night of December 17 I was on duty in uniform in Stratford Road. In consequence of something that was said to me I exchanged my helmet and coat for an old overcoat and cap. I then returned to Stratford Road and kept observation upon prisoners. Owen after conversing with Sweetman, went into the "Libra" public-house, and came out at 11 o'clock. At 11.10 Owen was walkins smartly down Libra Road. Hearing last witness about I ran up and arrestted Owen on the charge of being concerned in an attempted burglary at 60, Stratford Road. He said, "I am not in this job. I was only watching Hart (Sweetman)." When Sweetman was at the door of No. 60 Owen was not more than eight or 10 yards off, and he could see as well at I could what Sweetman was doing. Owen was almost facing the door. I heard a noise at the door when Sweetman was there. Owen was much nearer to Sweetman than I was.


Prisoner OWEN put in a written statement setting forth that on the night in question he was sitting at home wife his wife when she asked him to go to the top of the street and have a drink. He assented, and opposite the" Libra" he met Sweetman, who asked him for a match. Sweetman then told him he was waiting for another man, and what they were going to do, and he advised Sweetman not to have anything to do with the matter. He and his wife then went into the "Libra" to have a drink and stayed there till 11 o'clock.

When they came out Sweetman was still standing outside. His wife said, "I will go and get some fish for supper; wait for me." While he was waiting Sweetman walked away from the Home and Colonial Stores. There was a policeman waiting for him about 20 Yards down the street, who caught hold of him and shouted out. The other con-stable came running round the corner and arrested him and he (prisoner) at one said he had not anything to do with it.

THOMAS SWEETMAN (prisoner, on oath). Prisoner Owen was not concerned with me in this attempted burglary.

To Mr. Metcalfe. When I went over to the door of No. 60 Owen was standing at the corner of the street. He did not know then what I was going to do. It was not till after I had asked him for a match that he knew about it. Owen is not a friend of mine, but knew him personally. I have known him two or three years.

Mrs. OWEN, wife of prisoner Owen, was also called, but did not answer.

Verdict, Owen Not guilty, the Jury thinking the evidence insufficient.

Detective-sergeant CLEVELAND stated that Sweetman is a general labourer when he does any work, which is seldom. In 1895 he was sentenced to six months for burglary, in January, 1900, six months for stealing a watch, and he has been twice convicted under the Prevention of Crimes Act.

Sentence, Twelve months' hard labour.


(Wednesday, January 13.)

Reference Number: t19090112-70

SULLIVAN, George, otherwise John Knock (18, actor) ; stealing the sum of 1 1/2 d. in money; unlawfully assaulting and beating Charles Howard, with intent thereby to resist the lawful apprehension of himself.

Mr. Metcalfe prosecuted.

CHARLES HOWARD , porter Great Eastern Station, Maryland Point. On the night of December 29, after the last train had arrived, I was in charge and the only person on the platform. At 2.45 a.m., when in the porters' room, I heard coins drop on the platform, and, on going out, saw two men creep on their hands and knees into the general waiting-room from the place where the collection-box of the London Hospital hung on the wall. They stayed in the waiting-room for about an hour. I followed them in and asked them what they were doing. Prisoner, who was one of them, answered, "I have come to have a 'kip,'" meaning a sleep. They said they had arrived in the last train from Forest Gate. While talking to them I found that the box had been tampered with. I closed the door on them and walked up and down outside it, being unable to communicate with anyone else without giving them an opportunity of getting away.

Some time after they came out. I took them into a booking-hall and slammed the door, so that they could not return to the platform. While I was calling for a clerk whom I thought was in the booking-office, one of them escaped by climbing over the gates. Prisoner attempted to escape in like manner. I pulled him back, had a prolonged struggle with him, and eventually gave him into the custody of a constable. Prisoner bit me on hand and arm. The collection-box produced had been broken at the bottom. Underneath it on the platform I found 3 1/2 d. To find the coins on the unlighted platform one would have to go on hands and knees.

Police-constable HENRY TOWILLS, 787 K. About 4.15 on the morning of December 30 I heard an alarm-bell ring in Maryland Point Railway Station, and, on being admitted to the booking-hall, found the prisoner detained by the last witness. Prisoner said he had come to have a "doss." When Howard said prisoner had broken open the collection-box on the platform prisoner replied, "What the—I has that to do with you? It is not your money." At the station I found on prisoner 1 1/2 d. and a small comb.

WILLIAM THOMAS ARDLEY , porter, London Hospital, identified the collection-box.


GEORGE SULLIVAN (prisoner, on oath). We came from Forest Gate. I gave my mate my ticket. He lost his and mine. We did not like to go on the platform without a ticket. We slept in the station all night. One of us dropped 3 1/2 d. I did not break open the box.

Cross-examined. My mate's name is Charles Wright, of 73, Marcus Street, Stratford. We remained in the waiting-room from 12 to three, when we came out and saw the porter, who cannot have seen us crawling on our hands and knees outside the waiting-room. He saw us on the floor inside. Just after three we heard a porter come out of a room. My mate went on the platform and dropped 3 1/2 d., probably by accident. I ran away because I thought I should be charged with sleeping on the station. I admit biting and struggling with the porter.

Verdict, Guilty.

ERIC WALTER GORGONA , assistant divisional surgeon. Howard was severely bitten on the left hand and upper part of the arm, and had three bruises on the left side of the head.

Convictions proved. July 31, 1908, four months' hard labour for stealing a bicycle; February 6, 1903, sent for four years to a reformatory for stealing a contribution-box; August 26, 1907, three months' hard labour for loitering; January 7, 1908, four months in the name of James Wright as an incorrigible rogue.

Sentence, Five months' hard labour for stealing; five months' hard labour for assault; sentences to be cumulative.


(Thursday, January 14.)

Reference Number: t19090112-71

ROBERTSON, Alexander (36, accountant), and ROBERTSON, Esther (his wife), both having the custody of Dorothy Robertson, Cyril Robertson, Vernon Robertson, Rupert Robertson, Muriel Robertson, Eric Robertson, and Lawrence Robertson, children respectively under the age of 16 years, did neglect them in a manner likely to cause them unnecessary suffering and injury to their health.

Mr. Clarke Hall, prosecuting on behalf of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children, said the case was largely due to poverty, the father, who has hither to borne a good character, having been out of work for some time.

The Recorder sentenced prisoners to three days' imprisonment, entitling them to be immediately discharged.


(Thursday, January 14.)

Reference Number: t19090112-72

POPE, Frederick Joseph , forging a certain writing purporting to be a certificate and testimonial of the good character of Henry W. Whiting, with intent to defraud.

Mr. H. D. Roome prosecuted.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , partner in Webster Bros., 73, Moorgate Street, London. In May, 1908, a man named Whiting asked me for employment. I employed him temporarily but asked for references, sad in consequence of what he told me I wrote letter produced, addressed to Mr. Elliott, 69, Markhouse Road, Walthamstow. The letter was sent back to me with one corner turned up and bearing a reply:" Yours of the 3rd inst. to hand re P. W. Whiting. I have always found him strictly honest and sober, and a very energetic worker. He leaves at his own request. I am sorry to lose him.—Tours truly, George Elliott." Consequently, I retained Whiting in my employment; but on November 4 he was convicted of embezzling moneys of my firm, and was sentenced to one month's hard labour. Oh that day prisoner saw me outside the police-court, and said:" I am very sorry I wrote that letter. "

Detective EDWARD MARRIOTT, City Police. While in charge of the case against Whiting I called on prisoner at Walthamstow, who admitted having written and sent to Webster Bros. the testimonial to Writing. Prisoner said:" I have known Whiting for some months put, having met him in a public-house at Walthamstow. One Sunday morning he came to my house and said to me, I have a good job; they want a character; will you give me one?' I said, Yes; I don't mind. 'We then adjourned to a public-house where Whiting produced the letter from Webster Bros., which he folded across; and From his dictation I wrote what now appears on the back of it, signed

'George Elliott. '" I went to the premises, 69, Markhouse Road—a tobacconist's shop, where letters may be left till called for.

Cross-examined. You may have said you adjourned to a club instead of to a" pub. "

JOHN DALE , 53, Scott's Road, traveller for Tait and Son. Coal merchants, Walthamstow. Prisoner is employed by my firm as a traveller or canvasser. I do not know him as a grocer. I remember his telling me that he had to appear at the Guildhall as a witness against a man named Whiting, for whom he had given a false character.

Cross-examined by prisoner. You said you had written at his dictation a copy of a reference for him.

Sergeant HORACE CASTLETON, N Division. On November 11, at Walthamstow, I served copy of summons on defendant. He said:" I wrote that at his dictation. I never knew what was in the letter. It was one of their billheads folded over like that. I never intended to defraud. I never had a farthing. "


FREDERICK JOSEPH POPE (prisoner, on oath). About 12 months ago I met the man Whiting, and our acquaintance continued in a casual manner. We were not bosom friends; only acquaintances. In June last he called at my house and asked me to go for a stroll. We went, and I invited him into the Gardeners' Club, of which I was a member. While there he produced a letter, and asked me to write on the back of it a copy of a reference for him, at the same time producing another letter from which, at his dictation, I wrote on the back of the letter which he had received from the Messrs. Webster, the matter which there appears. I did not know the contents of the letter from the Messrs. Webster, or from whom it came, or to whom it was going or for what purpose it would be used.

Cross-examined. I did not see the other letter. I wrote at his dictation. I am 43 years of age. I saw the name of Webster Bros on top of their letter.

HENRY WILLIAM WHITING , carter, 21, Netley Road, Walthamstow. (To prisoner.) One Sunday night in June last I called at your house We went for a stroll, and you invited me into the Gardeners' Club. Walthamstow. I asked you if you would copy for me a letter of recommendation, and you said, "Yes." You did so at my dictation. I produced the letter now in evidence, and handed it to you folded You wrote on it, gave it to me back, and I posted it. While at the Messrs. Webster's I got a month's imprisonment.

Cross-examined. I was temporarily employed by the Messrs. Webster till I could produce a" character." I admitted at the Guild-hall that the reference purporting to be signed by" George Elliott" was false.

GEORGE MULLINGER , attendant at the Gardeners' Club, Walthsmstow. On a Sunday evening in last June I noticed prisoner and Whiting at the club. Whiting pulled some papers out of his pocket and read to prisoner, who wrote apparently from dictation.

JOHN DALE , recalled, gave prisoner a good character.

Verdict, Guilty.

Conviction proved. August 24, 1906, six months' imprisonment, second division, for housebreaking.

Sentence, Three months' imprisonment, second division.


(Friday, January 15.)

Reference Number: t19090112-73

BULMER, Joshua (51, labourer) ; unlawfully assaulting Jane Bulmer, and occasioning her actual bodily harm.

Mr. Metcalfe prosecuted.

JANE BULMER , 47, West Road, West Ham. I am the wife of the prisoner and was married to him five years ago last November. On December 26, at 6 p.m., my husband and I were in our kitchen, he being asleep in a chair. I went towards the cellar for some coal. On reaching the second stair of the cellar I felt a knife at my neck. In guarding myself I got cut on the wrist Only a mark appeared on my neck. My husband said, "You cow! Now I will do for you." I called out to a young woman, Helena Norton, who lives in a back room, and got up the three stairs to her door. Prisoner caught me, but she got me into the room. He followed ma and struck me several times with his fists. Florence Norton, who shares the room, went to get my hat and coat and opened the street door. Nell followed me out, and kept my husband from me, who said, "You shan't go out of this house alive to-night." I ran into the street and my husband struck me in the face at the gate. Mr. Harding, a neighbour, came to my assistance. Then my husband struck me several times in the face, knocking me down in the road, and kicking me. Mr. Harding came with me to the hospital. After that I was taken to my brother's. I have since been treated at home, and have been three times at the hospital. The cause of the trouble is drink.

To Prisoner. The mark on my neck and cut on my wrist could not have been made with your finger nails.

HELENA NORTON . I am a single woman, living in the same house as the prosecutrix. My sister and I occupy a room on the second door. On the evening of Boxing Day I heard Mrs. Bulmer cry out," Nell, Nell! he is trying to choke me." I opened my door and she entered the room. I saw a mark on her neck. Prisoner followed and struck her several times in the face. He then left the room and told me to send her out. My sister, Mrs. Bulmer, and I tried to leave the house. Prisoner, who was in the passage, went to stop Mrs. Bulmer. I got between them. She ran into the street. My sister and I went up to the top of the street, but hearing screaming, came back. I then saw prisoner knock down his wife by punching her in the face. We picked her up and took her to my sister-in-law's, No. 21 in the same street. I did not see any kicking. Mrs. Bulmer showed me her wrist, which was not bleeding much. The wound was

just a scratch, looking as if caused by a knife. The wound on her neck was just a gash by a knife.

FLORENCE NORTON corroborated the evidence of the previous witness.

JAMES ALEXANDER CURRELL , house surgeon, West Ham Hospital Prosecutrix, when brought to the hospital on the night of December 26, was suffering from contusions of the lower ribs on the left side, two superficial marks on the upper part of the left side of the neck, and a mark on the anterior or front aspect of the wrist. The superficial wounds were very trivial, and were probably caused by a knife, not used with violence. The contusions were not serious. At my request she came again, that I might see how she was. My attention was not called to any bruises on her face.

Detective-sergeant FREDERICK CLEVELAND, K Division. On December 27 I arrested prisoner on a charge of attempted murder, and told him he might be further charged with another assault. The Grand Jury threw out the more serious charge. Prisoner denied having had a knife in his hand. I found in the house the butcher's knife (produced), which, according to Mrs. Bulmer, had been used as a bread knife. On the way to the station prisoner said, "This is all over a bit of food. I asked her to get me something to eat. She started calling me dreadful names. That man Harding is always with her, ever since he left the army. She was all right till he came home.


JOSHUA BULMER (prisoner, on oath). I am a bricklayer's labourer. On Boxing Day I came home about three or four in the afternoon. Usually, when I have been home for half an hour, the wife wants to put on her things and go out, or somebody sends for her from two or three doors lower down. She goes in there and stops, perhaps for an hour, and comes out and starts grumbling and kicking up a row. I do not know anything about her going down the cellar for coal. She said she was going out and that I was not going to stop her, because she did not care for me; she would do what she liked. She went to put her things on and I said, "You are not going out of this." She said, "I am, and you won't stop me." One word brought up another, and then I struck her several times. But I never had a knife in my hand, so help me God! I may have scratched her neck when I caught hold of her to prevent her putting her things on. I did not knock her down; she fell down. She may have bruised her ribs in the kitchen or against the table.

Verdict, Guilty of common assault, with great provocation.

Detective-sergeant CLEVELAND. Prisoner bears a good character, though he sometimes takes a little too much drink; but from what I can gather the woman is the cause of that.

Prisoner was released on his own recognisances in £5 to come up for judgment if called upon.

Reference Number: t19090112-74

ANDREWS, Joseph (30, shoemaker) ; unlawfully, by threats, procuring Florence Maud Garrett to have carnal connection with him.

Mr. Warburton appeared to prosecute.

Prisoner had attended on the first day of the Sessions, but did not now surrender to his bail.

The case was put into the list for Monday.

(Monday, January 18.) Defendant again failing to appear, his recognisances were estreated.



(Tuesday, January 12.)

Reference Number: t19090112-76

EAST, John, otherwise John West (62, no occupation) pleaded guilty , of feloniously having in his possession 10 moulds in or upon which were impressed the figures or resemblances of both of the sides of 10 shillings, and four moulds in or upon which were impressed the figures or resemblances of both of the tides of four half-crowns: committing an act of gross indecency with Edward Charles Stillwell .

Mr. Wilkinson prosecuted.

W. J. WEBSTER, Inspector of Coins, H. M. Mint, stated that the coining apparatus found at prisoner's room was one of the largest and most complete that had been found for many years. There were 14 single moulds, 10 for shillings, and four for half-crowns; 14 half-moulds for florins, a number of broken moulds, and various denominations and dates; a large number of brushes and other coining implements, and a complete Bunsen's Battery; 779 bad coins—684 shillings, 55 florins, 27 half-crowns, and 13 sixpences—most of them very roughly cast. The moulds were well made.

Sergeant WILLIAM WHITE stated that he had reports of seven cases in all against prisoner of indecent assault, and proved the following convictions: In 1888, 12 months' for indecent assault; November 7, 1890, seven years and five years' penal servitude for forgery and wounding; 21 months' at Liverpool for gross indecency; May 25, 1899, five years' for possession of base coin; and October 9, 1903, at this Court, five years' for coining.

Sentence. Twelve months' hard labour for indecency; on each of the two indictments for coining 10 years' penal servitude, to run concurrently.



(Thursday, January 14.)

Reference Number: t19090112-77

RICHARDSON, Thomas (46, stonemason), was indicted for and charged on Coroner's inquisition with the manslaughter of Andrew Mahoney.

Mr. C. G. Alabaster prosecuted; Mr. George Elliott defended.

MRS. ROSALIE LINCOLN . I knew Andrew Mahoney; I saw him at five past 10 on the night of December 13, outside the "Plough," Wimbledon Road, Tooting, with Desmond, Green, and Dutton. Mahoney left to go to a place of accommodation; as he was returning prisoner went up to him and said, "You need not hop about, can you fight?" and, before Mahoney could speak, prisoner knocked him to the ground. Somebody shouted," Run," and prisoner ran away. Both men were sober.

Cross-examined. There was no sign of quarrelling. I know William James and John James; they were close to prisoner when this happened. I did not see Mahoney put up his hands. When prisoner struck him he fell down, his head striking the wooden paving of the tramlines; he never spoke.

JAMES GREEN . When we left the" Plough," Mahoney went to go to the urinal. On his coming back, as he was passing prisoner, prisoner deliberately hit him and knocked him down; no words passed between them. Both men were sober.

Cross-examined. Mahoney was a tall powerful man. I did not hear him say to prisoner," If you want a fight you can have one." He did not put up his fists.

PATRICK DESMOND and JOHN DUTTON gave similar evidence.

Police-constable HUGH COSH, 431 V. At 10.5 p.m., on December 13 I was called to the" Plough"; in the roadway outside I saw Mahoney lying on his back, bleeding from the head; I spoke to him; he made no answer.

Sergeant HARRY YOUNG, 85 V. On the early morning of December 14 I went to prisoner's house; he was in bed. I told him I should arrest him for causing grievous bodily harm to Andrew Mahoney. He made no reply. On the charge being read over to him at the station he said, "No reply." On December 28 he was charged with manslaughter. His reply was, "That is correct."

DAVID MCCRAE AITKEN , resident surgeon at Boling broke Hospital I saw Mahoney in the early morning of December 14; he was then unconscious; he was bleeding from the right ear; there was a bruise on the left side of the back of the head and a small bruise on the left side of the point of the chin. He never recovered consciousness and died on December 20. There was an extensive fracture, across from the temple on the left side up to the back of the head; this would be consistent with a fall on the road. The mark on the chin is consistent with a blow from a fist I should saw a pretty severe blow.

Cross-examined. Deceased was a powerful, muscular man. The cause of death was the fracture of the skull and the laceration of the brain; the skull was not a thick one.


THOMAS RICHARDSON (prisoner, on oath). I had known Mahoney by sight about 12 months, and had once or twice spoken to him; we were on friendly terms. On this night, as I was standing outside the "Plough," Mahoney came up to me and said, "What's up with you?" I said, "Nothing." He said, "If you want to have a fight you can have one." He had his hands in a half sort of fighting attitude. Thinking he was going to attack me, I struck at him, and he fell. I foolishly ran away, and, in the early morning I was arrested at my father's house. I had no idea at all that I should cause the man's death, and I am very sorry.

Cross-examined. I ran away, because I did not want to continue the fight or the row.

To the Court. I have been in fights before; I am a bit of a boxer; everyone is, to some extent.

WILLIAM JAMES . I saw Mahoney and prisoner walking along; they seemed to be having very high words. Mahoney put out his hands as if he was going for prisoner; prisoner went to defend himself and struck the first blow and Mahoney fell. I did not stop to see any more.

Cross-examined. The two men I had just seen in the" Plough"; they were having words there. I did not think Mahoney was hurt so much as he was or I should not have walked away.

JOHN JAMES , brother of previous witness, corroborated his story.

Verdict, Not guilty, the Jury considering that there was sufficient doubt about the case to induce them to give prisoner the benefit of it.

Mr. Justice Grantham said he rather regretted the verdict, and prisoner might think himself lucky to have been tried by such a very lenient Jury.


(Thursday, January 14.)

Reference Number: t19090112-78

TOMLIN, George Albert (22, electrician) pleaded guilty , of feloniously stealing 25 lb. of lead, the goods of Thomas Drew.

Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.


(Saturday, January 16.)

Reference Number: t19090112-79

RICHARDSON, William Henry (46, stonemason) , obtaining by false pretences from Walter Francis Padbury the sum of £150, with intent to defraud.

Mr. H. H. Lawless prosecuted.

EDGAR RING WOOD , "Daily Chronicle," proved prisoner's advertisement.

WALTER FRANCIS PADBURY , 3, Coombe Villas, Longfield Street, Wandsworth, mariner. On December 12 I answered prisoners advertisement;" Partner required with moderate capital. Depot and general business. Knowledge not essential. Draw 50s. weekly Letters—William, 5, Caleno Street, Tooting"; and received letter produced from him stating that he had been established 13 years in Tooting, that he proposed to open a new branch at New Malden, and that he required a partner with £150 capital. He also wrote saying he would show me over the estates where he was doing the stonework I met him on December 30 or 31 at Caleno Street, Tooting. He told me he was a builder and monumental mason and had lately taken up his father's business; that they had built 400 or 500 houses round Tooting. He took me to what he called the Estate Office in Kingston Road to have the agreement drawn. He introduced me to the manager, Mr. Lloyd. I afterwards found the office was run by prisoner's brother. While the agreement was being drawn prisoner said he was doing a lot of building—upwards of 48 houses. He also said that he had a patent frost grip clip for horseshoes with which he was supplying large businesses and various firms and he would give me a half-share on all sales and royalties in the United Kingdom. He said he "had orders from Pickford's, Carter Paterson's, Doulton's, and Tilling's. He asked if I was prepared to pay a deposit. I said no, but I would come on the following Saturday and pay the whole sum, so the agreement was not signed. I wrote asking what security I should get for the £150 to be deposited with prisoner. He replied on January 3 saying," As regards the business I do not think you need be afraid of the investment, as I am certain by giving the samples of the adjustable frost grip clip to the various companies who have already applied £500 will be made within the next two months. Then you have a half-share in the masonry and builder's supply stores. There will be plenty of work for you to do, keeping books, attending the depot to serve customers and collecting orders and accounts on the various estates. The agents will arrange for another partner if you are not satisfied on your letting them know at any time to pay you off. "On January 6 I paid prisoner £150 and we signed the agreement produced by which we were each to draw £3 weekly. He then repeated much the same story. Prisoner paid Mr. Lloyd £7 10s. for drawing the agreement. The next day I met prisoner, who took me to a waste plot of land which he said was the site of the depot. We met there again the next day, when he introduced me again to Steadman as a surveyor and architect who was measuring the ground and making plans for building the depot. On January 8 we met at Wimbledon by appointment to go and buy timber and iron to erect workmen's sheds; we visited various shops but bought nothing. On January 13 I visited the site of the depot and saw two men, Spencer and another, levelling the ground and cutting timber. Prisoner afterwards told me they were old workmen of his.

After January 15 I had difficulty in finding prisoner. He moved from Tooting to Wandle Bay. So far as I could see no business was done or transacted. He paid me £3 weekly for six weeks and then told me all the money was gone. On my asking where it had all gone to in such a short time he became very abusive and refused to show me his account books. Eventually he gave me statement produced. I told him I should probably take police-court proceedings. He said he would not give me £20 for my chance, whatever I did. He eventually told me that the money had been spent in floating the patent horseshoe grip. When I parted with my money I believed what he said was true or I should not have paid the £150. He said with reference to the horseshoe grip, "When we get along with the business the horseshoe grip will be a nice little nest egg for us. "

Cross-examined. On February 24 I considered I had been defrauded. I went to the police on September 25, 1908. I kept writing to prisoner to know what had become of my money and asking him to repay it according to the agreement. I have always been a mariner, and had last been employed on gold dredging in West Africa. Prisoner and I went to the office of Mr. Fleuret, patent agent, whom he went in to see. On December 31 and January 6 I asked him to show me his business, but I could not get it from him. All he said was that he had taken over the business of his father and was opening a new business at New Malden. He may have mentioned that he was Working on the London and Provincial Estates. He pointed out houses where he said he was doing the stonework. He said he had business promises at Tooting. He said he had still got a business at Tooting. He said he was going to build a shop at Malden—I did not suppose from first to last that he had an existing depot or sheds there. I heard afterwards the Malden Council refused to pass the plans. The rent of the land was becoming due and I asked him how it was to be paid. He said he had no money, I said I had none and that the best thing to be done in the matter was to get the agreement can. celled, which he did. No rent was paid. I went with prisoner to George and Sons to order samples of the horseshoe grip to be made. In March or April I wrote to prisoner asking to be paid one. In June he told me the patent was running off and asking me for money to keep the patent alive. I said before the magistrate," I said, 'If this statement is not satisfactory I shall take legal proceedings.' Prisoner said in reply to that, 'I will not give £20 for your chance. '"

GEORGE RICHARDSON , prisoner's brother. In January, 1908 I had an estate office at 25, Kingston Road, as estate agent and builder. Lloyd was my manager. He drew up agreement produced and I received £7 10s. for it.

Cross-examined. Prisoner had a yard at Bickersteth Road, Tooting. He did stonework for my father at different places. Prisoner afterwards had a yard at the Nelson, Merton. I believe he built houses on Sir George Smallman's estate. Last year he was doing stonework for me.

Re-examined. I could not say when prisoner was building for Smallman. He did stonework for us last year on four houses.

WALTER JOHN STEADMAN , 64, Undean Street, Tooting, draughtsman. I am not a qualified architect or surveyor. In January last I made some plans for prisoner for which he paid me 10s. Altogether I received about 23s. from prisoner. The charges in prisoner's account. "January 1, 1908. Instructions for plans £1 1s. January 6, plans, etc., £2 3s. January 14, preparing plans, £1 1s. January 20, various sums for plans, £1 10s." were never received by me.

Cross-examined. I measured up the land, drew a sketch plan and took it to the surveyor's office, Malden Council House. I sometimes act as surveyor. I wrote a few letters for prisoner. I am positive I did not receive the sums mentioned in the account. (To the judge.) The plans were for a shed costing about £10 to £15.

CHARLES SPENCER , 211, East Park Road, Wimbledon, plasterer. I have known the prisoner about seven years. In January, 1908, he asked me about timber and corrugated iron and I met him with prosecutor at Merton. We went afterwards to the piece of land at Malden I have received from prisoner about 7s. to 9s. altogether. I never received the amounts charged in prisoner's account: "January 30, 17s. 6d.; February 3, going to Aldridge's, 8s. 6d.; February 10, going to City, 10s. February 11, 4s. February 17, 10s. January 18, 8s. 3d.; January 19, 6s. "

Cross-examined. I have been to Mitcham and Croydon with prisoner on two or three occasions about buying timber and to look at land; he always paid expenses. We went one day to the Russian Embassy about the nail-less horseshoe.

JOHN YOUNG , 303, Kennington Road, builder's merchant. In 1906 I supplied prisoner when he was in partnership with Stockton with building materials value £60 on the Kelson Estate, Merton. At the and of 1906 I could not find him to get paid. In August, 1907, I received a postcard from him about his bankruptcy notice and afterwards saw him. He said he wanted to get this job over, and I took it that he wanted to be made a bankrupt so that he could have a clean sheet I said I would let my firm know exactly what he said. On September 10, 1907, he sent me another postcard stating where he would be if I wanted to serve him with a copy of the petition. I did not go, On September 23 he wrote me: "Have you heard or seen Stockton I shall be glad if the matter is wound up, as I am stoney broke," and appointing to meet me. I did not go.

Cross-examined. I supplied ironmongery for some houses prisoner was building. He did not say how much he had invested in them.

WILLIAM HENRY RICHARDSON , 33, Fosgate Road, Fulham, builder, prisoner's father. About 13 years ago I gave up business and have built no houses since. I built at Tooting 10 houses. I had no business premises and had nothing to again to anybody.

Cross-examined. Prisoner took on from me a 99 years' lease of 411, York Road, some years ago. He also took on from me the 95 years' lease of a shop, artisan's dwelling, and stable in Lambeth Walk. He opened the shop himself; I made him a present of it. I built some houses on the Tankerville Road Estate; prisoner went to live in one of them, and I asked the mortgagee's surveyor to let

him finish the stone work as he could do it cheaper being on the premises. Prisoner had a stone works at Bickersteth Road, Tooting.

Re-examined. The Tankerville Estate and Bickersteth Road work 12 or 13 years ago. Prisoner lived with me till he was 25 years of age, was foreman for me on different jobs, and has taken up leases for me it different places. I always found him straightforward, honest, and very correct in his figures.

ALBERT HENRY TIMPKIN , 57, Gresham Street, horse manager to Pickfords for 11 years. I have no record of a contract or order given to prisoner for a patent horseshoe grip.

Cross-examined. We have no record of receiving any samples from prisoner or correspondence with him.

ROBERT RIDGE COGAN , 104, Redman's Buildings, Holborn, veteinary surgeon to Carter Peterson and Co. On January 20, 1908, I received letter produced from prisoner referring to a previous letter and forwarding samples of a horseshoe grip. I received samples like that produced. On January 31 I returned it, stating we did not see our way to use them at present. We gave no order.

ERNEST WORKMAN , buyer in horse department, Doulton's Pottery Works. On January 20, 1908, we received letter produced from prisoner forwarding a sample of a horseshoe grip. On January 25 we replied that we did not see our way to adopt it. We gave no order. Our shoeing is done by contract, and it would have been impossible for us to give an order.

FREDERICK WILLIAM HARRISON , Winchester House, High Street, Peckham, cashier to Tilling and Co. We have given no order to prisoner for a patent horseshoe grip. On January 20 I received letter produced forwarding sample. We wrote asking him to explain its use and afterwards wrote declining to order it and stating it would be of no use to us.

WILLIAM WARD , 30, Denison Road, Tooting, carman and contractor. During 1908 I went about with prisoner to different firms with his horseshoe grip; no business was done that I know of. Prisoner had premises at Merton Road, Tooting.

HENRY HAVELOCK JACKSON , clerk in the Patent Office. On January 10 Fleuret filed a provisional specification in prisoner's name for a devise to prevent horseshoes slipping; that gave protection to the invention for six months, when it expired, and it cannot now be revived.

FREDERICK MICHAEL MELLOR , 504, Birkbeck Chambers, clerk to Fleuret, patent agent. On January 10, 1908, prisoner instructed me to file provisional specification for horse-grip produced, which I did.

Cross-examined. We have acted for prisoner since 1896 on various matters. He may have mentioned the horse grip to me before January, 1908. On June 13, 1908, he wrote stating he had no money or filing the complete specification.

Detective-sergeant JNO. GILLON. V Division, On December 5, 1908, at 12.15 a.m. I with Detective Woods saw prisoner in the back kitchen of 132. Henley Road, Tooting. I said that we were police officers and held a warrant for his arrest for obtaining £150 from prosecutor.

He said, "I do not understand it. What does it mean. Explain it" I said, "Mr. Padbury alleges that in December last he saw your advertisement in the newspaper, answered it, and eventually saw you. He says you represented yourself to be a general builder and monoumental mason with business premises at Tooting. He also alleges that you stated that you had recently taken over your father's business at Tooting and that you were the patentee of an invention known as the Adjustable Frost Grip Clip, that you had several large orders from firms, including Carter Patersons, Pickford's, Tillings, Doulton's, and other large firms, and the American Embassy. He says that no business was transacted in reference to that partnership." The prisoner said, "Twelve years ago I did have business premises at Tooting; I have not had any there since. In December last I did advertise for a partner; Mr. Padbury answered and finally he agreed to put £150 into the business. I tried to do business, but things were very bad. When I failed to do business in the building business, I tried to put the patent on the market but failed. Had Mr. Padbury waited another week things would have been different, as I had practically sold the patent to the German Government for £5,000, but this has upset the whole thing. I have not reported to Mr. Padbury in writing or otherwise that I had orders from the firms you mention with reference to the frost grip clip." I said, "I have letters in my possession purporting to come from you to that effect." He said, "I should like to see them." We went to the station and showed him three letters produced. After perusing them he said, "Yes, they are in my handwriting. "When we arrested him we searched his lodgings and took possession of a number of letters and memoranda. As I was examining the correspondence prisoner picked out a document and said that was a copy of the agreement between prosecutor and himself. We took the agreement to Somerset house; as I found that it would cost 15s. to have them stamped I did not have them done." He referred to some pencil marks on the left-hand corner. He pointed to Extract 4 and said, "that is a copy of the account I rendered to Mr. Padbury showing how his £150 had been spent" He took out another document and said, "This is a further lot of sums spent in trying to place the patent on the market. It amounts to £130. I was going to send it to Mr. Padbury as I consider there is £30 more to be paid by Mr. Padbury to me in respect of the expenses incurred in trying to place the patent on the market." Whilst I was perusing the documents I remarked to Woods that the names of Spencer, Steadman, and Ward appeared in them. Prisoner said, "Yes, Spencer is a relation of mine by marriage. Steadman is a surveyor." He mentioned the address where Steadman lived and said, "I do not know Where Ward is living at present." Later on that day I showed him the letters, which he admitted to be in his handwriting. He said the horse grip clips produced were his samples and there were others in the possession of firms which he had supplied.

Cross-examined. I took a note of the conversation. Prisoner mentioned that he was in communication with the German Government about the adjustable horseshoe. (To the judge.) The charge was

about something prisoner had done in January, 1908; I arrested him in December. We arrested him in the middle of the night because we had been keeping observation there for some time, expecting to see him come in.


WILLIAM HENRY RICHARDSON (prisoner, on oath). I live at 132, Henley Road, Tooting, and am 46 years of age. I have never had a charge made against me before this. I took over Randall's stone yard in Bickersteth Road, Tooting, 12 years ago and kept it on till I had notice three years after to clear out as houses were to be built on it. I afterwards did stone work for the London Provincial Estates, Ltd., Rectory Road, Tooting; then commenced on another estate for Mr. Miller in Mitcham Road, Tooting. I was then in partnership with Stockton; that was in 1906. I had stone works and builder's works in High Street, Malden, and an office called the Nelson Stone Works. I took on a building agreement for 40 plots of land under Sir H. G. smallman to erect houses on a 99 years' building lease. We put up eight houses, when, our capital getting exhausted through litigation with the Urban Council, we could not get on any further. Sir H. G. Smallman gave notice and foreclosed and we lost about £500; that was why the debt to Young for ironmongery was unpaid. Young said he had got a bankruptcy notice against us, so I said, "You had better serve it on me as quick as you can to prevent the freeholder selling the property, so as to get the Official Receiver to stop him, so as to save what I could out of the firm's £500 and get the creditors paid. Young said we might pay a composition of 10s. in the £. In December, 1907, I was doing work for the London Provincial Estates, Ltd, and for Miller in Moham Road, and was going to open a new depot at New Malden, as the estates at Tooting were getting practically filled up. I had a very good position offered me at the corner, and thought I would take a partner in with me to open it up, so I advertised and got prosecutor to come in. We had an agreement from the freeholder in. our joint names. I showed prosecutor some houses on the estates where we were actually at work. I told him I had had a stone yard, which I took from Randall 12 years ago; that latterly I had been doing stone work on estates: and I showed him round where the men were actually working for me. I had then the stone work to do of 19 houses for the London Provincial and was also starting on a new estate. I have had the frost clip grip in my mind for two or three years, and I spoke to Fleuret about it. In 1896 I took out a complete patent for a nailless horseshoe. I supplied the War Office with it; they would not buy it as it created soft corns; they wanted to send it to the Soudan. I saw Fleuret about the frost grip clip in December, 1907, and told him I wanted a patented. I offered prosecutor a half-share in it to get it on the market. I had a letter from Carter Peterson about it six months before I saw prosecutor, and there is a letter from the German Ambassador this Christmas (produced). When I saw prosecutor I had had

requests for samples from Doulton's, Pickford's, Tilling's, and several other firms. I never said I had orders from them; I said I had orders for samples. I said I wanted the money to open up a new depot at Malden and to get the horse clip on the market by making samples and sending them to various companies. I supplied 150 firms with samples, including the Prince of Wales's stables, and they had been acknowledged. £150 did not go very far in that. The samples cost 4s. to 5s. each and there was the expense of sending them. After the agreement for the land for the depot at Malden was obtained, I had carpenters and labourers to erect the sheds, and plans were sent in to the Council. We were not allowed to put up a temporary structure for workshops—only a permanent building. Prosecutor then demanded that I should see the freeholder and get the agreement cancelled, which I did. Prosecutor then asked me to get the patent for the horse clip grip sold and pay him out, which I have tried my utmost to do. On September 14 last year I took out a patent for an improvement of the nailless horseshoe, which I patented in 1896. I saw Major Ostertag, the Military Attache of the German Embassy in London, about it; he ordered four sets of the nailless horseshoe and also specimens of the adjustable grip clip and he said he thought his Government would buy it. I told the officer on my arrest that I was arranging to sell the patent Nailless Horseshoe to the German Government; that I had asked £5,000 for it and that I was also sending over the Frost Grip Clip.

Cross-examined. I produce letter from the German' Embassy asking me to call, which I did. I was told if I sent samples they would he sent over to the German Government. I cannot help it that I have not made anything out of the two patents. Fifteen years age I finished off my father's last lot of houses on the Tankerville Estate. I did not tell prosecutor that I had recently taken over my father's business. I said when he gave up business I took over his work, and that that was fifteen years ago. Prosecutor is not telling the truth. It is true that Steadman had the money mentioned in the account from me—every one of the items. Spencer is not telling the truth: he has had the money charged in the account; he has worked for me far three years, running about for me and has had a great deal more money than he says from me. (To the jury.) During the year 1908 I was living by working for Mr. Denier; that was after I failed on my building on the Smallman Estate.

Verdict. Guilty of fraudulently misrepresenting that orders had been received for the Frost Grip Clip from Pickford's and others; Not guilty on the other count of misrepresentation. Sentence, Three months' imprisonment, 2nd Division.

NOTE.—The report of three trials, in progress at the time of going to press, will be issued with the February Sessions Paper.






(Friday, January 15.)

Reference Number: t19090112-80

HESS, Henry , being a director of a certain public company—to wit, the Common Weal Consolidated, Limited, making, circulating, and publishing certain statements which he knew to be false in a material particular with intent to deceive and defraud the shareholders in the said public company and with intent to induce persons to become shareholders in the said public company and to entrust and advance property to the said company, on July 26, 1901, March 8, 1902, September 22, 1902, February 6, 1904, and November 24, 1904; being a director of the said public company, on December 28, 1901, fraudulently taking and applying for his own use and benefit part of the property of the said public company—to wit, the sum of £1,428; on September 18, 1902, wilfully and corruptly making and subscribing a certain declaration under the Statutory Declarations Act, 1835, knowing the same to be untrue in certain material particulars; with intent to defraud, obtaining divers valuable securities by means of false pretences—to wit, on or about August 8, 1901, money orders for the sum of £70 from Margaret Hope; on or about August 6, 1901, a banker's cheque for the sum of £50 from Annie Reid; on or about August 5, 1901, a banker's draft for the sum of £30 from James Taylor; on August 5, 1901, a banker's cheque for the sum of £20 from James Ballantyne; on or about July 30, 1901, a banker's cheque for the sum of £40 from John Galloway Galloway; on or about September 27, 1901, a banker's cheque, for the sum of £50 from Thomas Scoresby-Jackson; on January 3, 1902, a banker's cheque for the sum of £30 from the said Thomas Scoresby-Jackson, and on or about October 26, 1901, certificates for 150 Robinson Randfontein shares of the nominal value of £150, and a transfer of the said shares from the said Thomas Scoresby-Jackson.

Mr. R. D. Muir and Mr. Graham-Campbell prosecuted; Mr. F. E. Smith, K. C., M. P., Mr. Travers Humphreys, and Mr. Adrian Wontner defended.

LEIGH BAKER , Registry of Joint Stock Companies, Somerset House. I produce file of the Common Weal Syndicate, Limited, registered December 31, 1900, with a capital of £2,000 in £1 shares. Its first object was to operate in stocks and shares in accordance with the advice of the manager of The Critic Agency. On March 25, 1901, the capital was increased to £5,000. On July 24, 1901, the company was wound up voluntarily, prisoner being appointed liquidator, he having been sole director of the company. The whole of the shares were paid up except seven. The final meeting of the company was on July 14, 1902. I also produce file of the Common Weal Syndicate, No. 2, Limited, incorporated March 12, 1901, with a capital of £5,000 in £1 shares, which were fully paid up except seven. The prospectus is signed by prisoner. The objects are the same as in the previous company. Resolution to wind up was passed on July 24, 1901. I also produce file of Common Weal Syndicate, Limited, No. 3, incorporated March 30, 1901; capital £5,000 in £1 shares, fully paid up except seven; the objects are the same as Syndicates Nos. 1 and 2, prisoner being the sole director; the company was voluntarily wound up on the same date, July 24, 1901. I produce file of Common Weal Consolidated, Limited, incorporated July 30, 1901, the object being to acquire the assets, liabilities, and goodwill of the three Common Weal Syndicates and the rights of The Critic Agency. Prisoner was the sole director. The prospectus is dated July 26, 1901; capital £50,000, £10,000 being offered to the public at par, of which £3,010 are stated to have been allotted and paid up on August 23, 1901, the date of the certificate to commence business. By a subsequent return it is stated that £5,182 was subscribed by the public. The prospectus sets out an agreement of July 14, 1901, made between Henry Hess, the liquidator, and E. H. E. Hodgson, the trustee of the company, by winch the three syndicates sell their assets, including a sum of £15,000 in cash, together with all contracts, etc., to the Consolidated Company for 30,000 fully-paid £1 shares in the company.

JOHN GALLOWAY GALLOWAY , 25, East Trinity Road, Edinburgh, ironmonger's traveller. I received prospectus of the Common Weal Consolidated stating that the company had from the three syndicates £15,000 for working capital. I believed the statement, subscribed for 40 shares, sent cheque for £40, and received certificate. I subsequently received a dividend of 19s., being 4s. 9d. for each lot of 10 shares.

Cross-examined. I expected the total sum represented in the prospectus would be in the possession of the company; that statement induced me to invest; I do not think I should nave invested if I had learned that the company had only £14,700; it would have made a difference.

JAMES TAYLOR , 97, Cambridge Street, Glasgow, ladies' hairdresser. I received prospectus of the company stating that £15,000 sterling in cash had been acquired from the syndicates; I subscribed for 30 shares in August, 1901, sent draft for £30, received receipt and certificate, and afterwards a dividend of 14s.

Cross-examined. I read the prospectus in" The Critic. "

JAMES BALLANTINE , 21, Rose Street, Garnett Hill, Glasgow, manager of the Glasgow Window Cleaning Company. I believed the statements in the prospectus, and on August 1, 1901, subscribed for 20 shares, I afterwards received a dividend of about 3s. 4d.

Cross-examined. I do not think it would have made much difference if the company had had £14,700 cash instead of £15,000.

ANNIE REID , 109, Napiers Falls Street, Glasgow, spinster. I saw a prospectus of the company, believed the statements, and subscribed on August 6, 1901, for 50 shares. I do not remember getting a dividend.

MARGARET HOPE , 2, Allenbury Place, Teignmouth, spinster. My two sisters, Jane and Frances, and myself had some money invested in the Common Weal Syndicates. I saw prospectus of Common Weal Consolidated, and, believing the statement that that company had acquired £15. 000 in cash from the syndicates, subscribed £70 on behalf of myself and my sisters.

THOMAS SCORESBY JACKSON , M. D., Hoe Street. Walthamstow. Believing the statements in the prospectus, I subscribed £50 on behalf of my daughter to the Consolidated Company. On January 3, 1902, I subscribed for 30 shares on my own behalf, believing the statement as to the £15,000 cash. In October, 1901, I forwarded to The Critic Agency, or to the prisoner, certificate and transfer for 150 Robinson Randfontein shares of the face value of £150, to be exchanged for 150 shares in the company, and received certificate for same, making altogether £230, which I invested in the company.

GEORGE HUGH HODGSON , 60, Hillcrest Avenue, Leeds, Inspector, Mutual Life Insurance Company of New York. In 1896 I was a clerk in the financial department of" The Critic" newspaper. Prisoner was the editor, and after 1901 he practically conducted its business. The Critic Agency was also carried on for investing the moneys of subscribers to it. Prisoner was the proprietor of it; it was his business. I remember the first Common Weal Syndicate being established. Moneys were received by prisoner and the accounts were kept in the books of The Critic Agency. In February, 1901, a separate bank account was opened for the Syndicate. Syndicates Nos. 1 and 2 were afterwards started. Moneys of the three syndicates were paid into the account with the London and County Bank, Covent Garden. The offices were in Southampton Row and were afterwards removed to Guildhall Chambers, Basinghall Street. There was a separate account (No. 2) at that bank for the Critic Agency. The amalgamation of the three syndicates into the Common Weal Consolidated, Limited, was under an agreement which registered the transfer of £15,000 in cash to that company. No transfer of that amount in cash took place; the bank account remained as before and the balance became the credit balance of the Consolidated. Looking at the cash books of The Critic Agency, the first few pages are in the writing of Thurston, made at my dictation. On p. 22 a new start was made under date February 14, 1901, the date of the opening of the No. 2 account at the bank, beginning with "H. H.,

£200," following the amount received from prisoner to start the business. We afterwards had two accounts at the London and County Bank, "Critic Agency No. 1" and "Critic Agency No. 2"; No. 2 was the Consolidated, No. 1 was for the general business of the agency. The cash book continued to contain both accounts. The ledger of the Common Weal Consolidated, Limited, produced on folio 21 has an account" H. Hess Impersonal Account." The first entry is," Transferred from Critic Agency £8,572." That entry was made by the clerk of Elles Salaman and Co., the accountants to the company. On p. 10" H. Hess" is debited with a series of entries: £15,000, £8,572, cash £2,255 11s. 2d., and other entries for assets taken over from the syndicates, amounting in all to £45,025. In The Critic Agency ledger, p. 390, account" Henry Hess," the £8,572 is represented by three items:" March 11, 1901, No. 1 Syndicate, £4,970; November 23, No. 2 Syndicate, £1,965; March 25, No. 3 Syndicate, £137." In the "H. Hess Impersonal Account" there is a debit of December 23, 1901, £1,428. I signed a cheque on prisoner's instructions for 1,428, which with the £8,572 makes up the sum of £10,000; it was drawn from No. 2 account from the moneys of the Consolidated and sent to prisoner. Statutory Declaration of September 18, 1902, is signed by prisoner. The exhibit attached to it purports to be a copy agreement between the prisoner and a firm not named. I have never seen the original of that agreement. I attended all meetings of the syndicates and the Consolidated; verbatim reports thereof were published in" The Critic" and were also inserted in the minute book, which was signed by prisoner. I had sole authority to draw cheques on No. 1 and No. 2 accounts. On March 3, 1902, an extraordinary general meeting was held, at which prisoner addressed the shareholders and stated," We have, roughly speaking, over £10,000 in the bank." On that day the balance in Account No. 2 to the credit of the Consolidated was £128. Heads of agreement (produced) by which £10,000 was to be placed by the prisoner in the hands of a firm, "X," whose name was not to be disclosed, for investments on prisoner's instructions, are inserted in the minute book and were agreed to by the meeting. The minutes are signed" H. Hess, Chairman." On January 29, 1902, the first annual meeting of the Consolidated was held, and prisoner stated that a profit had been made on the £10,000 of £5,882 13s. 2d. The report signed by the auditors shows that on July 1 there was a profit of £1,117 18s. 2d., and on July 2 a loss of £10,137 12s. 6d., showing a net loss of £9,342 10s. 10d. On September 29 there was a meeting at which that report and the accounts were presented, and, after a speech from the prisoner, were passed. (Various passages from the verbatim reports of the meetings were read, in which prisoner had stated the assets of the company.)

Cross-examined. I joined "The Critic" in July, 1898. I have known prisoner for 10 years. Apart from" The Critic" newspaper, there was a business called The Critic Agency conducted by the prisoner, of which I kept the books drew the cheques, and saw all circulars sent out. It was an absolutely honest business, honestly

carried on for the purpose of speculation by the subscribers on the Stock Exchange. It was made clear to all subscribers that the object was to speculate with the money which they subscribed. When a profit was made it was honestly divided among the subscribers by cheques drawn and sent out by myself. The accounts were properly kept by me. Afterwards the first "Common Weal Syndicate" was formed for operating on the Stock Exchange with money subscribed by members of the public operating through members of the Stock Exchange, who forwarded direct to the subscribers their proportion of profit when made, The Critic Agency receiving a percentage only when the profit was made. No. 1 and No. 2 Syndicates were conducted in the same way. All profits were honestly divided amongst the members. The three syndicates and The Critic Agency were honestly conducted. Then came the amalgamation of the three syndicates into Common Weal Consolidated, Limited, the three syndicates being voluntarily wound up, prisoner being liquidator. Prisoner became bankrupt in 1905. The books of The Critic Agency were handed to his trustee. Prisoner was the proprietor of that business. Prospectuses of Common Weal Consolidated were only issued to subscribers to" The Critic." In the prospectus was a reference to the report appearing in" The Critic" of the meeting, at which the statement of the position of the company was stated by prisoner.

(Saturday, January 16.)

Mr. F. E. Smith said that he had had an opportunity of discussing with the defendant the cross-examination of the witnesses. The cross-examination must necessarily be of a complicated character, and would involve an acquaintance with a number of books. He could not claim to have the knowledge of the books which was desirable. Mr. Hess, who was a man of education and legal training, had suggested that he himself should cross-examine the witnesses, and had asked him (Mr. Smith) to remain to watch over his interests and to make any necessary observations.

Mr. Muir said it would be quite possible for the defendant to conduct his own defence and at the same time be advised by his counsel, but he knew no precedent for a defendant's conducting his own defence and then having the services of counsel to address the jury. The defendant must either conduct his own defence or permit his counsel to do so. He could not do both.

The Common Serjeant said the defendant must leave himself in counsel's hands or decline to be represented.

After consulting with the defendant, Mr. Smith said that Mr. Hess would conduct his own case, counsel remaining to watch over his legal interests.

GEORGE HUGH HODGSON , recalled, cross-examination resumed, by prisoner. In the business of The Critic Agency the subscribers could send their money direct to their own brokers; you advised what speculations should be engaged in; any profits arising were sent by the brokers direct to their clients; the latter then sent you 20 per

cent. of their profits. In the first year, from October, 1900, to October, 1901, the total profit was £938 3s. 3d.; from October, 1901, to October, 1902, the commission amounted to £618, representing £3,000 profit made by the subscribers. On September 30, 1901, The Critic Agency had in hand as cash £12,105. In the Memorandum of Association of the Common Weal Syndicate No. 1 the objects of the company were stated to be." To negotiate loans, lend money at interest or otherwise and with or without security to enter into partnership or make any arrangement for sharing profits, union of interests, joint adventure, reciprocal concession, amalgamation, co-operation, or otherwise, with any person or company to do all such other things as may be incidental or conducive to the attainments of the above objects or which may to the company seem calculated to enhance the value of or render profitable any of the company's property or rights or operations." There were similar words in the Memorandum of Common Weal Syndicates No. 2 and No. 3. During the operation of the three syndicates there were occasions when we were obliged to draw upon your private resources from account to account; there was never any hesitation on your part in giving this assistance. The second deal of the syndicate, which resulted in a disastrous loss, was the" bearing" of shares in Kaffir mining companies of the very highest class. With reference to the charge that on December 18, 1901, you appropriated to your own use £1,428, moneys of the syndicate, it is the fact that the syndicate was at that time in debt to you.

(Monday, January 18.)

GEORGE HUGH HODGSON , recalled, further cross-examined. In No. 2 account, on the formation of Common Weal Consolidated, there was a balance of £3,000, and on October 14, 1901, £4,171 was transferred from No. 1 account to No. 2 account, of which prisoner was the proprietor. On July 30, 1901, there was in prisoner's hands £7,072, being the moneys of the Common Weal Syndicates, which had been sent direct to prisoner by the shareholders. The cheques were made payable to prisoner according to the application form attached to the prospectus. There was in the account of the syndicate £3,302, and in prisoner's private account at Kew £1,500, which was transferred to No. 2 account on May 17. That is credited in The Critic Agency ledger, folio 390. I believe that was sent for cover on a speculative deal with the brokers. It was not a loan. In the cash book of Common Weal Consolidated, page 1, there is: "February 25, H. Hess, £331 13s. 4d.; February 27, £140 10s.; March 12, £261 1s. 6d. Those are sums I received by cheque from prisoner and were paid into No. 2 account as dividend to shareholders. Subscribers paid 1s. in the £ for expenses of registering the syndicates, solicitors' fees, etc. No charge was made by prisoner; the balance unexpended was refunded to subscribers. (Witness was taken through a large number of entries showing the way the accounts were dealt with.) All transactions were done through members of

the Stock Exchange. The loss of £10,000 occurred on a "bear" deal in Gold Fields shares. I gave evidence at the police court. When I stated that the business was an honest business, honestly conducted, I stated it voluntarily and not in cross-examination, I objected to the suggestion that we were outside brokers. It was in protest to a statement made by Mr. Muir in his opening that The Critic Agency was a bucket shop business. I was not cross-examined. Mr. F. E. Smith asked me to repeat what I had said. I was in prisoner's service from the commencement of The Critic Agency to his bankruptcy. I knew that moneys were properly disbursed. I drew all cheques and made all entries. With regard to The Critic Agency, the Syndicates, and the Consolidated, Limited, prisoner has never asked or suggested to me to do anything open to the slightest suspicion of being dishonest. I should not have stayed with him another five minutes if he had. After 10 years' service I left prisoner at the time of his bankruptcy, because he could no longer afford to pay me. I commenced with a salary of 35s. a week and was receiving at the end £6 a week. Prisoner has always expressed his full trust and confidence in me. I have never had occasion to doubt that prisoner was worthy of my trust and confidence I have never done anything wrong in connection with these businesses or been asked to do so by the prisoner. (A number of reports published in "The Critic" were put to the witness as to whether he agreed that the statements made by the prisoner therein were correct so far as he knew.) I was a director of the British and Colonial Publications Company, Limited, which owned" The Critic" newspaper. Prisoner had a preponderating interest and held the debentures; there were other shareholders. Prisoner sent money week by week to finance" The Critic." Prisoner had a claim against the Boer Government for the suppression of the" Johannesburg Critic." I am 'a creditor in prisoner's bankruptcy for salary. Prisoner has not asked me directly or indirectly to make any statement on his behalf. Under the prospectus The Critic Agency was to pay the costs of registering the Consolidated. I paid them out of NO. 1 account. On October 1. 1901," H. Hess Impersonal Account" was debited with a balance of £39 16s. 1d., and also £7,042 4s., making £7,111 held by prisoner on fixed deposit at 23/4 per cent. interest. The deal in November, which was so disastrous, was in Consolidated Gold Fields, Modderfonteins, and other mining shares. Prisoner told me he Was consulting Wernher, Beit, and Co., about it. He took the loss greatly to heart. The shares rose immediately after the deal was closed, and the prisoner and other shareholders considered the lose might be due to the advice notes being sent to shareholders, thereby publishing the nature of the deal; and at the meeting of March 3, 1902, the agreement which prisoner had entered into to deal with a firm whose name was not to be disclosed was adopted. Prisoner told me that he had arranged it before the meeting. The disastrous deal was closed on January 30, 1902. Prisoner held proxies which he stated he would not use, or vote himself, upon the agreement.

(Tuesday, January 19.)

GEORGE HUGH HODGSON , recalled, further cross-examined. "The Critic" was the only paper in which reports were published concerning the Consolidated. Some of the shareholders in the Consolidated were also shareholders in the publishing company, and the fortunes of the one company were interwoven with the fortunes of the other. I do not think" The Critic" had an influence on the Stock markets. It has certainly not tried to assist the deals of the agency by puffing shares. Prisoner had a great knowledge of Transvaal shares. The Consolidated only dealt in high-class Transvaal shares. If the deal closed on January 30, 1902, had been carried over another four months the market would have been in our favour. On November 21, 1904, a meeting was called by requisition of Guedalla. Guedalla claimed to be the holder of prisoner's 10,000 shares. Prisoner claimed they had been deposited with Guedalla as security and that he was attempting to wreck the company, that he had tried to get prisoner to lend the moneys of the company on those shares, and that prisoner had declined to do so. (The report of the meeting was read.) Prisoner offered to buy the shares of any discontented shareholder. The meeting was adjourned to January 5, 1905; a poll was taken on the resolution of Guedalla to wind up the company, when the votes were: For, 15,115; against, 14,090—a majority not sufficient under the Articles. A meeting was held at Winchester House in May, 1905, called by Guedalla, when the resolution for voluntary liquidation was passed; Mr. Salaman was appointed official liquidator, and I handed the books and papers of the company to him. All other books and papers in the office went to the Official Receiver in his bankruptcy, in which Salaman was also appointed trustee. In addition to the books I see produced here there was a box containing contract notes and other papers. There were also papers in the safe. I do not know what they were. Everything in the office was handed over. When the syndicates were wound up prisoner did not ask me to destroy the books; they are here in Court.

Re-examined. A verbatim report of the meeting of November 24, 1904, was made by an official shorthand-writer, and printed by order of The Critic Agency. I cannot say if copies were sent to all the shareholders. Notice of the adjourned meeting of January 10, 1905, would be sent to the shareholders. All entries in the books were made by me or by Thurston under my direction; they are correct and have never been objected to by prisoner. The Consolidated was formed to take over all the assets of the three syndicates. The books ran on till September 30, 1901. I then adjusted the books by transferring the moneys received by The Critic Agency. That adjustment was correct and prisoner was made acquainted with it. On July 31 1901 the journal shows "Vendors' account Dr. £30,000; working capital £15,000, made up of "Critic Agency No. 1 Account, £4,172 8s. 10d."—that was in prisoner's account at Kew and was transferred on October 14;" H. Hess £8,572; cash £2,255 11s. 2d."—being

the balance in Critic Agency No. 2 bank account and including £1,500 paid by prisoner on May 15. That £1,500 was repaid to prisoner on December 23, 1901. On December 23, 1901, I drew a cheque, on priosner's instructions, in his favour for £1,428, which is entered "Deposit at 23/4 per cent. ex capital." That made up £10,000 which prisoner held without security on deposit at 23/4 per cent. (To the Prisoner.) On July 1, 1901, prisoner had in his hands of the syndicates' money £7,072; that was received from shareholders and not paid over. (To the Judge.) In the profit and loss account of The Critic Agency, October, 1900, to September, 1901, there are two items, amounting to about £12,000, viz., "£6,263 18s. 9d.: By balance of No. 1 account in the bank on September 30" (that is prisoner's account), and "Balance of No. 2 account as on September 30, £5,841 2s. 7d." They represent the capital account of Common Weal Consolidated, which I was responsible for. That is the clear balance of cash in the bank at that date. If a client wished it we would introduce him to a broker, but we did not receive commission for doing so.

JOHN GALLOWAY GALLOWAY , recalled. I received a copy (produced) of the verbatim report of the meeting of November 24, 1904. I attended no meetings of the company.

EDWARD VAUGHAN Fox, Examiner in the Companies Winding-up Department, Board of Trade. I have examined the books of the Common Weal Consolidated, Limited. The cash book of The Critic Agency on the first 20 pages contains money received from October 5, 1900, to March 25, 1901, amounting to £9,692 4s. 8d. Of that amount there is debited in the ledger to Henry Hess, "March 11, No. 1 Syndicate, £4,970; March 23, No. 2 Syndicate, £3,475; March 25, No. 3 Syndicate, £127," making together £8,572. On October 14, 1901, the same mount is debited to Hess, £1,500 having been paid in and paid out. On December 23, 1901, there is further debited," Ex capital £1,428," making a total of £10,000. In February, 1902, there is," Interest on deposit £48 5s." On page 10 of the journal, Critic Agency, there is an entry," Sundries, debtor to vendors' account; Critic Agency, £4,172 8s. 10d.; H. Hess, £8,572; cash, £2,255 11s. 2d.," making a total of £15,000; that shows that the prisoner owes Common Weal Consolidated £8,572. On July 24, 1901, there is a credit in Critic Agency bank account £2,171 18s. 2d.; in No. 2 account £7,468 9s. 4d.; in the Kew Bank account £1,235 18s. 4d., or a total balance in banks of £10,876 5s. 10d. On July 26, 1901, the total balance is £10,803 9s. 7d. On March 3, 1902, Critic Agency, £134 8s. and £720 6s. No. 2 account £6,019; Kew account £1,572 15s. 4d., so that, including all three banks and taking the private account at Kew to be money of the Consolidated, there was not £10,000 in the banks. An order to wind up the Consolidated by the Court was made on October 15, 1907; statement of affairs of December 12, 1907, shows deficiency as regards contributories £45,182, being £30,000 shares given to the shareholders of the three syndicates, £10,000 given to The Critic Agency, and £5,182 taken up by applicants. Assets nil, except that the prisoner himself returned himself as a debtor for

£9,784 19s., being the £10,000 less a small sum due to him, prisoner stating there was a legal question whether he was liable for that amount. On October 31, 1907, I had answers from the prisoner to printed questions (produced).

Prisoner objected to the answers being read, there being no charge in the indictment respecting them. Held admissible, as statements made by prisoner.

(The document was read.) The books do not show that any deals were in progress at the time. £15,000 was stated to be in the bank. All the profits had been paid in by the brokers and sent to the subscribers at the time of the transfer to the Consolidated. On January 14, 1908, I had an interview with prisoner. Directly after he had left I dictated to a shorthand writer my recollection of what prisoner had said.

Prisoner objected to the document being read or referred to. Held that the witness could refer to it to refresh his memory.

Prisoner stated in his preliminary examination that he believed Louis Joel's bank, out of which the £10,000 had been paid, was the Bank of Africa in Cannon Street. I made inquiries and informed prisoner of the result—that Joel had had an account at that bank, which was closed in 1898. I informed prisoner that Joel had had an account in the Bank of Natal but there was no trace of a payment of £10,000 or any approximate amount. Prisoner said he never meant to suggest the Bank of Natal at all, but that there must be another account at the Bank of Africa, on which Joel was entitled to operate—he could not suggest the name. He said that Joel had owed him £10,000 on a deal in South Africa; that Joel had discovered some mining claims and prisoner had been one of the people finding money; that Joel had handed £10,000 to him and he had paid it to Freeman Cohen. My note is a little confused as to that. He said that a cheque was drawn on the Bank of Africa and that he thought he had himself received the bank notes and taken them himself to Freeman Cohen; he had no receipt; the agreement was the receipt. I pointed out that I had not found any such agreement. Prisoner said that the agreement had been in the possession of the company's solicitor, Mr. Dickson, and that in a proceeding of Cox v. Common Weal Consolidated it had been produced in Court by Mr. Hart, counsel for the company; that if the agreement could not now be found it was because his offices were taken possession of by the Sheriff during his absence abroad, and that all his papers had either been taken possession of by his trustee in bankruptcy or been sold as waste paper by a clerk named Thurston. I said it was very unlikely that Mr. Salaman, the trustee, would have left behind, or Thurston would have sold as waste paper, an agreement. Prisoner has not produced any correspondence with Joel or Cohen; he suggested it must be lost. No document has been produced to me with regard to this transaction except the heads of agreement recorded in the minute book and the alleged copy exhibited to the prisoner's statutory declaration.

(Wednesday, January 20.)

EDWARD VAUGHAN FOX , recalled. The following payments appear

in the books under date August 8, 1901: Annie Reid, £50; James Taylor, £30; Margaret Hope, £30, £30, and £10; T. Donald, £20. July 30: J. G. Galloway, £40. September 26: L. Scoresby-Jackson, £50; October 31: Jackson, £150; January 3, 1902:. Jackson, £30; also that corresponding amounts of shares were issued to those persons. (Cross-examination postponed.)

THOMAS EDWARD THURSTON , clerk to Croydon Corporation. About 11 years ago I became cashier to "The Critic" newspaper and afterwards secretary to the British and Colonial Publications Company, Limited, who owned and published that paper. I had nothing: whatever to do with The Critic Agency or the Common Weal Syndicate or Consolidated, except that I assisted Hodgson in making entries on the first 20 pages of book produced of the sums received by the syndicates from October 5, 1900, to March 25, 1901. In Critic Agency ledger, page 390, prisoner is charged on March 11, 1901, with "No. 1 Syndicate £4,970." I made that entry on Hodgson's instructions. When prisoner had arranged to go to Johannesburg (though he did not go) Purvis took over the editorship of "The Critic. "

ANNIE FREEMAN COHEN . I am the widow of the late Harry Freeman Cohen, who died in South Africa on January 24, 1904. I came to England with my late husband and children from South Africa in March, 1901. He returned to South Africa on January 18, 1902. I saw him off by the Briton. He never returned to England. I joined him in South Africa on September 27, 1902, and remained with him there until his death. My husband never (had any partners; it was a peculiarity of his; he never would have a partner. I have never heard of the names of William Phillips, Samuel Goodman, or Aubrey Goldman. Fontein was his clerk and kept his books. His office in London was Finsbury House, Blomfield Street, I visited him there in 1901; he had no other offices. I am his executrix; no claim has been made by prisoner against his estate.

Cross-examined. My husband died by his own hand. He was then in financial difficulties; he was perfectly solvent at the time, and since his death all his debts have been paid. I am sole executrix. When I said at the police court I knew absolutely nothing of his business I was nervous; he used to talk to me of important things without going into detail. He was a director of very many companies; he had shares in lots of companies; he would never have partners in his business; he would have no partner in any transaction. As executrix I had attorneys who got in the debts and settled with the creditors both in Africa and in England; it was not managed by the Court. Before coming to England in 1901 I had been many years in South Africa. I was in Johannesburg prior to December, 1895, at the time of the Jameson Raid. I knew prisoner by name as associated with a paper and have seen the "African Critic."

Re-examined. I have never heard that prisoner had any business with my husband. My husband never had any partner.

JACK ANDREW COHEN . I am at present staying at the Langham Hotel; I ordnarily live at Johannesburg and am the nephew of the late H. Freeman Cohen. He had no partners. I was his confidential man from 1901 to his death in January, 1904. I was absolutely in a position to know what business he was doing in 1901 and 1902. After his visit to England in 1901 he arrived in Johannesburg in February, 1902, where I lived with him in the same house. Mrs. Cohen and the children arrived in August or September, 1902. I was in H. Freeman Cohen's absolute confidence. I never heard of his having business relations with prisoner or with the Common Weal Consolidated. I was acquainted with his South African books. Fontein kept the books in England. H. Freeman Cohen was managing director of Freeman Cohen's Consolidated, Limited, which is now in voluntary liquidation. I never heard the names of Samuel Goodman, William Phillips, or Aubrey Goldman until the statement made in prisoner's bankruptcy.

Cross-examined. By partner I mean the entering into business relations with another and sharing profits. Besides being managing director of Freeman Cohen's Consolidated, of which he was the founder and largely interested in, my uncle was a director and shareholder in many other companies; he had shares in companies of which he was not a director. Freeman Cohen's Consolidated went into voluntary liquidation quite recently. We discharged all liabilities, but there was nothing for the shareholders. H. Freeman. Cohen held fifteen-sixteenths of the shares; there were issued about £753,000; therefore, about 40,000 or 45,000 shares were issued to the public, who got nothing. H. Freeman Cohen committed suicide in 1904. At the time of his death he had financial embarrassments. Since then his estate has paid 20s. in the £. I first went to South Africa in 1899. I should say H. Freeman Cohen was a perfectly honourable, trustworthy man, who would keep any promise he made, and if he had exacted a promise he would expect it to be kept; he was a man of honour who, if he gave his word, would keep it.

EDWARD VAUGHAN FOX , recalled. Cross-examined. I have been for 10 years an examiner of accounts in the Companies Winding-up Department and have given my opinion as to the meaning of entries in the books as an experienced bookkeeper. In the present case I had charge of the matters to be gone into under the instructions of my superiors. The evidence has been considered and tested by the Treasury solicitors. I have an average memory. No money has been expended by the Board of Trade in making inquiries. I have made my inquiries as exhaustive as I could, and have got together all the material I could get bearing on this matter with a view of ascertaining whether there was or was not a claim against the estate of the late Freeman Cohen. I have made every inquiry that occurred to my superiors, the Board of Trade, to confirm or contradict prisoner's statements. The Director of Public Prosecutions is not my superior. I went to, or communicated with, every person I could find whom prisoner named. I did not go to L. Ehrlich and Co., 10 and 11, Austin Friars,

to F. N. Hamilton, or P. Hamilton Gell, or Marcus and Co., Warneford Court, or the Rand Deep Company. The name of "William Phillips" may be in the "Post Office Directory." The Critic Agency No. 1 account was opened on February 14; there were a few days of the previous account overlapping that date. There were 436 shareholders in Common Weal Consolidated, holding 45,182. shares. The petition for the winding-up is signed by Phillip deSoyers; the winding-up order is October 15, 1907; John Barr and 15 others supported the petition, holding 2,280 shares. The solicitors for the petitioner were Hurford and Taylor, 10, (Bedford Row; there were no creditors except the solicitors for their costs. On October 22, 1907, the usual form was sent to the officials of the company for their attendance to give information; that notice was sent to prisoner as the sole director, and under a different name, the secretary, he being the only official we knew of. At that time prisoner was a bankrupt, and therefore legally was neither director nor secretary by Article 63 of the Articles of Association of the Company. I may have known that at that time. On October 31 prisoner stated in his answers that he was a bankrupt. He came to me at once on receiving notice, voluntarily. If he had not come we should certainly have fetched him under the order of the Court. Prisoner did not protest against being examined, and he answered the questions readily and willingly. When I said at the police court," In the minute book of the meeting of March 3, 1902, there is a statement that the Consolidated then had £10,000 in the bank; that statement is not true of any of these accounts," I referred to The Critic Agency accounts Nos. 1 and No. 2 and prisoner's account at Kew; from all information I had, those are the only accounts from which the Consolidated could have derived funds. In the balance-sheet there is on the credit side:" Cash in hands of Mr. Hess, as per agreement dated March 3, 1902, £10,000; balance of interest due by Mr. Hess, £48 5s." In the auditors' report of September 18 there is the statement as to that £48 5s.: This has been received by the company subsequent to the drawing up of the (accounts." That is in accordance with the ledger, and the amount is the interest for a little over two months at 23/4 per cent. on £10,000. I saw Salaman as the auditor of the Consolidated and also as the trustee in prisoner's bankruptcy. He came to me before prisoner's preliminary examination and after the petition, and I knew from Salaman that prisoner was a bankrupt. He gave me a copy of a report which he had made to the Director of Public Prosecutions, which I read; it contained the effect of what Salaman had ascertained as prisoner's trustee, and stated that he had purported to be appointed liquidator of the Consolidated in May, 1905. I received the books from him, including three or four of The Critic Agency. All books I received are here; there is also a bundle of paid cheques, which I will produce. Salaman showed me correspondence with the Director of Public Prosecutions. I received no papers from Salaman except cancelled cheques. Prisoner attended punctually at the time fixed for his examination. I did not caution him that anything he said

might be used as evidence on his trial, or that this matter had been the subject of correspondence between his trustee in bankruptcy and the Director of Public Prosecutions. (Prisoner put to the witness a large number of the answers in his preliminary examination.) Prisoner undertook to defray the cost of all the clerical work, etc., without remuneration. Whether that included the printing of circulars, etc., is a legal question which I do not undertake to answer. There was no claim by the prisoner in respect thereof inserted in the books. If such a claim had been made I should have recommended my superiors to take advice about it. I knew Guedalla was the petitioning creditor in prisoner's bankruptcy upon which he was adjudicated bankrupt in March, 1905. I have not seen. Guedalla in reference to this trial. He is the largest individual shareholder and holds 10,000 shares. At one stage the Director of Public Prosecutions declined to prosecute; that was in 1906. I had an interview with prisoner on January 14, 1908. I may have said to him, "It will all depend upon the answers which you give to-day what steps the Official Receiver is going to take." I wanted information as to the alleged agreement with Freeman Cohen and others. There was a question pending whether prisoner should be prosecuted. I did not say anything about the prosecution. Of course, I knew there might be one. After the interview I dictated notes to a shorthand writer from my recollection of prisoner's statements. I did not make inquiries as to an arbitration which had taken place between Joel and Ehrlich; for anything I knew or cared, what prisoner told me about it might have been true. The name of the arbitrator, Hamilton Gell, is in the "Directory of Directors"; I knew the name. The point was whether Joel had paid prisoner a sum of money. I still say that I took every means to satisfy myself as to the truth of prisoner's story as to the £10,000. Joel had a receiving order made against him in 1906. Prisoner told me that he had informed Mr. Chapman, the Official Receiver, that he desired to serve a writ on Joel and to be brought face to face with him. I knew Joel had been to England and had returned to South Africa. I did not inquire of Mr. Chapman about this. Prisoner stated to me that the agreement with Freeman Cohen had been handed up to the Judge in Court in the case of Cox v. Common Weal Consolidated, and not that he had handed up a paper giving the name of the firm who were operating under the agreement. I say that most emphatically. This was the most important thing for me to inquire about, and I say my note as to the statement by prisoner is correct. Also that prisoner stated the agreement had either been handed to Salaman or destroyed or sold amongst waste paper by Thurston. No one was present at the interview of January 14, 1908, for the purpose of taking a note; I dictated the notes to a shorthand writer from my recollection after the interview. Salaman had told me that prisoner had stated that Joel's cheque was drawn on the Bank of Natal. I think that was a mistake and that the Natal Bank should not have been brought into it. I will search my office and bring here every paper I have received in relation to the Common Weal or the prisoner's affairs; I

do not think I have anything but the cancelled cheques. (Witness's notes of the interview with prisoner of January 14, 1908, were read in full.) From the time of Salaman's report I thought prisoner might he prosecuted.

(Thursday, January 21.)

EDWARD VAUGHAN FOX , recalled, further cross-examined. I produce counterfoil certificate receipt and cheque books and bundle of cancelled cheques. I have nothing in the nature of correspondence, papers, or letter books. I have received none. I did not communirate with Guedalla, because I thought everything he could tell us bearing on this case could be stated by Salaman. I knew Guedalla had a claim against prisoner for costs and a charge on 10,000 shares; that those shares had been registered to Guedalla; that the costs were in reference to a libel action against "The Critic." Guedalla was the petitioning creditor in prisoner's bankruptcy and was also solicitor for Salaman, the trustee. According to the file, the receiving order was made against Louis Joel on November 14, 1906; that was annulled on January 11, 1907, and the petition dismissed, Joel having paid his debts. I received from Salaman some of the books of the British and Colonial Publications Company, Limited; they were obtained from Thurston; I know very little about that company. I have dealt with numerous fraudulent companies; I have never heard prisoner's name associated with any. I have seen "The Critic Black Book," edited by prisoner, giving the names of directors of certain public companies; that book has been of assistance to me in investigations of companies; it has filled a useful position; it gives extracts from reports of the Inspector-General in Companies Liquidation. (Held that the book could not be admitted as evidence of character.) Except the Common Weal Consolidated, Limited, there has been no company passing through my department with which prisoner's name has been connected.

Re-examined. British and Colonial Publications, Limited, was registered December 21, 1896, to acquire printers and publishers' business. By a return dated April 21, 1901, prisoner held 7,490 £1 shares, and on December 31, 1903, 5,459 Shares. On September 16, 1902, £5,000 debentures were issued. On February 1 and 22, 1904, resolutions were passed for voluntary liquidation, Thurston being appointed liquidator. The winding-up was closed November 3, 1905, the final account showing that the £5 000 debentures were not paid off; unsecured creditors, £924; share capital, £24,44; assets nil. There was an amount of £2,927 12s. 8d. realised and disbursed in publishing" The Critic" and paying liquidator's remuneration. The minute book of the Common Weal Consolidated consists of reports of meetings published in "The Critic"; there are no minutes of anything else; in sending such reports to shareholders there would be no expense apart from the publication of" The Critic." I have no connection with the Director of Public Prosecutions. At the time of taking the prisoner preliminary

examination and having the interview in January, 1908, it was my duty to ascertain the assets of Common Weal Consolidated, and for that purpose to require prisoner's attendance and get information from him. The notes of the interview were dictated within a few minutes of prisoner leaving my office. My memory is quite clear as to what prisoner said about the agreement having been handed up in Court and his mentioning the name of Thurston. The note coincides with my recollection of what prisoner said.

ROBERTSON FYFFE GIBB , manager, passenger department, Castle Line. Mr. and Mrs. Freeman Cohen and four children arrived at Southampton from Cape Town per ss. Norman on March 22, 1901. Mr. Freeman Cohen left Southampton per ss. Briton on January 18, 1902. I saw him during the preceding week about his baggage and saw him on the ship before she sailed. I produce the waybill of the ss. Dungarvan leaving Southampton on January 21, 1902, for Cape Town and bearing the name of L. Joel as a passenger; also the waybill of the ss. Norman, arriving at Southampton August 30, 1902, bearing L. Joel's name as a passenger from Cape Town to England My company banks at Williams, Deacon, and Co. and the Union Bank of Scotland. In January, 1902, Louis Joel paid £39 18s. by cheque for a first-class single ticket to Cape Town.

Cross-examined. I have known prisoner 10 years or more; he has taken a great interest in South African affairs, and I have known the "Johannesburg Critic," the "African Critic," and" The Critic," of which he has been editor and proprietor, and I have read them with very much pleasure. The paper has been largely read. So far as I know, prisoner has always borne a good character.

THOMAS EDWARD THURSTON , recalled. Cross-examined. In the British and Colonial Publications Company on December 31, 1903, 5,459 £1 shares were held by prisoner; Guedalla and Baker held 10,000 shares. At the first registration there were allotted to prisoner 10,000 vendor's shares; he had therefore sold or transferred 4,541; many of them were sold for the benefit of the company; prisoner was constantly paying money to the company—he gave his own vendor shares as Bonus to subscribers. I have seen Louis Joel about selling the shares of the Publications Company—to get people to take them up, and he paid for a number to the company; that is about 10 years ago. L. Joel was connected with Marcus and Co. When the office was closed about February, 1905, I handed the books to Mr. Salaman; that was after his bankruptcy. I gave certain books, some of which are here and some are not, to Salaman; others I took away when the office at Guildhall Chambers was closed; I have produced them here. I cannot say what became of letters and papers. I took some to a cellar the company had at Mansion House Chambers, which I afterwards took over and paid the rent of My liquidation account was filed in 1906; Guedalla and Baker were still on the register as trustees of Mrs. Hess's marriage settlement. Baker was the chief clerk to Guedalla and Frost. The report of the Common Weal Syndicates and of Common Weal Consolidated appeared in" The Critic"; the Publications Company paid the people who did

the printing and the Common Weal Companies paid £25 a year. There are reports in" The Critic" of 44 actions for libel. In 10 cases the unsuccessful plaintiff did not pay the costs. There were a number of actions brought against" The Critic" for reflections upon companies and their promoters or directors; in a considerable number in which the plaintiff failed and" The Critic" succeeded the plaintiff did not pay the costs. There were cases in which the Grand Jury or the Judge said that the public were indebted to the defendant for exposing fraud. (Held that the details of the cases could not be gone into.) The Publications Company owed prisoner £10,000 on the accounts stated by the auditors; prisoner has contributed £3,000 by the sale of shares, the proceeds whereof went to the company, and he forwent his salary of £1,000 as editor. As far as I know, the statements made by prisoner in the reports published were correct. During 1904 and 1905 I was acting as liquidator to the Publications Company pending reconstruction; the reconstruction scheme failed; I had no more money to go on with and I finally liquidated the company. There was then £924 due to unsecured creditors; £5 000 of debentures and a lot more money due to prisoner. As shown by the ledger on March 29, 1903, there was due to prisoner £10,275 0s. 11d.; that entry is in the handwriting of Mr. Parker, the auditors' clerk. In addition to the amount credited to prisoner in the books, he paid a large sum to the printers and for law costs on account of" The Critic." Those sums amount to several thousands of pounds beyond the £10,000 credited to prisoner in the books. The whole sum lost by the trade creditors of this company was £924. Beyond those payments and credits, prisoner gave the company some thousands of his own shares as bonus to subscribers. When the company was formed it undertook to indemnify prisoner in any costs or expenses through actions brought against "The Critic." At the meetings of the company prisoner stated to the shareholders how he was financing the company and gave accurate statements of the profits and losses. In 1903 there was a meeting of all the syndicates and the Publications Company; this was at the time of the formation of the Consolidated. I stated at the. police court that it was an honest business, honestly conducted. If at any time the bank account of the company had a Large balance I should have had no hesitation in paying prisoner out of it. On July 1, 1901, there was a credit balance of £1,618; on July 30, £1,544. I have never known prisoner to ask me to do anything wrong.

Re-examined. I took away no books or papers belonging to the Consolidated. I never saw an agreement with an unnamed firm of March 5, 1902, or about that date. I never sold any books or papers for £1 or any other sum; I never destroyed any. I never told prisoner that I had sold a lot of papers as waste paper or destroyed them.

ESTHER JOEL , wife of Louis Joel. My husband is now in South Africa; he is very ill and unable to return to England. I saw him off to South Africa on or about January 6, 1902. He next returned to England on August 30, 1902. He was not over here within that period.

Cross-examined. My husband was interested in some claims known as the East Rand Deep in 1902; he acquired that interest before he went to South Africa, in January, 1902. He was associated with Victor Wolff. He had a dispute with Ehrlich and Co., which was submitted to arbitration. I do not know the name of Hamilton Gell in connection with that.

ARTHUR HERMANN FONTEIN , commercial traveller. In 1895 I was accountant to Freeman Cohen's Consolidated, Limited, then at 19, Throgmorton Avenue and removed to Finsbury House in November, 1900. H. Freeman Cohen was chairman of the company. He transacted no business with prisoner after the offices were removed to Finsbury House. I was in the habit of seeing persons who came. I never saw the prisoner at either office. I kept all the books of the company and was fully acquainted with the business transactions of H. Freeman Cohen during 1901 and 1902. I produce the books of the company for those years. I have examined them carefully and find no entry of the receipt of £10,000 from prisoner or the Common Weal Consolidated. Looking at the account exhibited to prisoner's statutory declaration, there are no entries in my company's books from which such an account could be made up. I also kept H. Freeman Cohen's private books and produce ledger and cash book from 1897 to 1904 containing accounts with the London and Westminster Bank and the London branch of the Bank of South Africa; also the journal from 1895 to 1903. There is no record of any dealing between prisoner, the Common Weal Consolidated, or the Common Weal Syndicates and H. Freeman Cohen; no entry of a deposit of £10000, and nothing from which the account exhibited to prisoner's statutory declaration could be made up. I used to make or direct payments into the banks. I never made any payment of £10,000 in connection with prisoner or heard of any such transaction. I have never heard of the names Samuel Goodman, William Phillips, or Aubrey Goldman, as partners of H. Freeman Cohen, or at all. I knew all his transactions on the Stock Exchange.

Cross-examined. It was a peculiarity of Mr. Cohen never to have any partners. He was the sole vendor to Freeman Cohen's Consolidated, Limited, and also to other companies. He sold properties, stocks, and shares, and dealt largely on the Stock Exchange. Freeman Cohen's Consolidated, Limited, had interests in a large number of properties, and in the shares of a large number of companies. H. Freeman Cohen has never sold as a member of a syndicate to my knowledge. I have heard of prisoner and believe Mr. H. Freeman Cohen knew him. I believe Mr. Cohen was an absolutely honourable and straightforward man who would keep any promise he made and if he had exacted a promise from anyone he would expect it to be kept.

WILLIAM JAMES STORY , clerk. Williams, Deacon, and Co., 20, Birchin Lane. I produce certified extract of account of Union Castle Mail Steamship Company showing credit on January 3, 1902, of £39 18s. by cheque on the Natal Bank.

FRANCIS PAYNE CARRINGTON , clerk, Natal Bank, London. I produce certified copy of account of Louis Joel from January 1 to 7, 1902, showing on January 3, 1902, a debit of £39 18s., which was cleared through Williams, Deacon, and Co.

ARTHUR BATTERSBY BACON , chief cashier, Bank of Africa, 113, Cannon Street. Louis Joel had an account at my bank from 1895 to May 25, 1898. In 1903 an account was opened in the name of the East Rand Deep, Limited, South Africa, on which L. Joel drew. No such cheque as £10,000 passed through it. During 1902 my bank had no account on which L. Joel had authority to draw.

Cross-examined. Louis Joel, as a director of the East Rand Deep, had authority to draw on that company's account, in conjunction with Ludwig Ehrlich and Rudolf Mayer. The company's offices were 10 and 11, Austin Friars.

FRANCIS JAMES DICKSON , Brunswick House, solicitor. I acted for the Common Weal Consolidated in the petition of Cox before Mr. Justice Buckley, instructed Mr. Astbury and Mr. Hart to appear on behalf of the company, and was present at the hearing. No original agreement was produced by prisoner either then or on any other occasion. The Judge asked to see the agreement and counsel explained that he had not got the original. I never saw the original or any copy of it disclosing the name of the unknown firm.

Cross-examined. I have conducted a large amount of litigation for prisoner as joint defendant with "The Critic." I was informed prisoner was indemnified by the Publications Company. I have received from prisoner by cheques on his account at Kew, from December 17, 1900, to July 21 1902, £1,460 0s. 2d. Most of the payments were in respect of libel actions. The shorthand note produced of the trial of Cox v. Common Weal Consolidated is correct to my recollection. The Judge asked for the agreement, which prisoner stated was at his house and could be fetched. Within 20 or 30 minutes afterwards judgment was given for the company before the agreement had arrived. The name of the firm was asked for; prisoner wrote on a piece of paper and handed it up. Cox moved that the company should be wound up, and the action was dismissed. In December, 1902, a second action was brought by Cox, a holder of 40 shares, to restrain prisoner from parting with the £10,000 or carrying out the agreement as ultra virus the company under the Articles of Association, and it was held that the agreement could be entered into. I have documents relating to a claim by prisoner on the Boer Government for suppression of "The Critic." I produce a letter from Bertram Cox, secretary to Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, stating that he was in communication with Lord Milner on the subject. Putting aside the privilege of solicitor and client I can say that prisoner has never done anything to my knowledge that I consider dishonourable; he usually went into the witness-box in defence of the libel actions and was cross-examined. I have acted for prisoner from 1899 to 1905. Since 1905 I have had no communication with him until I met him in court here.

GEORGE FREDERICK HART , member of the Chancery Bar. On August 5, 1902, I appeared with Mr. Astbury for the company in Cox V. Common Weal Consolidated before Mr. Justice Buckley. Reference was made to an agreement with an unknown firm; the Judge asked to see it; Mr. Astbury stated the original was at prisoner's house and should be sent for; prisoner was asked for the name and wrote on a slip of paper, which was handed up. I never saw any executed agreement or any copy disclosing the name of the unnamed firm.

Cross-examined. Looking at the shorthand note I should say that judgment was given for the company within 15 or 20 minutes of the request for the agreement to be produced and the action was dismissed without costs. I agree with Mr. Dickson's evidence with regard to the motion before Mr. Justice Byrne. I was instructed on prisoner's behalf in an action against Guedalla—I do not remember the date. I think I drew the statement of claim.

FRANCIS JAMES DICKSON , recalled. The writ in Hess v. Guedalla was issued December 22, 1904, to have an indenture of May 16, 1902, cancelled and 10,000 shares in Common Weal Consolidated and 40 debentures in British and Colonial Publications Company retransferred and delivered to prisoner.

CHARLES ENGLISH BOYLE , messenger, Court of Bankruptcy. I produce file in the bankruptcy of prisoner.

Prisoner objected to this evidence as not relevant to the indictment. Held: That the Bankruptcy having been referred to, the file was admissible so far as material.

Receiving order was made March 8, 1905. Prisoner is described as; carrying on business as The Critic Agency at the Guildhall Chambers, residing at Kew, journalist. At the first meeting of creditors, on April 19, 1905, a resolution was passed that prisoner should be adjudged bankrupt and F. S. Salaman be appointed trustee. Prisoner was adjudicated bankrupt and Salaman certified as trustee by the Board of Trade on May 5, 1905. Statement of affairs was sworn August 31, 1905, and amended October 21, 1905: Assets, £33,194 4s. 8d.; liabilities, £10,638 14s. 3d.; surplus, £22. 655 10s. 5d. Beyond a few items the assets consist of" surplus from securities in the hands of creditors fully secured." No dividend has been declared and prisoner is still an undischarged bankrupt.

Cross-examined. B. M. Woollam is a creditor for £2,900, F. M. Guedalla for £5,098 11s. 9d., contracted May, 1902, for law costs and interest, security £10,000 fully paid £1 shares in Common Weal Consolidated, 40 Debentures of £100 each in British and Colonial Publications Company, Limited, estimated value of security £3,755; unsecured balance, £1,343 11s. 9d. There is a note by prisoner: "These law costs were in connection with libel actions brought against me and the British Colonial Publications Company, Limited, in respect of matter published in 'The Critic' for which the company, to the knowledge of the petitioning creditor, held me blameless under contract of May, 1902. I without any consideration adopted the liability and gave the above securities upon representations of the petitioning creditor, which have not been fulfilled. I dispute the

claim which was the subject of a Chancery action commenced by me against the petitioning creditor and pending at the date of the receiving order. "Among the fully secured creditors there are bracketed together Woollam, B. M., Tunbridge Wells, £1,000 and interest, contracted March, 1898; consideration—cash advanced; security—first charge on claim for compensation for suppression of 'The Critic,' Johannesburg; Finance and Mines Corporation, Limited, £3,000—advance on the same security. That security is valued at £30,000 and is the sole asset of the bankrupt."

(Friday, January 22.)

FRANCIS JAMES DICKSON , recalled. I produce account showing sums paid by prisoner to me in connection with the various libel actions and the payment there under, totalling £1,356 12s. 1d., between December 17, 1900, and July 18, 1902. It includes a sum of £300 for damages. Counsel's opinion was taken on the prospectus of Common Weal Consolidated on July 23, 1901.

NORMAN SMITH , clerk, London and Provincial Bank, Kew. I produce certified copy of prisoner's account with my bank from June 7 to July 30, 1901, showing credit balance on July 24, £1,234 18s. 4d.; on July 26, £1,232 17s. 1d. The pass-book on October 15, 1901, shows a payment in of £1,500; on December 27, 1901, there is a payment in of £1,670 3s. 11d. On May 18, 1901, there is a debit of cheque paid to The Critic Agency £1,600. The amount paid in up to December 31, 1901, amounts to £3,611 14s. 8d., against debits £1,926 7s. 5d.

GEORGE ENGLISH BOYLE , recalled and further cross-examined. I produce transcript of prisoner's adjourned public examination of November 22, 1905. (Portions of same were read.)

(Monday, January 25.)


HENRY HESS (prisoner, not on oath) said that although he had not the right of following the counsel for the prosecution the last word was for the jury; he had been cross-examined very severely in his preliminary examination by Mr. Fox, and he would not attempt to place evidence before the jury beyond what had been read and that which had been given by the prosecutor from which they must draw the inferences. There were three questions to consider—(1) Who was the man in the dock? (2) how he got there? and (3) how was he to leave it? Until the present charge not a speck of dishonour had rested on his name; that was admitted on the evidence of the prosecution. As to how he got there, there had been suppression of evidence by somebody behind the scenes, both from Mr. Fox and the Director of Public Prosecutions and of materials which would have established his innocence in five minutes. The only shareholders called were those who complained only that there was not £15,000 in the bank at the time of the formation of the Consolidated Company. The real charge

was not as to whether there was an agreement with Freeman Cohen and Company but as to whether he stole the £10,000, only £1,428 of which he was charged with misappropriating. Where were the shareholders who complained of being defrauded? They had heard of Guedalla, the largest individual shareholder, holding 10,000 shares; Guedalla had called the meeting of November 24, 1904, at which he (prisoner) charged him with trying to wreck the company because he (prisoner) would not lend £5,000 of the company's money—why did he not come forward to make his allegations? Then where was Mr. Salaman, the trustee in bankruptcy, who had received his books and papers and who, with Guedalla, had made the complaint, and Mr. Chapman, Official Receiver? Mr. Cox, who had brought two expensive Chancery actions against him, had appeared both at Bow-Street and this Court to enter into £500 bail for the appearance of the prisoner. What had become of the 449 shareholders whom he had defrauded? When Guedalla had moved the resolution for the winding-up of the company, voting on his 10,000 shares out of the independent shareholders holding 5,000 shares, only votes for 150 shares could be obtained, making a majority not sufficient for the resolution to be effective. He (prisoner) had consulted counsel and drawn up a writ for an action against Guedalla, which had been withheld, so as not to fetter the discussion at that meeting, upon which Guedalla issued a bankruptcy noticed against him (prisoner). The letter books land papers which Hodgson and Thurston had handed over to Salaman had not been produced, which, if they had been handed over to Mr. Fox, would have prevented these proceedings. Guedalla, having made him (prisoner) bankrupt, had called an ineffective meeting for the liquidation of the company and had appointed trustee and to whom the Chancery action which he (prisoner) and documents had been handed over to the man whom Guedalla had appointed trustee to whom the Chancery action which he (prisoner) had instituted against Guedalla would be handed over. He did not say he was innocent of these charges because of these incidents, but they showed how he (prisoner) had got into the dock. He had made the statements he relied on before Mr. Registrar Hope in his bankruptcy examination in the presence of both Guedalla, and Salaman uncontradicted, and neither had come here to give evidence. Mr. Registrar Hope had stated that the position between the parties was very peculiar. He submitted that Mr. Fox's mind had been poisoned by what he was told by Salaman, who was the lever of the prosecution. It was the duty of the prosecution to call Salaman and Guedalla. The prosecution was supported by the falsehood and the withholding of documents of which Salaman and Guedalla had been guilty. He made the bold proposition that there was not a scrap of evidence to establish either of the three charges in the indictment. Sir Albert de Rutzen's opinion was indicated by the fact that on committal he (prisoner) had been released on a £1 000 bail—that bail not being increased after all the evidence of the prosecution had been given without cross-examination; the three charges were (1) the misappropriation of £1,428, (2) the statement as to the dealing with

the £10,000, and (3) the statement in the prospectus that £15,000 was in the bank. As to the first, it had been stated that on July 24 £8,572 of the £15,000 had been appropriated by him. But the prosecution had not charged him with appropriating the £8,572. Then why should he be charged with appropriating £1,428. The £8,572 had been received by him (prisoner) in accordance with the prospectus and had been placed on deposit as the books showed at 23/4 per cent. The prosecution had not ventured to indict for that amount. Why should the addition to it of £1,428 be a fraudulent misappropriation? Hodgson, whose good faith had not been questioned, had drawn the cheque. It had been said that he (prisoner) lent to himself the money without security. Under the articles he could have lent it to any man in the street without security. His case was that he had taken the money in the ordinary course of business, having an opportunity to lend it to Freeman Cohen and others. The Critic Agency had made large profits: in 1901, £900 and its clients £3,600; in 1902, £800 and its clients £3, 200. He (prisoner) had a large claim against the Boer Government for the suppression of "The Critic," which had originated in 1896, which had been recognised by the British Government, and on the security of which £4,000 had been borrowed. Hodgson had had no hesitation in paying the £1,428. If it was seriously contended that he (prisoner) had misappropriated it, why was not Hodgson in the dock charged with conspiracy? He had drawn the money in the full light of day. On November 16, 1901, the shareholders had been fully informed of the state of things—that it had been deposited with him at 23/4 per cent.; it was entered to his debit in the books audited by Elles, Salaman, and Co. and reported on by them to the shareholders, who passed the accounts. It had been said he (prisoner) was a man without means at that time. No proof had been given it that. In addition to his claim on the Boer Government, he possessed a large interest in" The Critic" newspaper and other resources. At the meeting of July 24, 1901, he had been most emphatic and clear in explaining that the money was absolutely in his hands; he had left the decision absolutely to the shareholders. neither voting upon it himself nor using the large number of proxies in his hands. Why was there no allegation of his appropriating the £8,572 if he was chargeable with the £1,428? In September, 1901, there was a general meeting so that he had no occasion to meet the shareholders till September, 1902. On March 1, 1902, he (prisoner) had called an extraordinary general meeting solely for the purpose of consulting his shareholders as to entering into the agreement to invest the £10 000. Under the articles and as decided by the Court of Chancery, he had an absolute authority to enter into that agreement without asking the shareholders, and a report which had been read showed that they assented to it. The statement that he had been driven into a corner and was obliged to invent this tale for the purpose of satisfying the shareholders was disproved by the facts. This was a unique company carried on in a unique manner; but the shareholders were given every opportunity of satisfying themselves. They knew how difficult it was to get directors, in some cases to call

even the statutory meeting, yet he had gone out of his way to consult them. He had simply said, "Gentlemen, it is for you to say"; he had put the responsibility on the shareholders without voting or using his proxies. They had from Hodgson the fact that he (prisoner) was in constant communication in December, 1901, with Mr. Belt and other South African speculators. Then the £1,428 had been drawn on December 23, 1901, which showed that the scheme was entered into about that time, at the time when the disastrous deal in which there had been a loss of over £10,000 was going against the company. It was then that the £10,000 had been handed over, Clause 6 of the Heads of Agreement providing that the scheme should not be acted upon until ratified by the shareholders at an extraordinary meeting to be called. That meeting was called on March 3, 1902, and the shareholders ratified the agreement. All the evidence regarding the absence from England of Freeman Cohen and Joel in March, 1902, became irrelevant if the agreement was entered into in December, 1901, the date when the £1,428 was added to the £8,572, making up £10,000. Those were facts which must be taken into consideration as against the presumptive evidence called by the prosecution. Mr. Fox's statement that he (prisoner) had stated the agreement was signed in March, 1902, was a mistake. He was perfectly aware of Cohen and Joel's absence at that time and could not have been so foolish as to have made that statement. Hodgson's evidence as to his communication with Mr. Beit, showed that the scheme was being dealt with at that time. The reason why Beit and Freeman Cohen had insisted a secrecy was owing to the state of things in the Transvaal, where they had to consider their interest and the necessity of doing nothing to pardise their property by association with a man whose paper had been suppressed. In the report of the meeting of March 3, 1902, he (prisoner) had stated," I have not ratified or confirmed this agreement; I have not acted upon it, because it is for you to ratify or confirm it, "and the resolution was passed agreeing to his entering upon an agreement for the investment of, and speculating with, the sum of £10,000. If it was an agreement to be executed, that resolution was nonsense. In the questions he had answered in writing he had stated that the £10,000 was entrusted to H. Freeman Cohen and others, and that the money had been handed to him. He had never said the agreement was executed on March 3. In his bankruptcy examination he had sworn the agreement must be in Salamans possession and Salaman had not contradicted it. The notes made by Mr. Fox shortly after the interview of January 14, 1904, were somewhat confused. It had been said that the shareholders had treated him with blind faith. If that were so, why should he call them together in March when they did not expect to be called together until September, to invent a" cock-and-bull" story? Why could he not have waited till September and said he had invested the money in such companies as the Liberator or the London and Globe or the Standard Exploration Company, the shares of which could have been picked up from the dust at 1 1/2 d. apiece, and that the £10,000 was lost? Why invent this story if it was a" cock-and-bull" story six months before there was any necessity to meet the shareholders. They had to

consider the probability. The prosecution had proved nothing positive; it was merely a negative probability that was put before the jury. The Director of Public Prosecutions had shown his view in 1906 by taking no action. The negative evidence of the prosecution had been shaken by the evidence of Hodgson; his (prisoner's) character ought to be taken into consideration—was he a likely man to invent such a "cock-and-bull" story? Was it necessary for him to do it? Why tell such a tale to shareholders, who were ready to believe anything he said? He had not been in the box. What difference did it make after the crossexamination of the witnesses and in face of the statements made at the time? If he succeeded on the present issue the prosecution still had the opportunity of proceeding on the charge of perjury in his bankruptcy examination, when the Crown would be obliged to call Salaman, who could then be cross-examined. The prosecution has to prove that the agreement with Freeman Cohen did not exist on March 3, 1902. They had brought no evidence to prove that. The evidence was that Freeman Cohen and Joel could not have entered into that scheme between January 4 and 18 respectively land March 3, 1902; but the scheme was entered into in December the proof of the steamship agents and others was unimportant. Then it was said that the statement that the company had £10,000 in the bank on March 3, 1902, was untrue. If the money was handed to Freeman Cohen on the condition that he did not part with it until the agreement had been ratified he (prisoner) was entitled to say the money was in the bank. There was no banking account in the name of Common Weal Consolidated, and if the money was placed in that way, even if the statement was inaccurate, it was not a false statement made with intent to deceive the shareholders and creditors of the company. On October 4, 1902, he had stated in reply to Mr. Cox, that the £10,000 came into his hands, and he had paid it over to the firm. Surely he could not have asked the shareholders to ratify an agreement acknowledging the receipt of £10,000 by an unnamed firm, and then stated that £10,000 was in the bank, without it being understood that it was in the bank of that firm. He had sworn to this agreement by his statutory declaration, and that he had handed the money over. That was equivalent to his swearing it in the box to-day. That statutory declaration was made for the purpose of enabling Elles, Salaman and Co. to present a special report to the shareholders. That again was a voluntary act on his part to shareholders who had such implicit faith in him as the prosecution represented. Neither the meeting of March, 1902, nor the statutory declaration was necessary. Why should he invent the" cook-and-bull" story or make the statutory declaration to an unnecessary falsehood? If the jury acquitted him on the three charges on the indictment, the Crown could still prosecute on the perjury. Then the agreement was to terminate on December 31, 1902. Did not that make it more probable that it was made on December 31, so as to endure for a year? With regard to the evidence of Freeman Cohen having no partner, the agreement itself contained a clause that the parties there to should not be partners. Of course, this was a special

deal, and the evidence on that point coincided with the clause. He submitted that the clauses were not such as would have been invented. Clause 5 provided for the inspection of books. He being acquainted with Freeman Cohen, knew that he had left England, and could not have been so foolish as to put in a date after he had left. The agreement was alleged to have been invented for no reason. He could have told the shareholders in September that the £10000 was lost, and there would have been an end of it. Then as to the statement that a profit had been made of £6,192 6s. 6d., and that £309 12s. 4d. was due for interest, with the details of the investments, the name of the shares, prices, etc., why should such a figment have been invented? This was in July long before the attack of Mr. Cox. The prosecution could not claim that any such negative evidence as to the absence of Freeman Cohen and Joel in March could avail if the jury believed that the £1,428 was drawn in December to complete the payment out of the £10,000. Both in his bankruptcy examination in 1905 and in his preliminary examination by. Mr. Fox he had stated that the agreement and other papers had gone into the possession of Salaman. It was the prosecution's duty to call Salaman. As to the suggestion that, to prove his bona fides, he ought to have produced the agreement, his reply was that to do so would have been disloyal to Cohen. Prisoner again complained that the prosecution had been most ungenerous in opposing his application for a postponement of the trial to enable him to get material witnesses from South Africa.

(Tuesday, January 26.)

HENRY HESS (prisoner, not on oath), continued. Before the interview on January 14, 1906, Mr. Fox had seen Salaman, had taken his (prisoner's) preliminary examination, had made his own inquiries, and knew or thought a prosecution might ensue. Would it not have been right that he (prisoner) should have been cautioned or at least that the answers he gave should have been written down and signed at the time? How was he (prisoner) to know that Mr. Fox was laying a trap or was getting evidence to be used in a criminal prosecution? Apart from the legal question, he submitted the notes of that interview should not weigh with the Jury. They had heard from Mr. Dickson and Mr. Hart what had happened before Mr. Justice Buckley. Could they believe that he had told Mr. Fox that the agreement had been handed up to the Judge, especially when the facts were printed in the verbatim report published in "The Critic"? He put that as a test of the accuracy of Mr. Fox as to that interview. As to the bank into which the money was paid. Mr. Fox had mixed up the Bank of Africa with the Natal Bank, the latter having been mentioned by Salaman. He did not mention the name of the firm at the meeting of November 24, 1904, because he was under a promise to keep it secret On April 19, 1907, he had written to the Official Receiver," I Understand Mr. Joel has returned to this country. I am anxious to serve him with a writ. I should be glad of any information

with regard to his address. "' The Official Receiver had replied that he could not give the information. They had learned from the file of Joel's bankruptcy that in July, 1907, Joel had returned and sworn an affidavit to get his adjudication annulled, and he (prisoner) had not been informed of it, although Mr. Chapman was the Official Receiver both in Joel's and his (prisoner's) bankruptcies. The writ was for libel: Salaman had made a statement as to something he said Joel had said which he (prisoner) knew to be false, and he had proposed to sue Joel for libel. Should he have made the silly bluff of stating to the Judge in Chancery that he would send for the agreement if there had been none in existence? The Judge then gave judgment in his favour, not thinking it necessary to wait for the agreement to be produced. Whatever legal form the charge was put, it essentially was: Did he or did he not steal £10,000, the property of the company and put it in his pocket? The Crown had thought fit only to bring the charge with regard to £1,428, a part of the £10,000, although in the opening speech it was said that the remainder—£8,572—had come wrongfully into his (prisoner's) possession. That was the crux, the point to consider. Never mind the question of Freeman Cohen. The prosecution could not have it both ways; they could not say, "These shareholders were such enthusiastic believers in Hess that they would accept anything he told them; they were so under his thumb that there was no necessity to call them together "; and say at the same time, "Hess was in a corner, he had to invent this cock and bull story." There was no motive to invent such a story; if there had been he (prisoner) would have invented a much better one. Joel was here in 1907—it was very strange that he should keep out of the way. If a man were stealing this money, would he go and enter it in the books against himself? As to the charge of stating that £15,000 was in the bank in July, 1901, when Common Weal Consolidated was formed, Mr. Hart had been asked to advise on alterations in the draft prospectus; his opinion of July 23 had been read, and it contained no reference to the £15,000; therefore the Jury ought to assume that that statement was in the first draft, which was prepared on July 9. No evidence had been given as to the balances in the bank on July 9. On that date there was nearly £14,000 actual cash in the three banking accounts. Could the Jury call that statement fraudulent because the exact sum of £15,000 was not in the bank? At that time Woollam had lent £4,000 on his (prisoner's) claim on the Boer Government; he (prisoner) could have borrowed £1,000 or £2,000 on July 25. paid it into the bank, drawn it out on July 27, and invested it in any form under his powers under' the articles. Would any shareholder have refused to subscribe if they had been told there was £13,000 in the bank and the balance was in has (prisoner's) hands? That prospectus teemed with statements of the profits made by the syndicates and paid to the shareholders, but the only statement the prosecution had been able to pick out was that about the £15,000 being in the bank. The statement had not only to be false, but also to be made with intent to defraud. On the evidence there was £13,000 in the banks excluding the fact that he

(prisoner) owed the company £7,000. In Critic Agency No. 2 account on July 24, 1901, there was a balance of £3,171 18s. 2d.; in "Critic" Agency No. 1 account, £7,468 9s. 2d.; in the Kew account, £2,034 18s. 4d.—making a total of £12,656, which, added to £1,600 in the hands of the British and Colonial Publications Company belonging to prisoner, made over £14,000, as against the £15,000, which should have been in the bank and out of which the £7,000 was said to be on deposit at 23/4 per cent. in his hands. It could not have been supposed that money on deposit with him was not invested at some higher rate of interest. On the admitted facts the statement was true in the sense that the whole sum was available. If the amount lent to him was included it would make the fund £20,000 as against the £15,000 stated. It was stated he was a man of no means at that time when The Critic Agency was making profits from October, 1900, to September, 1901, of £900 for itself and £3,600 for subscribers. That covered July 24, 1901. In addition to that there was profit earned on the correspondence account of £761 5s. 3d.—the net income for the year on The Critic Agency and the correspondence account being £1,361. In the following year there was a total profit of £1,552 6s. 7d. The prosecution had no right to say that he had any reason to believe that the £15,000 would not be available in the bank for the purposes of Common Weal Consolidated. It was not material to anyone whether there was £15,000 or £13,000 actually in the bank. He submitted there was no evidence of any of the allegations of the prosecution. Why was Salaman kept out of Court if it was desired to show that he (prisoner) was a man of no means? On their own evidence £8,572 had gone into his (prisoner's) hands long before July 24, 1901, when £14,000 was in the bank accounts; he being a man with large cash resources also at command. The statement must be made with intent to defraud. Then the £1,428 was an absolute counterpart of the £8,572. Was it borne out by the evidence that he" being a director of a public company did on December 28, 1901, take and apply to his own use and benefit £1,428, the property of the company."? That charge was not borne out by the evidence, but had been actually disproved by the evidence of all the witnesses. The prosecution were trying to get the effect of a conviction of stealing the £10,000 by putting the charge in the form of alleging that he had stated that £10,000 was in the bank on March 3, 1902, with intent to deceive the shareholders. Counts 4 to 14 stood or fell with the Freeman Cohen agreement. The whole thing came to the question whether they believed the £10,000 had been paid to Freeman Cohen. If they did not, of course, they ought to find a verdict for the Crown; if not, the case failed. In the opening speech Mr. Muir had stated that the alleged or pretended object of "The Critic" was to expose financial wrongdoers and had sneered at that, seeing that the editor and virtual proprietor of that paper was in the dock. The suggestion had not been borne out by the evidence. Mr. Fox had stated that his name had never been connected with any company that had come under the notice of his department. Mr. Hodgson had told them that he (prisoner) had defended 44 libel actions, in everyone of which he

had gone into the witness-box and been cross-examined; that out of the 44 actions he had lost only five; that in one the Grand Jury commended him for having assisted justice—that was a case in which. the plaintiff had been convicted at that Court and received four years' penal servitude for company swindling; Mr. Dickson had stated that he (prisoner) had spent over £1,000 in two years in actions where the unsuccessful plaintiff could not pay the costs; that in 10 out of the 39 actions where he (prisoner) had been successful he had been left, to pay the costs because the plaintiffs were men of straw. The passage commending the action of journalists, which had been placed in the heading of "The Critic," was spoken by Lord Russell as Lord Chief Justice in one of those libel actions He was twitted with having put at the head of his paper a similar passage from the judgment of Mr. Justice Bigham. He would challenge the counsel representing the Director of Public Prosecutions to deny that the Director had thanked him again and again for assistance he had given his Department in initiating prosecutions against fraudulent company promoters. Mr. Hodgson, who had worked with him for 10 years; Mr. Dickson, who. had been his solicitor, had given evidence as to his (prisoner's) character. In the libel actions he had referred to he had been cross-examined by Mr. Muir, by the late Attorney-General as Mr. Lawson Walton, by the present Attorney-General, then Mr. Robson, and by Sir Edward Carson on behalf of those who sued him for libels in "The Critic." They had it from Hodgson that the business of the Critic Agency had been an honest business honestly conducted. Was it conceivable that a man with his past career in the City of London should suddenly have committed the crime suggested by the prosecution. The prima facie case, he submitted, was not strong enough in the face of the character it was admitted he had borne.

Verdict, Guilty of misappropriation of £1,482; as to the statement of there being £15,000 in the bank, Not guilty; as to the statement that the £10,000 had been handed over to the unknown firm, Guilty; as to the statement that £10,000 of the capital of the company together with £5,882 profit was in the hands of an unnamed firm, Guilty; that £10,000 of the capital was in the bank on March 3, 1902, Guilty. A statement made on March 24, 1904, that £17,000 was invested in securities of that value, the jury had not considered, and a verdict of Not guilty was entered on counts 12, 13, and 14. Verdict, Guilty on counts 1, 3, 6, and 9; Not guilty on other counts. The jury added, "As Mr. Hess's previous character was an unblemished one we would be very pleased if you would show him leniency."

Mr. Muir said that previously to the present case there was nothing to be said against the defendant. The prosecution did not propose to proceed on the indictment for perjury, alleged to have been committed in the bankruptcy proceedings.

The Common Serjeant said the defendant had been found guilty on perfectly clear evidence of a series of fraudulent statements in connection with a public company. The shareholders of that company deserved no sympathy from anyone, as they were only engaged in gambling on the Stock Exchange with the defendant, and it was quite

clear that they placed themselves in his hands blindfold. This prosecution, however, was not for their protection, but to protect the public against frauds in the promotion and management of public companies. He should give effect to the recommendation to mercy of the jury. He sentenced the defendant to 12 months' imprisonment in the second division on each count, the sentences to run concurrently.

BEFORE JUDGE LUMLEY SMITH. (Tuesday, January 19.)

Reference Number: t19090112-81

SOUTHEE, George, and KELSON, Ettene Whitmore , both between September 1, 1904, and October 31, 1908, feloniously and without lawful excuse having in their possession certain stamps which had been fraudulently removed from certain material, with intent to defraud; both feloniously and fraudulently removing from certain material certain stamps with intent that use should be made of such stamps; both feloniously and fraudulently placing upon certain material certain stamps which had been removed from certain other material; both conspiring and agreeing together to cheat and defraud His Majesty the King.

Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Briggs prosecuted. Mr. Marshall Hall, K. C, and Mr. P. H. Pridham Wippel defended Southee. Mr. J. F. Tindal Atkinson, K. C, Mr. Muir and Mr. Trevor Bigham defended Kelson.

LEIGH BAKER , clerk in the Registrar's Office, Somerset House. The Wholesale Tobacco Supply Company, Limited, was registered on October 5, 1897; the notice as to registered office (63, Aldersgate Street), and list of shareholders, purport to be signed by George Southee, managing director, who appears to hold 9,891 shares. So far as I know, the name Kelson does not appear on the file.

Mrs. JESSIE BUCKWELL, licensed tobacconist, 443, Battersea Park Road. For some years I have bought tobacco from the Wholesale Tobacco Supply Company, to whom I gave fortnightly orders, the goods being delivered next day when I would pay to the man who brought them the previous fortnightly account. The goods were delivered by various people—Mr. Southee, Mr. Kelson, Mr. Webb, or others; and each would receipt the statement. The receipts were frequently brought ready-signed, otherwise they were signed in the shop—sometimes by Southee and by Kelson. For a long time past I think they have always been signed when they came. When the revenue officers called on me I gave them this bundle of my receipts (produced).

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. Of the large number of receipts from the company the revenue officers selected and removed those numbered from 10 to 61. I cannot say I ever saw Mr. Southee sign a receipt in my presence. Sometimes when a stamped receipt was brought to me I did not pay, and the account ran for another fortnight.

Cross-examined by Mr. Tindal Atkinson. I might not be able to notice whether the receipt was signed in my shop. I have seen Kelson sign receipts with a pencil in my presence.

To the Court. The profit to either wholesaler or retailer on packet goods is very small.

Miss BARTLETT REISS, tobacconist and confectioner, 248a, High Street, Southend. My receipts (produced) numbered 329, and four were signed by Southee and Kelson.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. I cannot say positively that "By cash, 9s. 3d.—George Southee," was ever written in my presence.

JOHN EMERSON WHITE , hairdresser and tobacconist, King Street, Burton. I have dealt with the Wholesale Tobacco Company. Kelson and Webb used to bring me stamped fortnightly accounts without signatures, and sign them in my shop. I did not notice writing on the stamps, except that they were cancelled by having lines drawn through them. When Southee came he would produce completed receipts. These (produced) are receipts signed by defendants or by other persons—about 31 with Southee's signature, six with Kelson's, and four with Webb's.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. Before the magistrate I said that Southee had brought me receipts purporting to be signed by him before he entered the shop.

ALFRED EDWARD ISTED , plumber, fitter, and tobacconist, 41, Hurley Road, South Croydon. Exhibits 9 and 583 are my accounts receipted by the Wholesale Tobacco Company. No. 583 was probably delivered by Southee and was brought to me completed, as it is now.

Cross-examined by Mr. Tindal Atkinson. Only during the last twelve months or so has Kelson brought me goods. He has signed in pencil when I paid him. I did not notice anything wrong with the stamps.

Re-examined. I never saw a stamp cancelled like that on receipt No. 9, except on other receipts of the company.

ARTHUR ERNEST DULIGALL , trading as Hemming and Co., tobacconists, 36, New King's Road, Parsons Green. On behalf of the Wholesale Tobacco Company, Southee and Kelson used to deliver goods to me, and receipt statements, such as those numbered 110, 111, 117 and 154, which purport to be signed by Southee and were given me by him. I believe they were brought to me completed.

PHILIP SMITH , tobacconist, 3, Bridge Street, Dartford. This account No. 156 is receipted by Mr. Southee for a payment by me to him. The words," Islington Borough Council," are printed on the receipt stamp." By cash" is written over" Islington," and" George Southee" over" Borough Council," the date being written over other writing on the stamp.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. I cannot say whether Mr. Southee brought me the receipt, but I think he did.

JOHN TUCKER , rate collector, Islington (Borough Council. Defendant Southee was from March, 1903, till September, 1905, rated in respect of the" King's Arms" public house, Liverpool Road. The

words "Islington Borough Council" are printed on the stamp of receipt produced, exhibit 583. My late son, A. G. Tucker, was. collector for the electric lighting department of the Council. On exhibit 156 I see the words" G. Southee," under the date on the stamp, which also bears the letters "ker," which I have no doubt are in my son's handwriting.

CHARLES HENRY THOMAS , clerk to the Islington Borough Council. Defendant Southee was in 1903 a consumer of the council's electric current. The stamp on exhibit 156 is one used by the council, and bears the handwriting of the late A. G. Tucker.

FRANK MILLER , tobacconist, 329, High Road, Bromsberrow Exhibit 196 is an account receipted by defendant Southee for money paid by me to him. I have paid Kelson also for goods, and he has signed the receipts in my shop. When I paid Southee he handed, me completed receipts.

ALICE PORTWAY , tobacconist, 31, Algernon Road, Kennington. Exhibits 8, 298, and 302 are my receipted accounts from the Wholesale Tobacco Company. No. 298 purports to be signed by Mr. Southee.

EDWARD SHEPHERD FIELDING , tobacconist, 104, Kew Road. I buy tobacco from the Wholesale Tobacco Company. Receipt numbered 669 is from my file, and purports to be signed by defendant Southee.

HENRY WILLIAM HENNESSEY , tobacconist, Lifton. Exhibits 814, 5, 6 are receipts to me from the Wholesale Tobacconist Supply Co. Defendant Southee's receipts were delivered complete, as were defendant Kelson's, I believe.

FREDERICK GEORGE PEARCY , tobacconist, 73, Stanley Road, Teddington. Each of the defendants has delivered tobacco to me, for which I have paid by cash and have been handed receipts prepared beforehand, in which no alteration was made unless there was a balance owing. Exhibits 5 and 6 are receipts probably given me by defendant Kelson, and apparently signed by him.

WALTER WHITWELL , tobacconist, 210, King Street, Hammersmith. Exhibit 3 is a receipted account purporting to be signed by defendant Southee for cash paid by me. It bears two 1/2 d. stamps side by side. Across the left-hand stamp six lines are drawn extending to the other stamp. Both defendants handed me receipts.

ARTHUR JOHNSON , 48, Trafalgar Road, Greenwich. I am 15 years old. In July, 1907, I entered the service of the Wholesale Tobacco Co. as a clerk, engaged by defendant Southee. About nine months afterwards I first saw defendant Kelson. About three months after I entered the office I had a conversation with Southee, who instructed me to soak in warm water pieces of paper which looked like corners of envelopes, and bore about a hundred adhesive postage stamps which had apparently been through the post, and then to gum the stamps on to statement forms. Only about four of the stamps had not been through the post. Southee told me to put these on plain envelopes. I obeyed, and put the stamped statements on Southee's desk. About six months afterwards I did a similar thing in the same

way, putting the statement forms on Southee's desk. Again, about three months afterwards, I did it for a third time, Southee giving me the stamps. The second time would be about April, and the third time about July of last year. Defendant Kelson used to help Southee in the office. At 8.30 a.m. on Tuesday, November 3, the day of the arrest, I went to the company's office. Between 9 and 9.30 Mr. Kelson told me to go to Wolff, the tobacconist, in High Street, Whitechapel, and stay till Southee or he told me to come back again; but prior to this I was to meet him at Lyons's, in Aldersgate Street. There he gave me a book containing figures, and told me to copy them on paper which he gave me. I then went to Wolff's, in Whitechapel, and used up all the paper in copying the figures. Neither defendant saw me on that day. At four p.m. next day Mr. Kelson ordered me back to Aldersgate Street. I went in the morning, and on the same day saw Mr. Kelson at four o'clock. He told me to go back to Whitechapel. This was on the Wednesday. On the Thursday Mr. Kelson told me to go to Camberwell Stores and to clean out the shop. I gave back to Kelson the figures I had copied out. I remained at Camberwell a week and a few days, cleaning the shop and the stock. While I was there, Mr. Kelson, Mr. Southee, and Miss West came on the Monday to see me. Miss West I had seen at the Aldersgate Street office. Mr. Kelson spoke to me first in the room just behind the shop. He said he wanted me to come to his solicitors, Treadwell and Always, to say that he and not Mr. Southee gave me the stamps to stick on. Kelson said that Southee had just got into a little trouble and he wanted me to help him. On November 3 I knew that defendants had been arrested. During this conversation the arrests were not mentioned. Kelson said, "One good turn deserves another. You remember the money you had in the summer." He then brought Mr. Southee in to speak to me. Southee said, "You know what you have to do to-morrow. Be at the office (by 10 o'clock." The office was at 63, Aldergate Street. Then Southee said to me, "Who gave you the stamps?" I said, "You did." Kelson said to me, "I told you to say that I gave them to you." I said, "Mr. Southee asked me a question, and I answered it." Then Southee said, "You remember the money you had in the summer, which I did not take any notice of." I said, "I did not ever have any money." He said, "Well, I won't to certain till I see Mr. Wright, the foreman. Then if I am wrong, I must apologise." He then said, "There is no need to tell your parents. That will be all right. You can be at the office at 10 o'clock to-morrow morning." Earlier in the conversation Southee asked me if I knew the stamps had been through the post. I said I thought they had, because he told me to put the plain stamps on plain envelopes. Mr. Kelson said, "You cannot remember what was told you 18 months ago?" I said that I had done it each time, and there had been nothing said about it. When I got home I made a communication to my mother. Next day I went to my uncle and told him all about it. He and I went to a solicitor, Mr. Jackson. I did not return to 63, Aldersgate Street or speak again to either of the defendants.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. I did not know that in a drawer of Mr. Southee's roll-top desk were stamps that had been torn off envelopes and invoices, etc. The stamps were brought to me in a tobacco-box. Anybody in the office could have seen the stamps which I was "floating off." I cannot swear that any of them had been through the post. They appeared to be on the corners of envelopes. I knew it was wrong to use the stamps again. I did not tell Mr. Southee; for I thought he knew they had been through the post. Mr. Cope, of the Inland Revenue Office, came to see me about three weeks before Christmas. Kelson and I had been good friends. I never complained to my mother of Mr. Kelson's treatment of me.

Cross-examined by Mr. Tindal Atkinson. I do not remember to have seen Mr. Kelson before midsummer of last year. He never asked me to float off any stamps, and I do not think he was present when Mr. Southee asked me to do so, else I should have seen him. On each occasion it was Mr. Southee who asked me to take the stamps off.

Re-examined. I have noticed that letters going through the post have lines upon them, similar to the lines on the stamps I took off the envelope corners. I think that nearly all the stamps which I floated off came from envelopes, and not from plain statements.

Mrs. EMMA JOHNSON, 48, Trafalgar Road, Greenwich. My son Arthur, lives with me. After being for some three months in the service of the Wholesale Tobacco Company, he came home and made a statement to me, and some time after he made another statement. I sent him to see his uncle, my brother-in-law. About this time he made a statement to a solicitor named Jackson, and did not go back to the company's service. A few days after the interview with Mr. Jackson, Mr. Southee, whom I had never seen before, called on me, produced a letter I had written him, and asked what it meant. I had written that I declined to let my boy re-enter the company's service. I said he need hardly ask why I had written him. He wanted to know whether he or Mr. Kelson had given the boy the stamps. He (Southee) said he did not remember. If it was Kelson I was to let Southee know.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. This was my boy's first stituation. When my boy told me he had been soaking off stamps which had been through the post, I said, "I expect your governor knows what he is doing. It is for you to do what you are told. Perhaps he is making a collection." The boy stayed for 18 months after this. Then I took him away because Mr. Kelson said that he bad stolen £3 10s. or £3.

Re-examined. The boy had told me of his conversation with Southee and Kelson, when he would not say that Kelson and not Southee had given him the stamps to soak off. Then, I believe, Kelson called him an infernal fool, and the money was mentioned. That was the first I had heard of it.

(Wednesday, January 20.)

GEORGE EDWARD REDDISH . I have been in the employ of the Wholesale Tobacco Supply Company about seven years, first as

errand boy, now as tobacco packer, at the retail shop in Aldersgate Street; first at 9s. a week, now at 18s. Southee was the principal man in the business. About four years ago I had a conversation with him about some stamps; he handed them to me in a box; they were stamps stuck on corners of envelopes—some used, some not. He told me to take the stamps off the paper and stick them on to statements of account. I got warm water and took the stamps off as directed; I had lots of about a hundred at a time; some of them had the post office marks across them. I have seen Johnson doing the same thing that I did.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. I am 21 years old. I was first spoken to about this matter by Cope, of the Inland Revenue; I told him, not that the stamps had been through the post, but that they looked as if they had been. I did not think at the time that I was doing something wrong, and I went on doing it. It was three or four weeks ago that Cope called on me, after the prisoners had been committed for trial. He told me that Johnson had stated that Southee had said to him," Go to George and he will tell you how to do it, and he (Cope) therefore came to ask me to tell him what I knew. I first saw Kelson six months ago. The soaking off of the stamps and sticking them on to the statements was done by me quite openly; people were passing up and down who might have seen me doing it; there was no secrecy.

Miss GERTRUDE A. SHRIMPTON. Eighteen months ago I was engaged by Southee as a clerk to the Wholesale Tobacco Supply Company. I understood Southee to be the chief person in the business and Kelson to be a kind of secretary. I did not see the latter until about a year ago. I worked in the same room with Kelson. Miss West (Mrs. Southee) used frequently to come to the office. It was part of my duty to prepare the statements of accounts sent to customers. Southee gave me the statements; those for amounts over £2 had stamps upon them; the stamps had lines across them; I have seen Southee ruling the lines; I have not seen Kelson do so. I remember that about February, 1908, Southee was away for about two months and again at Christinas time.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. There is no foundation for the statement that I was a personal intimate friend of Mrs. Southee. A pretty big business was done at the Aldersgate Street place, and on the days when the statements were taken out in the motor, by Southee or Kelson or Webb, there was great rush and hurry; the statements were prepared the night before, and such of them as bore stamps had the stamps cancelled by ruled lines. There was usually a pretty big post; a special stamp account was kept, and stamps were bought in sheets. After the letters had been written and the envelopes shut down and the stamps affixed the letters were thrown in a heap on the floor. It occasionally happened that after a letter had been sealed down some omission would be noticed and the envelope would have to be opened; the corner of the envelope bearing the stamp would be torn off and put in a drawer in Southee's

desk, where there would be from time to time a considerable accumulation of these unused stamps.

JAMES BLAKE DAVIS , superintendent of establishment licenses collectable by the London County Council. I have been for many years in charge of the preventive staff at Somerset House. Acting on instructions, I caused a number of tobacconists to be visited on November 1 and 2. and on November 3 I went with other officers to 63, Aldersgate Street. I then had in my possession between 200 and 300 of this company's receipts. On getting to the place just before 10 a.m. I saw a motor van outside in charge of Webb. I obtained from him a number of statements dated that day; he had them in his pocket. I went in and saw Kelson; I explained who we were and showed him the invoices that I had obtained from Webb and asked him if it was the practice to draw these parallel lines across the stamps. He said "Yes, it was the practice of the firm that either he or Southee drew them. Turning to a desk he opened a a drawer and handed me a bundle of 48 statements with lines drawn across the stamps. He said he had prepared them and drawn the lines on the previous day. He told me he had been acting secretary for 10 months and that Southee was managing director. I asked him it Southee was about. He said "No, he was expecting him every minute." We waited, and, as Southee did not turn up, I asked Kelson if he could telephone or telegraph for him. He said "No, that he did not know Southee's present address, as he had moved recently." I asked when he had last seen Southee. He said, "On Saturday." After further waiting, I again pressed him to send for Southee. I said, "Surely he must know where to find him." He said, "No, he had not means whatever of communicating with him." Later on Mr. Cope came in. Referring to Kelson's statement that he had last seen Southee on the Saturday, Cope put it to him that he had in fact seen him yesterday, Monday. Kelson admitted that he had. He further admitted that he had that very morning seen Southee as he was coming in and told him that we were there inquiring about hawking tobacco, and Southee said, "Oh, you had better carry on with them" and went away. About half-past three Southee arrived. He asked, "What is all this bother about?" I explained. I told him that we had been waiting some time and that Kelson had said that he did not know his address. Kelson said, "I did not think I had any permission to give your address." Southee said, "You knew it and ought to have given it to these gentlemen." I told Southee that Kelson had said that he had last seen him on Saturday. Southee said he ought not to have told me that, that Kelson had told him that morning that we were there making inquiries about the hawking of tobacco and that he had told Kelson to attend to us. Southee was shown and examined the statements that we had and admitted that" By cheque" or" By cash" and" Southee" were in his writing. I pointed out that the writing was over used stamps. He looked through them and said, "Well, manifestly there is a fraud here, but I know nothing at all about it." I told Southee, Kelson, and Webb that they would be arrested on the charge of having in

their possession used stamps which had been fraudulently removed. Southee told the others not to worry, that he would see about a solicitor and about the defence. Webb was afterwards discharged by the Alderman. I have seen both Southee and Kelson write; I have examined over a thousand of these receipts. The words "By cash" or "By cheque" and the signatures are in the handwriting of the prisoners respectively.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. We were engaged upon inquiries into this matter, off and on, for a month before November 3. I decline to say upon whose information the inquiry was started. Covering a period of four years' trading we have obtained about a thousand of these receipts; as to these the fraud would have benefited the prisoners by some £4, but we did not know all their customers; there were numberless others. I look at the document you hand me with the words "By cash, George Southee"; I cannot say whether they are in Southee's writing or Kelson's; I decline to give an opinion; I have no opinion. I have been studying handwriting, more or less, since I began my public duties 43 years ago.

To Mr. Tindal Atkinson. It is my impression that Kelson was shielding Southee.

ALFRED WILLIAM COPE , preventive inspector at Somerset House, confirmed generally Davis's account of the proceedings on November 3, and added: During Davis's temporary absence I had a conversation with Kelson. He said he had lost a considerable sum of money; that he had had several tobacco shops; that Southee had been a good friend to him and assisted him, and eventually taken him to the Wholesale Tobacco Company as practically the secretary. He said, "When I-came here about ten months ago I thought the stamps looked rather strange; I had never seen stamps cancelled that way"—(referring to the lines across)—"before I came here; I quite see what it means; Mr. Southee and myself are the only ones who have ruled lines across the stamps here, and it must be either Mr. Southee or myself; I did not rule lines across used stamps, neither did I affix them; I should not have thought Mr. Southee would have done this, because he is a very wealthy man." It was not till the close of the case at the Mansion House that I was able to find Johnson; I got a statement from him on December 17. I heard Kelson's solicitor at the Mansion House say that Kelson would plead guilty to all the charges and all the fraud on the Revenue; Southee and his solicitor, as well as Kelson, were present. At the following hearing Kelson was represented by Mr. Knight, of Wontner's, and the plea was withdrawn, Mr. Knight saying that he could not understand it having been made.

GEORGE STUBBS . I have occupied the position of Government Analyst at Clement's Inn Laboratory for 21 years, and have examined a great number of stamps and handwriting. I have examined all the documents in this case except the bundle of receipts produced this morning, obtained from Webb. (Witness was taken through the documents, and gave it as his opinion that the signatures" Southee" and Kelson" were in the handwriting of the respective prisoners; of

the 1,055 receipts, 218 were in the writing of Kelson, 695 in that of Southee.) The postmark on envelopes is made by a rather greasy carbon ink; where there is over this ink writing in ordinary fluid ink it is possible by a chemical re-agent to remove the latter, leaving the other untouched. I have so treated a number of these statements, and the postal mark under the fluid ink has become apparent. (Witness was examined and cross-examined in very minute detail upon the various documents in the case.)

RICHARD D. BOXALL , manager of the Aldersgate branch of the London and County Bank, produced the signature book, containing the signature of Southee, written on August 13, 1902. Witness was also shown the signature to the agreement of January 5, 1908, by which Southee's business was sold to the Wholesale Tobacco Company, and identified the same as the signature of prisoner Southee.

To Mr. Marshall Hall. I have known Southee more than four years; during that time he has had a good business; I have always found him a strictly honourable and trustworthy man.

(Thursday, January 21.)

GEORGE STUBBS , recalled, further examined. I produce two receipts signed "Kelson" of August 27 and September 9, 1908, numbered 256 and 653. They were not submitted to me yesterday. That of August 27 has postal marks "London, E. C., 12.30 p.m.," across the stamp and another date at the bottom," June 12." It is crossed by five equidistant bars. A little portion of the signature, which is in ink, goes over the stamp. "Received cheque" is in Kelson's writing. The particulars of the account are not in his writing. That of September 9 is in Kelson's writing. It bears postal marks that have been covered over by writing ink.

Cross-examined. There are postal obliteration marks below the ink writing bars. Kelson's signature is written across the stamp, and the writing ink bars were placed (across after Kelson had written his name ruled across the stamp. I can tell that because the later ink bars across the stamp are upon the writing of the signature. I have looked at this with a microscope. You can see it quite as well with a lens. The signature on the top document of the two handed to me is written after the line. As to the other one, I have not made up my mind. The lines have been drawn across after the signature. I should be greatly surprised to hear that that is contrary to what actually took place. The five bars on the one with a cross against it were partly blotted.

Re-examined. When I look at a document I take very great pains to arrive at a conclusion. I should say it is very much better to give an opinion from that document than from a number of other documents which are different from it which have been prepared for the case.

ARTHUR JOHNSON , called. I do not think that the day on which Mr. Southee, Kelson, and Miss West came down to the shop was Lord Mayor's Day; it was between 11 and 12 o'clock on a Monday.

Mrs. Southee did not come inside. Mr. Southee was there when Kelson said, "I told you to say I gave you the stamps. "

(Defence of Southee.)

GEORGE SOUTHEE (prisoner, on oath). I was born about three miles from Canterbury, and was for some years in the Hussars, six years in the Yeomanry. In 1888 I went into the tobacco business. After carrying on that business for some time I formed the Wholesale Tobacco Company. It was not registered as a limited company till 1897 or 1898. With the exception of a summons under the Merchandise Marks Act with regard to cigars, there has never been any complaint made with regard to my business. The manufacturers paid the fine. I first got to know Kelson by his calling at 63, Aldersgate Street. I believe he used to buy small parcels of cigarettes. That was previous to my being responsible for the "King's Arms" at Islington, before 1903. We got to be friendly. I have always thoroughly believed in his honesty as I would my own. He did not tell me he was married, but he told me he had not seen his parents for some six or seven years. He told me he had been unfortunate in business. He said he would be pleased if he could do any job at the office. After he had asked to be employed the second or third time I gave him jobs, principally writing postcards, telling him what to write on a letter—clerical work. He would come sometimes twice a week for an hour or two hours, for which I paid him 1s. 6d. an hour. This was four or five years ago. Our motor-car deliveries take place five times a fortnight. We do most of the preparation for these on the previous day, making out statements or invoices, and packing the parcels. The invoices we sometimes stamped with a pound's worth of stamps at a time. At one time we missed some, with the result that we stamped them with a rubber stamp. Some were defaced by one, two, or three lines being put on. That practice continued long before Kelson came. The stamps were bought out of petty cash, which was kept by Wright. Before the stamps were put on the statements they Were kept in the safe. Kelson's desultory employment went on until about September, 1907. He assisted in the preparation of receipts. I think he begun to collect money for me about June, 1908. He came into my employ permanently about September, 1907. In October the manager of the Camberwell shop was discharged summarily, and I sent Kelson there to look after it. The receipt handed to me is his receipt for £5 floating change, and was signed in my presence. Wright keeps a wages book—wages sheets I believe they are. They contain only the wages paid by Wright. Kelson paid himself out of the cash during the time he was in the shop. His wages were 30s. or 35s. At times he would come to Aldersgate Street and be relieved by the manager of the York Road shop. I had two shops at that time. Kelson at that time used to do odd jobs at clerical work for me. I did not pay him extra. He came to Aldersgate Street permanently after he of his own accord gave up the Camberwell shop. I went

to Nice on February 8, and came back on March 14, 1908. About September Kelson told me he was married. This was previous to his showing me a telegram. He told me while he was at Langley, in Buckinghamshire, he had married, and one day he found his wife had absconded. I told him I was sorry to hear it, and asked him how long it was; he said about five years. I introduced him at that time to Miss West. He got to know a cousin of hers, a lady. He showed me two telegrams. The first he thought was a trap to get hold of him. He told me the telegrams had reference to his wife. One was, "Lil" seriously ill; wishes to see you; call at my office for address—Alf." He showed me the pink form. The other was, "Too late. Lil died to-day. Will you call on me.—Alf." My sympathy was naturally excited. Soon after this Kelson went into a nursing home to have an operation. I went to see him after hearing from the nurse that he was convalescent. Whilst sitting by the side of his bed his mother came in. He could not afford to go to a seaside place, and I offered to take him down to my house at Westcliff. He was supposed to come for two or three weeks, but I think he stopped longer. He used to go to business with me at that time. I had done nothing to earn his great gratitude. On November 3 I had to meet two gentlemen from Scotland at" The Charterhouse" Hotel at 10 o'clock Whilst there Kelson came at a little after 10. I had no knowledge that the Inland Revenue were making inquiries with regard to receipts. I have never, to my knowledge, put my signature to a stamp that has been previously used. When Kelson came he said, "The Excise people have stopped the car and prevented Webb from going with the parcels, charging us with hawking tobacco." I said, "You can attend to that as well as myself. All the officer has got to do is to see the orders received, and check them with the parcels to go out, and then the car can go off." I returned to the office at a quarter past three, and found Cope, Davis, Kelson, and Wright there. The van was still at the door. I said to the motor driver," How is it the car has not gone?" Cope said, "I can explain everything to you. Come upstairs with me." We went. I found my office had been ransacked. Davis asked me if my name was Southee, and if I was managing director of the company. I said I was, and asked what all the commotion was about. He said, "I will explain." He took five or six of the receipted statements that had gone to customers and asked if they were my signature. I said "Yes; what of it?" He said, "Why do you put your signature to stamps that have already been through the post?" I looked more minutely, and said, "These have not been through the post. Why do you make that assertion?" Mr. Davis went to a chair where there was a little black bag that did not belong to us, opened it, and took out a magnifying glass and said, "You will be able to see very well with this." I examined the the top of the stamp, and said, "Undoubtedly there has been a fraud somewhere, but I know nothing about it. I am certain I did not notice the stamps had been through the post until after I had the magnifying glass. They asked me for my address, and said they would have to arrest the three of us. On Lord Mayor's Day I had an interview

with Mr. Treadwell and went with him to a barrister's chambers in the Temple. Kelson was there when I arrived. Mr. Treadwell had arranged for him to be separately represented by counsel with my consent. Kelson and I afterwards went to Camberwell. We saw the boy Johnson there. I did not know he was there. Kelson told me he had sent him there. I questioned Johnson; as my solicitor told me to make every investigation. As we went from the tram to the shop Kelson said, "Don't you think I should see Johnson first, as, if you question him suddenly, he might be nervous; we might not get anything out of him, but my having a fellow-employee, we might get more out of him." I said, "You see him first; I will see him after." Kelson went in the parlour at the back of the shop and saw Johnson. I did not hear Kelson say, "Johnson says you gave him the stamps." I had no idea at that time that Kelson was contemplating taking the responsibility on himself. On November 10 Kelson said to me," I have something private to tell you." I said, "What is it?" He said, "I have been carefully considering this affair since last Saturday, and I have made up my mind to tell you all." He then told me the stamps had been through the post, which he had picked out of the waste-paper basket, and also the receipt stamps from the old receipts that had been torn up, and used them on the statements. I said, "You don't mean to tell me you have done that." He said, "Yes." I have never asked or got anybody else to ask him to make this statement, or to take this responsibility upon himself. He said he would say everything in front of my solicitor. I then took him to Mr. Treadwell, who put down in writing what Kelson said. I had nothing to do with the announcement made by counsel at the hearing at the Mansion House that Kelson would plead Guilty. I expect I have given some stamps to Johnson and Reddish. There is a roll-top desk in my office, in a little drawer of which stamps which had been affixed to envelopes or invoices which were not used were put either by myself or by the clerk that happened to be there. It got full in six or eight months, when I told a boy to bring me a tobacco-box and I put them in, and I gave them to him to unstick and put on envelopes that had not been used, and those that came off the receipted stamps to put on statements. There were none amongst those stamps that had been through the post, as far as I know. If I were making a receipt hurriedly I would take a stamp off a sheet and perhaps put two or three lines in it and send it downstairs for a lad to take a parcel. The bundle of receipts number 1,057 I have not seen. I was not there. These others were prepared as usual and I am surprised to hear they were taken out of the drawer. When Mr. Davis showed them to me I at once said it was my writing. It is extraordinarily like it. Mr. Treadwell and I then went to Somerset House and inspected the exhibits. They are not my writing.

Cross-examined on behalf of Kelson. Kelson was keeping a temperance hotel at Langley some years ago. I know after 1905 he was in business as a tobacconist. He had three shops at different times. I supplied him with tobacco. He had longer credit than other customers. None of the receipts to Kelson (produced) signed

"George Southee" over the stamp are in my writing. The receipts that were given to him were receipts on numbered invoices, what we call invoice forms; the reason was that Kelson, being very much in our debt, paid certain amounts on account, and they were kept as a voucher to bo referred to if required. No. 2,443 is an invoice; the other is a statement. They are not my documents at all, but the forms came from my premises. I cannot say they were prepared there. Every clerk in the office would use the forms. At that time Kelson came to my office sometimes twice a week. I do not suggest that Kelson took the trouble to put a used stamp on his own receipt instead of asking me to put a penny one on. I have not suggested that Kelson was the person who used these stamps. I have seen nothing to guide me to suggest such a thing. Before he went to Camberwell he was at Aldersgate Street permanently. He was in my employment before 1908, on and off a good many years. I paid him 1s. 6d. an hour before he was taken on permanently. I never enter incidentals like that that I spend myself. He was manager of the Camberwell place until, I think, October 14. He left of his own accord. He was not then out of employment altogether. He did not come into my employment and did not get any wages until I had come back from Nice. I came back from Nice on March 14. The reason that while I was away none of these used stamps were to be found upon the statements is that the car did not go out during that time; the parcels were sent by Carter, Paterson in most cases. He was living at Trevor Square, I believe, until he went to the hospital. I got a message from the nurse saying he was getting better. The reason I took him down to Westcliff was because Mrs. Kelson suggested that after he left the hospital he should go down to Cornwall with her. I do not say it was exactly for kindness, but I thought that if he went to Cornwall he might stop longer than if he were with me. He lived with me for nothing. I did not tell Kelson on November 2 that Crow or any customer had informed me the revenue officers had been there and taken away all his receipts. It is not true, that Kelson said, "What does it matter; they have all got stamps on—those over £2." I did not say, "That is not the point; those stamps are bad ones." Kelson did not appear very much surprised, nor ask what I meant. I did not say to Kelson," I will tell you about it afterwards when we are going down in the train." I did not say, "There are no invoices for to-morrow's journey with stamps on; prepare some." I may have given him some good stamps. I did not say, "You know how to rule them off." He did not rule them off and give them to me. I did not put them in a drawer. He did not ask what it all meant. I never said in my life to him or to anyone else," Nearly all the stamps we gave for receipts are postage stamps with lines on them, and that is why our stamps had always got lines written across." I did not tell him there was nothing in it, and it was only the matter of a fine. I did not say it came at a very awkward time. I was negotiating with a Mr. Walker for the sale of half my business for £5,000. After the arrest I said if this charge against me was successful it would be a very awkward thing. I did not tell him," There is no

joke, because Arthur Johnson has been sticking the stamps on the invoices." I cannot recollect Johnson doing this; one of the boys used to do it. I did not tell Miss West on November 2 that there was some trouble about the stamps; I did not know it myself. I did not say to Kelson that I wanted to get Arthur Johnson and Miss Shrimpton out of the way, as they knew too much. I did not give Kelson on November 3 the key of the drawer in the safe and say that I was not going to the office first thing that morning. The key of the safe is in my pocket, and I never give it to anybody. The foreman has a duplicate key. When sheets of stamps were bought and not used to put on statements they were put in the safe, not in any drawer. I had an appointment with Mr. Walker and his solicitor for 10 or half-past at the Charterhouse Hotel to discuss business matters; it is more private there than in my office. A little after a quarter past three I got to the office and found Mr. Cope and Mr. Davis there. I had a conversation with Mr. Davis. We were arrested. I provided bail for the three, and made arrangements with my solicitor to act for us. I was very much upset that night and fainted. This is the first time I have heard it said that, when I came to, Kelson said as it was only the matter of a fine he would take the whole blame upon himself. I did not thank him for the offer and say I did not see how it could be done. He never made an offer of that sort to me. I did not say, "It means a loss of £5,000 if this matter does not go through. If you will take the blame I will pay the fine and all the solicitor's costs." It has not made a difference of £5,000. I never thought of that. All I thought was about the prosecution. I did not say I would see him all right as soon as the case was over. I went round to Mr. Treadwell's office and said Kelson had made a communication to me, and Mr. Treadwell asked me to bring him there. I did so, and he made a statement. I did suggest to Kelson that he should see Johnson and get him to say it was Kelson who had asked him to put the stamps on the forms. I was going down to see to it myself and took Kelson with me. I stated this morning that he asked me to let him see Johnson first because, as a fellow-employee, he thought Johnson would be more open with him. After Johnson had seen him first I did say, "Now, Arthur, who gave you the stamps to stick on?" or something similar. I first of all asked him whether he stuck stamps and whether there had been any tampering with the stamps. He said, "No, sir." I said, "Who gave them to you?" He said, "You did, sir." I said, "Where did I give them to you?" He said, "In the office." I said, "Well, that might be correct. Was there any tampering with the stamps after they went upstairs?" and he said, "Nothing at all." I will not undertake to swear I did not say to Kelson it was only the case of a fine. After the interview at Mr. Treadwell's on November 10 it was arranged that Kelson should be separately defended. I have told my solicitor all along that I could not understand why his counsel should have pleaded Guilty on his behalf. I know nothing to account for it. I do not think I took him down to my house after he made the confession to Mr. Treadwell. On Sunday, November 22, I was at Epping Forest and had a

smash with my motor-car. Mrs. Southee was with me. I did not have lunch with Kelson in a lane near Friern Barnet; I had lunch at the" King's Oak," Epping Forest. I did not see Kelson. Before I went to Somerset House to see the exhibits I knew that the receipts given in my name went back as far as 1904. I was not present in Mr. Treadwell's office on October 10 when he saw Kelson. I did not meet Kelson outside after he had been there. Kelson stated at the police court that he was afraid I was going to shoot him, not that I was going to shoot myself. There is not a word of truth in the statement that I said after going to Somerset House," I have had the biggest shock of my life, seen a lot of stamps dated 1904 with my own name in full written across bad stamps." I did not see him. It was a shock, but not a shock to make me shoot myself. He has not been staying with me after the confession at Westcliff. On the night after the visit to Somerset House, he did not go down to Westcliff, nor on the 23rd. I did not say to him I had been to Somerset House and seen documents dating back to 1904, and there was no way of getting out of the case.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bodkin. I was away at Nice six or seven weeks. No one had authority to sign my name when I was away. I made all provision for cash required. I seldom endorse cheques paid to the company. There was money received by the company by post, counter and other means while I was away. I should not leave out any stamped statements, because they were all on the table, put there by whoever used them. I do not know that there is not a single instance of a misused stamp in the period I was away. It must be somebody on the premises who has committed all the forgeries. I have looked at the documents which are alleged to be my signatures. I could not say they are in the same handwriting. I have not suggested that more than one person has been imitating my writing. I know a tobacconist named Crow; he does my motorcar repairs. He has not had a tobacconist's shop for some time. Mr. Cope never told me that he called on Crow, nor has Mr. Crow. I pledge my oath that on Monday morning Mr. Crow did not telephone me that the officers had been with him on the Sunday. I might have telephoned to Crow about motor-car business, but I have no recollection of it. I cannot say if I had any communication with Mr. Crow between Sunday, November 2, and the time I was arrested, because Mr. Crow telephones me sometimes three or four times a day. I pledge my oath that I had no knowledge about the Inland Revenue until I saw them in my premises.

CLAUDE TREADWELL , of Treadwell and Aylwin, solicitors. I have been eleven years Deputy-Registrar at Greenwich County Court. On November 9 I attended a consultation at Mr. Wippell's chambers with Mr. Southee. Miss West was there. Kelson also arrived at my office that morning, and whilst I was talking to Mr. Southee one of my clerks took him up to Mr. Wippell's chambers with instructions to wait there until I had seen Mr. Wippell, because I thought it was desirable he should be separately represented. Before Kelson came Mr. Southee said, "I have something to tell you. Kelson has confessed

to having committed these frauds, and I have brought him round to make the statement." Then he brought Kelson in. I said, "I understand you have told Mr. Southee that you are guilty of these frauds. Have you come here to make a statement?" He said, "Yes." I said, "I have a shorthand clerk; I suppose it will be a long statement; I should like it taken down in shorthand," and he said, "If you do not mind I would rather you take it down yourself." At that time I had no reason to doubt its genuineness. Having made up my mind that he ought to be separately represented I introduced Kelson to Mr. Harker, who had an interview with him. I was present. He impressed upon Kelson the very serious nature of the confession he was making. I asked Kelson whether anybody had asked him to make that confession, and I believe Mr. Harker repeated it. I asked him whether he was shielding anyone, and he said no. I took him up to Somerset House on November 24, and showed him a number of the exhibits. I think we were there about two hours. He seemed very ill. I asked him whether he had had any breakfast. He said no, he was not feeling well enough. I asked him if he would come and have some lunch with me. I then questioned him very closely on the matter, and asked him whether he was screening anyone. He said no. I pointed out to him the strong similarity between the signatures and the strong similarity to Mr. Southee's writing, and asked him whether he could assure me that he was honest in the statement he had made, and he said yes. I asked him whether he could be sure that this was his handwriting in every case and he said yes, and then I pointed to the colour of the ink, and he said, "I used to use Mr. Southee's pen." I said to Kelson, "I am acting for you and Southee and I regard it my duty both to you as well as Mr. Southee, and I ask you plainly now whether you are screening anybody or whether this confession of yours is a genuine one," and he said it was. I then realised that I could not represent them both, and I wrote to Kelson on the 25th to so inform him. He came in the afternoon before he received the letter, and I repeated what I had written to him. I then told him he must have another solicitor.

Cross-examined by Mr. Tindal Atkinson. I took the statement before I went to Somerset House. I had not then seen the documents. I saw the whole of the documents that had been produced at the Mansion House. Nearly all of them had the signature either of" George Southee" or" G. Southee "' on the stamps, or what appeared to be his writing. Having discovered this, I was mystified by the statement of Kelson that they had been written by him. They bore a great resemblance to Mr. Southee's writing which I did not know very well. It was because it appeared unlikely that they were written by Kelson without any accomplice that I questioned him closely. I do not think I can go so far as to say it was an impossible case, but I felt it hard to believe. About three o'clock in the afternoon after I went with Southee to Somerset House Kelson came to my office. I had telegraphed him. No doubt I made a great point of asking him whether he had written the name of George Southee. He did not then say he had not written the name of George Southee. My recollection

is that he said he had written them. I should like to refer to my minutes; they are written by myself. I put it to him, had he ever used Mr. Southee's name, and he said he had often done so. He volunteered the statement that he had often used old receipt stamps long before he had used postage stamps. This was on the 23rd. He said Mr. Southee used to tear up old receipts. I cannot recall whether I asked him if he had written" George Southee" or Mr. Southee. The reason I went to Somerset House was to see the papers. I think I have some recollection that he said he had not written" George Southee "or" G. Southee"—I am not sure which it was. When he said he had used Southee's name I may have said, "It was only yesterday evening you assured me you had never written "George Southee." It is the fact that he told me on the 23rd that there was some signature, I am not sure whether it was" G. Southee" or" George Southee," which he had not written, and having shown him the documents on the 24th and he then having told me all these signatures were his I felt inclined to test what he had said the night before. On the 23rd I was closeted with Kelson when Southee called. I told my clerk to show him into Mr. Aylwin's room. I went in and spoke to him. He told me the nature of the business he had come upon. He probably left ten minutes before Kelson. I do not recollect saying to Kelson," It is a very funny thing; while you were with me Mr. Southee called on me and left the place about ten minutes before you left." I do not think I said, "Southee knew you were in the office with me, and I can only infer that you did meet him on your leaving my office," because I had advised Southee that in the circumstances he and Kelson should not meet. Possibly one of my clerks told Southee that Kelson was with me. He persisted more than once that these were his signatures. I do not think I said I was firmly convinced the signatures were not his writing; I should not sat that; but I did ask him to write Mr. Southee's name because I was mystified: I said, "You are not telling me the truth; you are keeping something back." That was at Somerset House; we were there two and a half hours. I did not ask him if another solicitor were acting for him would he tell him the same story? When I repeated to him what I had written to him on the morning of the 25th I recommended him to go to another solicitor. He said was it necessary. I said I thought it was highly advisable, but" If you are not going to tell him anything different from what you have told me, I am afraid he cannot help you very much." I did not say, "You will have a very different tale to tell him." He said, "My story to the other solicitor will be the same as I have told you." The words, "I wish you to understand I will not be any party to anybody taking responsibility and suffering for somebody else's guilt" were very nearly the words I used. This was after my return from the examination at Somerset House. I cannot say I used exactly the words, "This is not your writing; you know it is not," but I did test him document after document. I have here his answers to every question I put to him.

Cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. I gave very careful attention to this case when I was representing both defendants and afterwards when representing only Southee. It appeared to me that, apart from Webb's signatures, there were two handwritings on the exhibits. It was quite clear when we went to see the exhibits on November 23 and 24 that Kelson's genuine signature was on a number of them. It was not until afterwards that I noticed the signatures of Kelson extended from June to October. The signatures as disclosed were all out of date, and I rearranged them, and then found that Kelson's name did not appear on any of the exhibits. I discovered on November 23 they were very much less frequent than Southee's. Kelson's confession was a general confession from 1904 in respect of everything. I asked him how this own genuine signature appeared upon some of them, and yet he was imitating Southee's writing upon the rest of them. His answer was, "I wrote my own name when I was going to deliver goods, and Mr. Southee's when I was not." It was the day after I had seen the exhibits that I had nothing further to do with Kelson. Kelson said since 1904 he had been employed periodically week by week, sometimes with a week's interval, of 10 days, before he went into the employ of the company, attending at Mr. Southee's office, filling up these forms and writing postcards. It did not occur to me to ask him how the documents after he put the name of "Southee" on them got to the customers. I asked him why he imitated Southee's writing upon the documents; he told me it was generally when Southee was going out or when he was not going out himself with the accounts. If he took the accounts himself he would sign his own name. I did not ask him who took them out when he did not, but I gathered that if they were taken out by anybody else he would still make the paltry profit. I gathered that Southee would be taking out these documents; he did not tell me so. I put more than once to Southee that he was taking out documents which Kelson had forged. His answer has always been very specific, "These documents as I now see them are not in my handwriting." I did not at first know that, under the Act of Parliament, there was an aspect under which a fine only could be imposed. I think I got to know it on November 18, at the interview I had with Mr. Harker. There is a power under the Stamp Act to impose a fine of £50. I cannot tell you if Kelson thought that was a possible aspect of the case for which he was taking responsibility. I did not tell him it was only a fine that could be imposed. Mr. Harker pointed it out to him at the consultation. To the best of my recollection, Mr. Harker said, if the prosecution could be induced upon his statement to alter the charge to a fine under the Stamp Act, a fine could be inflicted; otherwise there would be a term of imprisonment. His answer to that was," Oh, my poor mother!"

(Friday, January 22.)

WILLIAM HENRY PAYNE , accountant. I have made an inspection and analysis of Southee's books. I have extracted a stamp account for two

years and 10 months ending October 31, 1908. A separate book has been kept showing the amount handed to the under-foreman out of cheques drawn for petty cash. The stamps used for receipts were entered in a daily total. It is assumed the balance would be used for correspondence. From January 1 to December 31, 1906, there were 6,076 invoices over the amount of £2 requiring stamps to the amount of £25 6s. 4d.; for the same period in 1907 5,435 invoices requiring £22 13s. 11d., and from January 1 to October 31 4,863 invoices requiring £20 5s. 3d. I have prepared the figures in tabulated form.

Cross-examined by Mr. Bodkin. I found no record of how many letters went out; only of the stamp-book produced at the desk in which the letters are entered. I had free access to the petty cash book, the stamp-book and daily receipts. I do not know how the sums collected during the day were accounted for.

ERNEST WRIGHT . I have been in the employ of the Wholesale Tobacco Co. for 12 years on and off. I am in charge of the shop and the staff. I have known Kelson some five years; it may be longer. I first knew him when he had a shop at Westbourne Grove under the name of Herbert. I cannot say definitely whether he did any work for Mr. Southee before he came permanently into the business. He was calling on Mr. Southee rather frequently just over 18 months ago and was then taken on permanently as manager of a shop at Camberwell. He came to Aldersgate Street about April or May, 1908. During the time Mr. Southee was away at Nice Kelson was at Camberwell. The number of people employed at Aldersgate Street fluctuates—it may be 12, 14, or 16. With regard to invoices or receipts that were sent out in the car, if they were ledger accounts—that is, fortnightly accounts—the receipts were sometimes made out from the statements a couple of days before. I have seen the stamps cancelled with bars across and some with writing upon them. I have no knowledge of stamps that had been used for receipts before or having been through the post, otherwise I should not have remained there. I have never had any trouble with the boy Johnson. Reddish is rather a dull boy. He has never complained to me about sticking on used stamps. Receipts were sometimes taken to customers who did not pay, and they were brought back, put in a drawer of Mr. Southee's roller-top desk, and used again. The office was always open. The drawer cannot be locked. I do not think Mr. Southee's desk has been locked for years and years. There was no concealment about the boys soaking stamps off, because they were done on the second or third floors, where the staff was going up and down all day. The drawer would hold 100 or more stamps, according to the paper that was adhering to them. I have never seen Mr. Southee soaking off stamps; I should imagine his time was too precious. When Mr. Southee wanted stamps he would send to me a paper saying what he wanted. I would give the messenger the money, send him to the post office, and I should send them upstairs myself. Downstairs the man in charge of the stamps would have £2 in advance. When he has used those stamps he tells me, I check his book, initial it, and pass it to Mr. Southee. He gives a paper for another £2; that is brought to me, and

I give £2. The staff has changed very much in the last two years. Some have been there for years. When Kelson came permanently I paid him his wages for a few weeks; after that Mr. Southee paid him. I was present when the Inland Revenue people came. I heard the statement about hawking. I first heard that the real object of their visit was about the stamps when someone whistled down," They want you in the office." Kelson, Mr. Cope, and Mr. Davis were there. Mr. Cope turned to me and said, "Do you rule stamps." I said, "No." Mr. Davis then turned round to Kelson and said, "Why, do you want to incriminate him?" Kelson said, "Oh, no." Mr. Cope turned to me and said "All right, that will do, Mr. Wright," and I left the office. I was not there when Mr. Davis showed Mr. Southee some documents. While the proceedings were on at the Mansion House I got a telephone message from someone to meet him. I found it was Mr. Cope. He said "Half a minute, Mr. Wright. Come and have a cup of tea. I want to ask you a question or two. I cannot ask you out in the street." We went to an Aerated Bread Co. 's shop in the Barbican. As far as I remember he first produced these documents and asked me if that was my signature. I gave Cope the information he asked for. I had nothing to do with sending Johnson down to Whitechapel after the arrest in November. On November 3 Johnson came to me and said he was to meet Kelson outside. I said, "All right," and away he went. I saw him either the day after or the following day, and Kelson came in and said, "What is Arthur doing here?" He sent him off again. As far as I know Mr. Southee had nothing to do with sending Johnson to Whitechapel.

Cross-examined by Mr. Tindal Atkinson. I have sometimes had an opportunity of seeing stamped receipts before they went out. My business was to superintend and to assist in packing the parcels, getting the car ready. I know Mr. Crow; he has the garage in which the Wholesale Tobacco Co. 's car is put up. He is on the telephone. Goddard is the motor driver; I think he is a relation of Crow; I have heard so. I think Mr. Southee was at business on the Monday before the arrest and left rather early. I did not get a message that morning from Mr. Crow that I know of. I do not think Goddard was there on Monday. I believe Kelson was. I believe Southee and Kelson were there together. The writing on the document handed to one" By cash" looks very similar to Mr. Southee's. We have had one or two clerks who used to write like him, but I cannot say definitely who they were. They are not there now. The greater part of my work is done with a pencil. (The witness wrote at Counsel's request.) The writing in document No. 752 is very similar to Mr. Southee's. I do not say it is his writing. I had no authority to sign Mr. Southee's name. The writing," By cash £8 2s. 3d. George Southee pro E. J. Wright," is very similar to Mr. Southee's, but I did not see it written and cannot swear definitely. There seem to be some bars underneath the ruled lines. The receipt the jury have got is not a bit like my writing. I can give no explanation about that document. There was never any other Wright in the business that I know of. Receipt 67 I should not think is Miss Daniel's writing. I do not think it is like Mr.

Southee's writing. His D's are not like that. Miss Shrimpton took the place of Miss Daniel and was there on the Monday before the arrest. She was not there next morning. She was absent about a fortnight. I understood she had gone away because she had a cold. Mr. Kelson told me so. I did not have a conversation with Kelson about Johnson and some money in the summer. There was a boy that stole some money. Mr. Southee asked me if Johnson was the boy and I said no. Southee said, "What was that money that was missing. Was that Arthur?" I said, "No, that was Fred." £1 2s. 6d. was stolen by a boy whose name was Fred Colby.

ARTHUR EVERITT , commercial traveller in tobacco and cigars. I have known Mr. Southee twelve years and had business dealings with him during the whole of that period. I have always found him honest and straightforward in his dealings. He is a man I would give an excellent character for commercial honour.

ALFRED PITMAN , town traveller to Messrs. Taddy and Co., and TOM CURTIS, tobacconist's traveller, gave similar evidence.

(Defence of Kelson.)

ETIENNE WHITMORE KELSON (prisoner, on oath). I am twenty-seven years old. I have been living at Amersham for some time. Between 1901 and 1905 I was in business for myself at Langley in Buckinghamshire, managing a temperance hotel. I did not know Southee during that time. In January, 1906, I took a tobacconist's shop in Westbourne Grove. A man called Valentine assisted me. I carried on the business in the name of Harper and Co. I had that shop until March, 1906, when it was disposed of. I was introduced to Southee in January, 1906, by Mr. Valentine. I bought tobacco from Southee. I received invoices from Southee and paid fortnightly always. I got credit for the first stock. I received statements also from time to time. (Invoices and statement handed to witness.) The numbers on the statement correspond with the numbers on the invoices, also the amounts. I got those from the firm. In June I opened a tobacconist's shop at Mortlake also with the assistance of Valentine. Southee continued to supply goods. The statements handed to me are for the Mortlake business and correspond with the invoices. At Easter, 1907, that business was sold and I opened a shop then at Clapham Park Road. Valentine took the same part again. About July, 1907, that business was sold. At that time there was some dispute between myself and Valentine about sharing profits, and so on. I was then out of employment for a time. In September, 1907, I became manager to Southee of the Camberwell shop, and remained there till February 4, 1908. I visited Southee's shop from January, 1906. I took no part in the clerical work in his shop until 1908. Before then I never handled the receipts to his customers. I began to go out with the motor on June 2, I think, about five times a fortnight, and called on thirty or more customers a day. When I was working on the premises I worked in Mr. Southee's room. Miss Shrimpton also worked there.

When I received the statements to take with me they were already receipted, without the signature. The stamps were obliterated and cancelled. I nearly always signed in pencil. Until November when I got some information I did not know the stamps had been through the post before. I have seen Mr. Southee write. I have had letters from him. The signatures on the stamps in the bundle called "Kelson's" I take to be Mr. Southee's. Until November 2 I never ruled stamps at all. On September 20 I fell ill and went to hospital. I was then living at Trevor Square, Brompton. Mr. Southee came to see me once. He expressed his sympathy. After leaving the hospital I went to his house at Westcliff. For the first week I paid nothing. After that I was to pay £1 a Week. The last time I stayed there was the day before the last hearing but one at the Mansion House. On November 2 Southee, two friends of his, and myself went out to tea. After that Mr. Southee and myself went upstairs to the office. As we were entering the office I told him I would be back again in a few minutes. I was away ten minutes or a quarter of an hour. When I came back Southee was not there. I noticed the papers on the table were upside down and that kind of thing, not as I left them. When he came in again he told me he had received a message by telephone from Crow, of Kilburn, that the Inland Revenue had called there and collected his receipts, taken them away. Southee was upset, worried. I believe I said to him I did not see what it mattered because I knew we had always put stamps on receipts over £2. He said that was not the point, the stamps were bad stamps. I am positive he said that. I told him I did not see the point. I believe he told me then he would tell me going down in the train. He said we had no receipts for to-morrow's journey, and gave me some stamps and asked me to prepare them in the ordinary way. They were good stamps. I believe he took them from the drawer in the safe. He said, "Do you know how to rule them off?" I said Yes. I fixed the stamps on the blank statements and ruled them off. There were about forty. On the way to the station I asked him what the joke was; I thought he was playing some joke. He said it was no joke, because one of the boys had been sticking on stamps. I believe he told me they had been through the post or they were otherwise used stamps. I knew there was a Mr. Walker coming into the business. Southee said he supposed Walker would cry off if he heard of the trouble. After dinner that night we talked it over. We told Mrs. Southee. I do not think the question whether it would be fine or imprisonment was gone into that day. The agreement with Mr. Walker was to be signed the following morning. He told Mrs. Southee that Crow had ruing up on the 'phone, or one of his customers, and that the Inland Revenue had taken the stamps. He said it was impossible to know when the Inland Revenue were going to call, but that he would rather have Arthur and Miss Shrimpton out of the way for a few days, and he gave me instructions when I got to the office to send Arthur to Whitechapel and to tell Miss Shrimpton as she had got such a bad cold to go home for a few days. I did so.

Either that night or next morning in the train he gave me a book wrapped in brown paper, saying, "Tell Arthur to copy out these figures." He gave me the key of the drawer in the safe. He told me he had an appointment with a gentleman at Charterhouse Hotel. He told me I was to use the stamps in the drawer of the safe for the statements; he was not coming to the office, and I was to take Mr. Walker and his solicitor to Charterhouse Hotel. I got to the office about half-past nine. I first sent Arthur to Whitechapel. I gave him the book with directions. I then started on the statements. Mass Shrimpton wrote them out. I do not think I fixed the stamps on before they were written. I believe I ruled the stamps off in the same way as the others. (Documents handed to the jury.) Those are not signed; they were for Webb to sign. I think Mr. Davis took them away from Webb. Miss Shrimpton left shortly before the Inland Revenue officers came. They asked me who I was and when I expected Mr. Southee to come. I think I asked whether they would let the car go, or why they had stopped the car. They said they had information that we were hawking tobacco. I left them in the office with Mr. Wright, and went and saw Mr. Southee. I believe Mr. Davis asked me for Southee's address. I told them I did not know it. I gave them my address as 7, Trevor Square, and when they asked me for Southee's address, had I given it then and there, it would be giving them my proper address. When I saw Southee I told him, "The Revenue people are there and charging us with hawking tobacco." He said, "I cannot help that. I want to see Mr. Walker. You go back. You can do just as much as if I was there. You can have all the parcels opened and the rest of it." I then went to the office. Up to this time nothing had been said about stamps by Cope or Davis. When the Revenue people said we were hawking, I said, "I thought you were going to tell me something else." I was not present when they were talking to Webb. Davis had a bag with him. He brought out a lot of receipts, some with my signature on. I told him I had never signed over a stamp that had been through the post. He said, "If you look you will see postmarks on them." That was so. Mr. Davis or Mr. Cope asked me who ruled the stamps off. I said, "Either Mr. Southee or myself." He asked me if anybody else ruled them off. I said, "Not that I know of, unless it would be Mr. Wright." I said it was always our custom to rule lines over stamps, and I took from Mr. Southee's desk these other stamps and gave them to Davis, and said, "This is how they are generally kept in the drawer." Those were the ones I was instructed by Southee to prepare. I told Mr. Davis I did not know they were inquiring of our customers as to receipts. After we were released from the Mansion House I went back to the office and found the boy Johnson had come back again. I asked him why he had come back, when he had instructions not to until he had seen Southee or myself. He told me he had run out of paper and telephoned Wright, who told him to come to Aldersgate Street. I sent him back. I then went to the" Guildhall" Tavern to see Southee, and told him about Johnson. He was annoyed that Johnson was there, and arranged the same evening that he should

be sent to Camberwell. Mrs. Southee was with us at the "Guildhall" Tavern. The same evening the matter was discussed. Southee was much upset about being arrested, and said he was afraid if it got into the papers Mr. Walker would not carry out the proposed partnership. He fainted and was unconscious quite half an hour. Southee said he was surprised it was not done by summons, and supposed the upshot would be a heavy fine. I suggested I should say I had done these things and take the blame. He said no, it was impossible to do that, as there was the boy Arthur, who knew he had given him the stamps to stick on. Next morning Arthur was sent to Camberwell. Southee instructed Mr. Treadwell to act for us all. I did not go out any more with the car. After Webb had gone to another solicitor Southee said he was in a terrible fix and would be glad if I would be still willing to take the blame. At Camberwell Southee told me that counsel said he thought it was a case for a fine. He told me not to tell Mr. Treadwell this. It was arranged I should see Johnson. I went to Camberwell. I told him I had got myself into trouble over the stamps and brought Southee into it. I said, "I want you to see Mr. Southee's solicitor and tell him it was me who gave you the stamps to stick on." He said he could not do so, as Mr. Southee gave him the stamps. I was present when Southee saw the boy. He said, "Who gave you the stamps to stick on." Arthur said, "You did." I said, "How can you remember what happened 18 months ago?" He said he remembered Southee saying those that had marks on he was to put on statement forms and those with no marks on envelopes. From that day till the trial I did not see Arthur. On November 10 I made the statement to Mr. Treadwell. It was false. On the 11th I went to Westcliff with Southee. I was there on the 12th and 13th. On the 13th Southee was in bed all day, and Mrs. Southee went to town. When she same back she told me Mr. Treadwell had written to Trevor Square, and was surprised I had not called. On Saturday, November 14, Southee and I came up to town. I went to Trevor Square first and met him at Mr. Treadwell's. The case was talked over, and I told Mr. Treadwell I used to take the old stamps home and do them. I think this was after I made the statement in writing. It was then arranged that I should be separately represented. On the last Sunday I was at Westcliff I made out all the invoices for the window dressing and made some entries in the window-dressing ledger. On the Sunday after the hearing I was to meet Southee at Crouch Hill Broadway. I met both Mr. and Mrs. Southee about half-past 12. Mr. Southee was driving the motor; he said the chauffeur had been left at Wollffs, at Whitechapel. We had lunch in the motor in some by-way near Friern Barnet. Mrs. Southee had brought some of my things in a dress basket. Southee then told me he had to go with Mr. Treadwell to Somerset House to see the receipts. He asked me to say all the receipts were mine except those with" George Southee" on them. I told him I would do so. Next day I went to Mr. Treadwell's office. He asked me if I had ever written" George Southee." I said no. He asked me if I had written" T. K. Southee," and all those kind of things, and I said yes. I met Southee that day outside Mr.

Treadwell's offices. He said it was all up, and he was going to shoot himself. He said he had been to Somerset House and seen things he had forgotten all about. He said he had had a big shock. He was very much upset, and said he would not go back to Westcliff unless I went with him. I went. Mr. Southee mentioned to Mrs. Southee his visit to Somerset House. He said the only way to save him was for me to say I had written "George Southee" as well as the others. I told him Mr. Treadwell would think there was something wrong after what I had told him that afternoon. He said, "If you stick to your tale it is no good experts saying you did not." I agreed to do it. Next day I met Mr. Treadwell at Somerset House. I examined the document, not all; there were a lot of them. I said to Mr. Treadwell that I had written them, or "All those Mr. Southee does not acknowledge are mine. "Then he said I had told him yesterday I had never written" George Southee. "He said he felt sure I was not telling the truth; was I shielding anybody? He asked me if I had seen Mr. Southee since leaving him yesterday. I said no. That was untrue. I believe he mentioned Southee's visit to his office, or somebody told me he was there. He asked me if another solicitor was acting for me would I tell him the same story. I said I would. He then told me I was not acting fairly towards him, and that he was in an awkward position acting for both defendants, and would not be a party to anybody taking somebody else's blame. I met Southee in the afternoon and told him it was no good going on saying I had written his signatures, and that I had seen all the documents at Somerset House. I told him what Mr. Treadwell had said. Before I left him I said I would go on with it. Southee said it was the only thing I could do, that even if I did withdraw I would be bound to get into trouble. Up to this time I had not written or seen any of my friends. I was keeping out of their way.

Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. I had never touched the stamps before November 2. I did not know of any fraudulent stamps having been used; never had any suspicion. My attention was never called to the way these stamps had been defaced. I never knew Southee till 1906 and never did any clerical work at 1s. 6d. an hour; I never wrote letters, postcards, stamped receipts, invoices. If I did they can be put in Court. I was never on any other than friendly terms with Southee; when we got most friendly was when he bought the Whitechapel business in April, 1908. I knew Mrs. Southee prior to that; she had been round in the motor-car with Mr. Southee on one or two occasions. For three years previous to 1906 I had been in the tobacco business for myself. From January, 1906, to February, 1908. I have been in the tobacconist business. From 1901 to 1905 I was in business for myself at Langley. I was not in difficulties until the last twelve or eighteen months of the Langley period. The statement I made to Mr. Treadwell that I had lost money at cards was untrue; it was Mr. Southee's suggestion. I was doing my best to help Mr. Southee. Three of my tobacconist's businesses were run in conjunction with Valentine. Our business was to make a business and sell it as soon as we possibly could. We

did not sell on returns. I had no business until I did business with Southed in January, 1906. Southee let me have stock on credit until the business was sold. I never complained to anybody that Valentine had threatened to shoot me. I told Southee that Valentine had a grievance against me. I was told he said I robbed him of some furniture. I did not nay, "He told me if I do not give up the furniture to him he will shoot me then and there." I did not say, "I know Valentine always carries a revolver." Valentine was greatly incensed against me. He said he would have his own back. I told Southee that Valentine had got a cheque of mine upon a bank where I had got no account. That was a fact. I have not drawn any other such cheques. After the trouble at Camberwell I asked Southee to go and see my brother-in-law, a solicitor, with whom I have been on friendly relations right through. I had no grudge against Mr. Southee of any kind. I never said my wife had eloped with a lodger. It is all invention. I told him my wife was very ill. Mr. Southee did not say, "I thought your wife was in Australia," and I did not say "She has come back." A friend of mine sent the telegram. There was no truth in it. It was sent for the purpose of showing to Mr. Southee. I did not tell my friend I wanted the telegrams sent to throw dust in Mr. Southee's eyes. I told Mr. Southee I was married, and instead of keeping it to himself, he told everybody in the City, and I got chaffed, and when I went to Westcliff I found he had already put it abroad there I have told you the solemn truth. I do not want to withdraw anything. I did not tell Southee the Truth about the nature of the operation in the hospital. I told him what every other man would tell him. I kept all my receipts after the businesses were sold. I never carefully examined them; never looked at them. I never knew the stamps on the receipts had been used until my solicitor showed them to me. In selling the businesses I do not think receipts or invoices were produced in any one ease. I suppose the receipts, which I prepared for the first time without knowledge, bear a startling similarity to the incriminating documents. I have always seen the account stamps ruled off, and I ruled them off accordingly. I did not accuse the boy Arthur of stealing £2 10s. I did not know what the sum was. When I went to Mr. Treadwell's I was shown two exhibits. I said I did the signatures. When he asked me to account for the ink being so thick; I said I used to use Mr. Southee's pen. That was part of my defence. I had only one idea; that was to shield Mr. Southee.

Cross-examined on behalf of the prosecution. Mr. Southee gave me the key of the safe drawer in which he kept the stamps. Miss Shrimpton saw me open the drawer on that particular morning. The statement I made to Mr. Treadwell was the outcome of a conversation with Southee. The little touches which appear in it about gambling, but not with the members of the staff at Aldersgate Street, were the outcome of an agreement. The whole of it was concocted between us. I intended that the substance of that statement should be put before the Court and that I should plead guilty. I did not

look at it in the light that we were conspiring to defeat the ends of justice. I thought the fine and costs would not have to come out of my pocket, because Mr. Southee said he would see me well afterwards. Another advantage was that if Southee was convicted I should be out of employment again. I did not want to take the risk of imprisonment. When Mr. Harker impressed on me that it meant imprisonment I had two doubts. Southee persuaded me that Mr. Harker was only trying to frighten me, that Mr. Treadwell had asked him to tell me that, and in the second place I had gone too far to withdraw, and I should get into trouble just as much as if I did withdraw. The writing "By cash" on exhibit 3,057 I should say is Mr. Southee's. He took no part as far as I know in making out the various documents. He was in the office when I ruled these, things off. To the best of my recollection, I never took out a receipt in the motor signed "George Southee." I believe every receipt I took out was unsigned. I noticed nothing peculiar about No. 6 when I signed it. Before I got receipts in 1906 in the name of Harper I had never seen stamps cancelled in that way before. It struck me as funny that people should take the trouble to put lines across the stamps. I did not look at the stamps. The words "By cash" in the receipt of December 5, 1906, I should say is Mr. Southee's writing. The other receipt of December 5, 1906, is the same writing. I looked out the receipts a long time after I went to Messrs. Wontner. I had not heard anything against the boy Johnson before November, 1908. Southee was the only person I heard it from. I did not think it a cruel thing to accuse the lad, because I took it to be the truth. I heard Southee say something about "I promised to give you a rise," but whether he was going to give it I did not hear. When I found Southee was wrong about the boy I thought he deserved a rise or some present. When I went to see the boy I used words to the effect," I have got into trouble; I do not want Mr. Southee to get into trouble; the Revenue has caught us with the stamps, and I want you to go to our solicitor and say I gave you the stamps." I knew that to be a lie. I will not swear Southee did not say to the boy," Who gave you the stamps?" I remember the boy saying to Mr. Southee," You did." I dare say I said, "You are an untruthful fool; I told you to say it was me." I was trying my best to get Arthur to say it was me.

ALFRED WILLIAM COPE , recalled. On the Tuesday when I went to the Aldersgate Street offices the safe door was open, but one of the drawers in the safe was locked—one of the small drawers at the bottom of the safe. When Southee came in we asked him to open the drawer. He then asked Kelson for the key. The key was in Kelson's possession, and he gave the key to Southee. Southee then opened the drawer. On Monday, November 2, I went to a tobacco shop in Willesden Lane, No. 18, conducted by a Mr. Crow. I went a few doors along under directions and found Mr. Crow at a motor garage. I saw Southee's car there. I had previously seen it, and I recognised it.

PHILLIPS, wholesale tobacconist. I have known Mr. Southee twenty years. I have had a great many dealings with him, principally

large ones. I have always found him strictly honest; never guilty of any little trickery in trade. He is an honest man with a good commercial reputation.

MILLHOFF. I have known Mr. Southee eighteen or twenty years. I have been his bail for a large amount. He went abroad with my knowledge. I was not afraid of his going out of the jurisdiction. I have found him strictly honest in carrying on his business, I think I have had receipts from him for money I have paid. I have not seen bad stamps on any documents I have had from him.

Cross-examined. Perhaps I have not looked at the receipt stamps.

(Saturday, January 23.)

Verdict, Kelson, Not guilty; Southee Guilty on all three counts.

Judge Lumley Smith, addressing Southee, said this was a very serious offence, and was made a felony by the Legislature. Although the profits were small, the offence had been going on for years and was very systematic, and it was very discreditable on the part of a man having a considerable commercial business. He sentenced Southee to 12 months' imprisonment in the second division.

Mr. Bodkin asked that, having regard to the position of Southee and the description of him that he was a wealthy person, he might be ordered to pay the costs of the prosecution.

Judge Lumley Smith. I am told that the power to order costs is not often exercised. The ordinary course is that a prisoner must suffer either in purse or in person. If I went into the question of his paying the costs of the prosecution, I should have to reconsider my sentence. I think the sentence I have passed is sufficient in this case.


(Wednesday, January 20.)

Reference Number: t19090112-82

STODDART, Joseph (53, journalist), and CATLING, Frederick Ernest ; both conspiring and agreeing with each other and with Henry John Jones and with certain persons unknown, by false pretences to defraud divers of His Majesty's liege subjects; both obtaining by false pretences from Ebenezer Funnell postal orders for 9s., 1s. 6d., 2s., 3s., and £1, and from Emily Laura Carter two postal orders for the payment and of the value of 2s. 6d. and 1s. 6d. respectively, and 1d. postage stamp, in each case with intent to defraud.

Mr. Muir, Mr. Leycester, and Mr. Forrest Fulton prosecuted; Mr. Abinger, Mr. L. S. Green and Mr. A. D. A. MacGregor defended Stoddart; Mr. George Elliott and Mr. S. Moses defended Catling.

Defendants advertised racing and football competitions in connection with three publications, "Racing Record," "Football Record," and" Football Sport," and, according to the prosecution, were carrying on an illegal business in the nature of a lottery, and were, moreover,

defrauding successful competitors by the introduction of fictitious or bogus winners in order to reduce the amount payable out in respect of the competitions.

HARRY BYE , managing director of Sully and Ford, printers, Fetter Lane, identified specimens of the" Racing Record" produced as having been printed by his firm, and stated that Stoddart used invariably to pay by cheque. The" Racing Record" was posted in directed envelopes sent to the firm by Mr. Stoddart's instructions, about 30,000 at a time. The paper was not published weekly, but the six publications dealt with by the firm extended over about ten weeks. Witness knew a man named Henry John Jones, who came once to see the post away for a publication called the" Football Record," which was started in August, 1908, and was also printed by the firm. (Jones has absconded.)

Cross-examined. Stoddart always paid by cheque, and the figures were: June 3, £36 3s.; June 9, £68; June 10, £20; June 24, £49; and also in June, £21 7s. 6d. I do not know that Catling carried on business as Catling, Limited.

(To Mr. Elliott.) I believe Catling is respectably connected. I only know his father by repute.

(Thursday, January 21.)

JOSEPH ROBERT HOSKER , managing director of the Argus Printing Company, Limited, Temple Avenue, said they had done printing for Mr. Stoddart for some considerable number of years, he thought about 10, and he knew Mr. Stoddart personally. Witness proceeded to identify copies of the "Football Record," "Racing Record," and" Racing Sport" as having been printed by the company. Stoddart invariably paid by cheque either monthly or two monthly. Directed envelopes were supplied, and Stoddart also supplied stamps or sometimes sent the money to buy stamps. The money for stamps was generally an open cheque. There was no record of the money sent to buy stamps. Witness did not know the man Jones; he might have been to the office, but he did not know him personally. He knew Catling as an engraver and maker of blocks. An account was opened in his name for the" Football Record" by direction of Stoddart. Those were the numbers from October 26, 1907, to March 28, 1908.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. Stoddart paid one account in cash. That was £97 19s. 8d., on October 15, 1907. It is not true that Stoddart gave me £100 in gold to pay an account in June, 1908. He then paid an account of £148 16s. 3d. in respect of the printing of "Football Sport." That account was in the name of C. E. Price. The" Football Record" was in the name of Catling.

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. I knew Catling quite apart from Stoddart, and as having carried on business as Catling and Co., for a number of years in Farringdon Street, as a process engraver. I also know that he is very respectably connected, and that his father was for 50 years the responsible editor of" Lloyd's News. "

Re-examined. I opened the account for" Football Sport" in the name of Price by direction of Mr. Stoddart.

CHARLES HENRY DRYSDALE , manager of the firm of cate and Co., 32, Bouverie Street, printers, said he knew Stoddart through doing business with him, and upon his instructions printed certain numbers of the "Football Record" during the year 1907. Witness proceeded to identify the numbers he had printed. He also printed some receipt forms in connection with the issue of "Football Record." The accounts were paid by cheque, but cash was received for stamps.

HERBERT FRANK COWLEY , Weston Green, Thames Ditton. I am doing nothing at the present time. I am a clerk. I have known Stoddart three or four years as running a coupon business in Fleet Street in connection with the" Football Record" and" Racing Record." I also know Catling, who I understood was working as manager for Mr. Stoddart. I have done work for Stoddart, and have been employed by him as confidential friend going with him round the West End at night time, dining at different places and going to music halls, he paying the expenses. I was also employed in making inquiries outside the office. I have been employed by him over a year and used to call at the office every morning, and if there was anything for me to do I would do it, and if there used to be nothing I used to go away. By way of remuneration I received a sovereign now and again, but no regular salary. As to the inquiries, Stoddart used to give me a name and address and tell me to find out if such and such a man lived there. Last Whit Monday while I was in a bar in the Haymarket Catling came in and said Stoddart wanted me to do some work for him, and he gave me the names and addresses of two men, named Hierli and Naylor, and asked me to find out who they were. The names and addresses are on the paper produced. (Hierli and Naylor together with a man named Butter-worth were winners in a competition of £100 apiece.) The address of Hierli was 16, Half Moon Street, Piccadilly, and that of Naylor 24, Denmark Street, W. C. Catling told me to report to the office next morning, and took me in his motor-car almost to Naylor's address. I reported to Mr. Stoddart on the following morning at his office at 68, Fleet Street that I had made inquiries; he was not quite satisfied, and asked me to go again. Naylor was satisfactory, but I could not find Hierli, and I had to go on another occasion. Mrs. Hierli was then keeping a lodging house there. Stoddart next asked me to go down to Gravesend and find out a place where I could have letters addressed. I asked him in what name, and he proposed the name" W. Butterworth," and wrote it down on the paper produced. He gave me 5s. or 6s. for my expenses. I went down to Gravesend by the 2.35, and went to a tobacconist's shop, 5, New Road, Gravesend, and there saw the witness May Andrews, the assistant. Having made an arrangement with her I came back to town that afternoon. I had instructions that Mr. Catling was to receive this address which I had gone to Gravesend to get as soon as possible. A few days afterwards I saw the result of the contest (No. 29) in the "Racing Record." The three winners announced were Hierli and Naylor and W. Butterworth, of 5, New Road, Gravesend, as winners of £100 each. I had conversation with Stoddart after I had seen that, and on the following Wednesday (June 17) I again went down to

Gravesend by direction of Stoddart to fetch a registered letter. He told me to go and see Hierli and Naylor, and ask them for some money because I had made inquiries about them. I did so, and Naylor gave me a sovereign and Hierli half a sovereign. That was on the Wednesday. I went to inquire whether they had got their money. I saw Catling when I came back from Gravesend with the registered letter and gave it to him. Besides the registered letter I also obtained at 5, New Road, Gravesend, two other letters addressed to Butterworth. One was a circular in an unsealed envelope and the other a postcard asking me (Butterworth) what I would like to do with my £100 from an agent of a building society. Catling gave me 5s. or 6s. for my expenses. When I came back I asked him for some more money, and he gave me another 5s. I did not see the contents of the registered letter and did not get £100 out of the transaction. I had not sent in any coupon in the name of "Butterworth" or made any claim in that name. I look at the three £100 notes produced, Nos. 89,762-3-4, dated July 18, 1906. I find on the back of one of them the name of Naylor, on one there is no name, and on one the name of "W. Butterworth, 5, New Road, Gravesend," is endorsed. That is neither my handwriting nor my spelling, nor in any handwriting I know. I had nothing to do with cashing that note and had never seen it till those proceedings.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I was last in employment in March 1907. I said at the police court:" I was last employed as clerk in March, 1904." I was employed in 1907 for a week as manager of the refreshment department at the Horticultural Show. I was with the Mutual Life Insurance Company about 10 weeks—I think, in 1906. At other times I have been living on any friends and my wits. At the present time I am living on the police; I am drawing money from the police through a friend of mine named Windust, who has been running an opposition business to Stoddart's at Middelburg. I made the acquaintance of Windust about three years ago, I think in a bar at the West End. I did not say at the Mansion House that I was the confidential friend of Stoddart; that has occurred to me since. It is not true to say that Stoddart has only helped me with a few shillings and a meal occasionally. I have dined with him at the" Criterion" Restaurant and been with him to music halls. As to my relations with Windust, I was last year in great straits for money; I was destitute and had no place to sleep in and found it difficult to get food. I went to Windust at Esher, where he has a fairly large place. I know he is a convicted person, but only for contempt of court. From the time I went to Windust he has been supporting me by direction of the police. He has been paying for my lodging and supplying me with pocket money, but never with more than 5s. a week. The coat I have on is one of Windust's old ones. He paid for my suit and my boots, and I came to court with him this morning. Where I am living at Weston Green is about a mile from Windust's house. I have my breakfast at my lodging and sometimes do and sometimes do not have my other meals with Windust. I cannot tell what Windust is going to get for supporting me. He asked me to say if I was prepared to go before the City Solicitor and say that a fraud

was being carried on. He did not say that if I would do so he would find me in clothes. The police asked Windust to supply me with money for my lodging. I must live on something. I have never considered whether Windust employed me to get Stoddart convicted so that he might have no rival at Middelburg. As to whether he employed me because of my notorious character, I say that is bosh. As to whether I am a man of bad character, this is the first I had heard about it. I was fined £5, or a month, at South-West London for gross indecency in Battersea Park. Mr. Catling paid the fine. I served in the South African war and have a medal with five clasps, but have lost it. I last had it about three years ago. You can ascertain that I served in South Africa by application to the War Office. I was in Batey's Horse, a yeomanry regiment. I am still in the yeomanry. I did not forge a cheque. I wrote out a cheque one day with the idea of it being presented by a friend of mine who had asked me to lend him some money. I was not prosecuted for it. It was done after I had been three days drinking absinthe and was more mad than drunk and did not know what I was doing. Directly I realised what I had done the cheque was taken up. A friend of mine said he could get it cashed and I let it go. The name I signed was" H. Griffiths." It was a cheque on Lloyd's Bank. A man gave it to me in a bar; he cashed it at the "Standard" Music Hall, Victoria; his name was Abbott, but I wish you would leave his name out of it. A man named Sheffield took it up for me. I was not threatened with any prosecution; you may put it that I escaped prosecution if you like. I do not accept the suggestion that it was because Windust knew that story perfectly well that he invited me to come to Esher and assist in destroying Stoddart. I found out what Stoddart had made me do about Butterworth, and that is why I jibbed. Windust never gave me advice what to do. As he was running an opposition business I thought he was the best man to go to, and he told me to go to the City Solicitor. I have met a man named Price at Windust's house once. I believe he is the principal witness for the prosecution. The meeting was at the dinner table and a coincidence so far as I was concerned. The dinner party consisted of Windust, Inspector Collison, Mr. and Mrs. Price, and myself. I cannot tell you the date; possibly it was a day or two before the information was sworn. I went to the office of the City Solicitor with a man named Cowling, a solicitor who has an office somewhere in Chancery Lane. I made a statement which he wrote down. That was with a view to getting Stoddart prosecuted, certainly. I swear that Cowling did not take me round to a solicitor named Glasier. I knew that the name of Mr. Windust's solicitor was Glasier. The man I was taken to was not Mr. Glasier and had no connection with Mr. Glasier's office. I deny that I was conspiring to put Stoddart away; there is no question of conspiracy so far as I was concerned. I have not heard from Windust whether he is going to condescend to go into the witness-box; he is here; you had better ask him. I have not the faintest idea whether Price's statement was taken down by the police at Windust's house. My own statement was. I wrote it out alone downstairs in the breakfast-room before Inspector Collison

arrived. When he arrived I gave it to him, and have never seen it since. I deny that my employment with Stoddart has been of the most casual character. When he had any work for me to do I did it. Amongst other things, I used to go and buy books for him. In doing that you have to use a certain amount of brain power; I also had to choose his cigars. I know Klinge, but only from having seen him in the witness-box. From what I have heard, he was Mr. Stoddart's manager in Middelburg. I have never seen him at Windust's house. It is quite wrong to say that I did not go to Gravesend on June 10 but at the end of May. (Witness, confronted with a witness named May Andrews, acknowledged having seen her on two occasions at Gravesend.) I do not know anything at all about racing. I cannot say whether the Epsom Town Plate, the Derby Stakes, and the Stewards' Handicap were run on June 3. I have never entered for one of these competitions. The coupon produced, signed "Butterworth," is not in my handwriting. I neither wrote it myself nor got one of my acquaintances to write it and send it to Mr. Stoddart's establishment at Middelburg. I saw it for the first time at the Mansion House. I did not write the following document:" Dear Sirs, I have given three winners in this week's competition, and claim a share of the prize money. I hope it will be a big share.—W. Butterworth." I have never seen either that or the coupon in my life. I have not the faintest idea in whose writing they are. The suggestion that I met Klinge on June 16 has come out of the fertile brain of that ex-convict. I have denied many times that I have ever spoken to Klinge in my life, and Klinge has denied that he has ever spoken to me. I deny that I opened a registered letter addressed" W. Butterworth" at Gravesend and took out a £100 bank note. I saw Jones on one occasion in Catling's office for about three seconds. I do not identify the photograph produced as that of Jones. I did not go with Jones and Klinge to the Bank of England and change that bank note into 100 sovereigns. I do not accept the suggestion that I gave Klinge £20 and that the remaining £80 was divided between Jones and myself. I last saw Jones months ago. I should not know him if I saw him again. It is very probable I saw Stoddart on June 18. If it is said that on that day Stoddart accused me of going to Hierli and Naylor, the two winners of £100, and extracting money from them, I say it is a lie. I did not say to Stoddart," You have got to give me money, and if you do not I will force you to." It is absolutely a lie that I declined to be shown out, and was forcibly ejected from the premises. The last time I saw Stoddart in the office he gave me a sovereign and said he would telephone for me if he wanted me again. I know a man named George Kemp, who has done penal servitude. On one occasion I had drinks with him in the Haymarket. I did not instruct Kemp to go to Stoddart to get money from Stoddart. I told him I had been put down as a winner in a competition when I was not a winner. I told him I had no money and borrowed a" bob" off him to get a night's lodging. It is absolutely a lie that he gave me that shilling because I gave him information upon which he could extort money from Stoddart.

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. I have known Catling about a year. I know him to be a very respectable man, having an independent and separate business as a process engraver. On the occasion when he came to me at 22, Haymarket he made it quite clear that he had come to me at the request of Stoddart. I understood the sole object of his visit was to give me the addresses of Naylor and Hierli. Nothing was said at that time about my going to Gravesend. I reported to Stoddart, and it was also Stoddart who gave me instructions about going to Gravesend.

Further cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I know a solicitor named Collings, and I know a Mr. Hyde. I met both those gentlemen in the "Opera" Tavern in the Haymarket on August 28. Windust was also there. I introduced Collings to Windust. As I said at the Mansion House, I think it is very likely that Windust may have said, "For years and years I have gone down on my knees and prayed for the death of that b——Stoddart, but God does not love me. "

Re-examined. The first time I saw Price was at the dinner at Windust's. I think Inspector Collison took me to see the City Solicitor. From that time I had no control over the prosecution.

The Recorder observed that the City Solicitor was Director of Public Prosecutions for the City, under the direction of the Court of Aldermen.

Mr. Abinger. I do not believe the City Solicitor ever knew how this case was started.

Mr. Leycester. We know very well how it was started.

The Recorder. After the City Solicitor is authorised to take up a prosecution it is entirely in his hands, and the object of having a Director of Public Prosecutions is to prevent private persons from compromising criminal offences.

Further re-examined. I was examined at the first hearing at the Mansion House as to the £100 note. Klinge was produced before me, and I absolutely denied that I knew him. No suggestion was made that Jones and Klinge were with me when I cashed the note, I have never heard that suggestion until to-day. I have never seen Klinge since I saw Him at the Mansion House. (The statement made by witness to Inspector Collison was put in and read).

The Recorder. You seem to have received a good education.

Witness. London University, King's College. I gave up a very good position as chief cashier at the Carlton Hotel to go out and fight for England.

The Recorder. What has brought you down to your present miserable condition?

Witness. Once you have served your country and got out of your special line of business nobody seems to want you again.

JOSEPH PERCIVAL HUDSON , clerk in the Bank of England, produced the three £100 notes, Nos. 89,762-3-4. Two bore the endorsements of Naylor and Butterworth, and on the face of the other was written in blue pencil "Hierli. "

WILLIAM SIDNEY NASH , clerk in the G. P. O., produced a receipt for a registered letter addressed "W. Butterworth, 5. New Road, Gravesend."

MAY ANDREWS . I am assistant to Mr. Harding, tobacconist, 5, New Road, Gravesend. About the month of June last I had communication with the witness Cowley with regard to receiving registered letters. He gave the name of Butterworth. He wanted me to take in letters for him. The receipt for the registered letter produced by the last witness is in my sister's handwriting. I was out when it came, but I afterwards saw it in the shop. It came on the 16th, and on the following day or the day after the witness Cowley called for it and took it away with him. He had said a week before that he was expecting a registered letter. The last I saw of him was when I handed the registered letter to him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I first saw Butterworth or Cowley about the end of May or the commencement of June. No charge was made for taking in the letters. This was the first time since I had been there that such a thing had been done. I think he bought some cigarettes in the shop. About a week elapsed between his first and second visits. He did not tell me he had been a prize-winner in a competition.

WILLIAM SIDNEY NASH , recalled, produced the entry showing the time at which the three registered letters, addressed to Hierli, Naylor and Butterworth, were taken in at Lombard Street on June 16.

JANET JONES , wife of Henry John Jones. At the end of September or beginning of October we were living at Flat No. 6, 19, Cranworth Gardens, Brixton. My husband is an engraver, and was in the service of Catling as manager. He had been with Mr. Catling some years before I met him, I believe, and we have been married eight years. I last saw my husband on September 29 last year. He did not go out to his work in the ordinary way in the morning, but told me he was going away for a week's holiday. He has never been back. I have had two or three letters from him which were given to me indirectly and did not come through the post. In December I found out that he had been in Hertfordshire. I do not know where he is now. The handwriting on the back of the £100 note No. 89,763, dated July 18, 1908, is my husband's handwriting, but disguised. He used to write small like that.

Mr. Abinger pointed out that witness was not obliged to give evidence against her husband, for whom a warrant was out for conspiracy in this case.

Mr. Leycester. She has no such privilege; he is not upon his trial.

Witness: The pencil writing on the Butterworth coupon is like my husband's writing.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. After my husband went away Miss Jessie Stoddart came round to me and asked me if I could help her to discover my husband's whereabouts.

Mr. Abinger said he attached great importance to this part of the case, as it was suggested that Stoddart had got Jones out of the way.

Cross-examination continued. I told her, as was the fact, that I did not know where he was. Some years back my husband had a tri-car, but lately he has had a motor-car. I never knew him to keep it at Mr. Catling's garage. He kept it in the Clapham Road. I did

not in the company of Miss Stoddart try to find out where my husband was. I know Miss Stoddart watched the house where I was living to see if perchance my husband had come home. I have been watched, I think, since this case started by her and by detectives employed by Stoddart. I do not know whether Catling has been watched to see if Jones was writing to him. I went one day to see Mr. Catling, and when I came out Miss Stoddart was watching outside. We had a little conversation, and I came to the conclusion that she was watching me to see if I was going to meet Jones. She has given to understand that she wanted to discover my husband. She said to me once, "I can understand you trying to protect your husband; I am trying to protect my father." She also said to me," As woman to woman, tell me where your husband can be found, as he can save my father." I told her I did not know where Mr. Jones was. It was through a Mr. Cattermole that I received letters from my husband.

ARTHUR FREDERICK HIERLI (accountant), The Hollies, Gipsy Road, West Norwood. At the beginning of June last I filled up a coupon for the" Racing Record" competition which I sent by post to the offices of the" Racing Record," Middelburg, in Holland, enclosing a postal order or stamps to the amount of about 2s. 6d. I subsequently received a copy of the paper, in which I was announced as winner, coupled with the names of Butterworth and Naylor. According to that I was entitled to a prize of £100, and I sent a postcard or letter to Middelburg making a claim for that amount. I keep a copy of the coupons I send in. I wrote upon this particular coupon the names of various horses in the different races. The man Cowley called upon me in Half Moon Street, Piccadilly, which was my address in those days. It was my parents' house; they were retiring about a week or ten days afterwards. Two days after Cowley called I received a registered letter enclosing a banknote for £100, No. 89,764. I cashed the note. The name Hierli in blue pencil on the face of the note is not in my handwriting. I paid the note into my parents' bank—the London and County. After I had got the £100 I saw Cowley again, and in consequence of the conversation I had with him I gave him half-sovereign. Before I entered this competition I had been in for competitions of all sorts. I had once won before. I have seen the names of winners in various competitions published, and believe the names of those winners to be the names of those who had become genuinely entitled to money. I do not know whether I sent any receipt or acknowledgment for the £100. I believe I received a form of receipt, but we were moving from one house to another and I do not think I filled it up.

EBENEZER FUNNELL , accountant, 5, Denmark Street, Charing Cross Road. I have competed from time to time in the" Racing Record" and" Football Record" competitions. I entered the racing competition No. 29 in the name of E. F. Naylor and was announced on June 12 as the winner of £100. The race was run on June 3. I sent either 1 6d. or 2s. with the coupon, the charge being 1d. for every line filled in. I posted the coupon on June 2, the day before the race. I received the £100 by registered letter. The witness Cowley called upon me to make inquiries, and after I had got the money

he called again, and I gave him a sovereign. I believed the winners announced to be genuine winners. I also entered the competition the result of which was announced on October 12, 1907, in the name of Fenner, 171, Great Dover Street. The coupon produced is the one I sent in. Some few days after I received 9s. as my share of the winnings. In the same number the result of a previous competition, No. 16, is announced, the sole winner of £300 being Mr. S. W. D'Avyet, of the Yacht Marque, 17, Belle View Road, Ramsgate. I was induced to enter into the competition by the prize money offered, in which I hoped to participate. I thought they were genuine competitions and were going to be fairly conducted and that the winners were genuine winner. I had no reason to believe that D'Avyet was not a genuine winner. In competition No. 19 I shared the £300 with a Mr. C. Saunders and received £150. If Saunders were not a genuine winner I should have been entitled to the whole £300. I entered other competitions after that; on the whole I have not done so badly out of them. I have also used the name of F. E. Farrell, of Cranley Gardens, Wallington. I was announced in the "Football Record" on February 1, 1908, as the winner of £100 in the name of Farrell. There were two winners besides myself. I cannot tell you how much money I sent in for that competition. It may have been a few shillings or a few pounds. My belief was that they were all genuine winners. I used to send in every week not only to Stoddart's but to other competitions. I have no record of what I sent in. If I won a big prize generally had had a big speculation. I won £83 6s. in another competition of Stoddart's in the" Racing Record," in which six winners divided £500 between them.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I have not competed in my own name as Ebenezer Funnell. I have competed in the names of Farrell and Naylor. I have not competed in the name of A. Beach or J. Reed. I know J. Reed; he lives at Wembley. I know someone who lived at 29, Stockwell Park Road—J. Reed. I never resided at 29, Stockwell Park Road. I was connected with a firm which carried on business at that address. Reed was manager of the firm. I am not Reed. I was secretary to the firm that he was director of. I know that Reed got a prize of £300. I do not know a man named Jones, and have never seen the original (Jones) of the photograph produced. There are two or three reasons why I am competing in these various names. In the first place I am quite at liberty to use an assumed name if I choose; secondly, one rule of a competition is that you can only send in one coupon for one prize. Naylor was the name of a firm I was partner in, and I chose to enter in the name of Naylor because I had left the other address. I never saw Catling until I saw him at the police court. I did not know Stoddart. I suppose it was a coincidence that I was always winning large sums of money. I knew a man named Beach; I am not Beach. His address is 23, Great St. Helens.

The Recorder. Is your object to show that this witness is one of the conspirators in the case?

Mr. Abinger. These are my instructions. My object in putting these questions is to show that this man has been assisted by someone in getting prizes from my client.

Witness. It is a lie.

Further cross-examined. Beach had an office at 23, Great St. Helens. I was employed in the same office as secretary to a company. I know that Beach won a prize of £150.

(Friday, January 22.)

EBENEZER FUNNELL , further cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I have not competed this week, but I shall do so presently. I competed last week in the name of Farrell. It was not a competition of Stoddart's, because he has given them up, but one of Terry's. I do not know that Donald Mackenzie is running a competition. I have not competed in Windust's competition lately. I have never been to Middelburg. When I sent in coupons sometimes I signed the name in ink and sometimes in pencil. I sometimes used a rubber stamp. I had a rubber stamp made in an assumed name. Why? Because I chose to do it, that is all.

The Recorder. I should like you to tell me something which is in my mind. Did you ever win more than one prize in the same name?

Witness. Yes, in the name of Farrell. I have won dozens of prizes in that name. I have won more than one prize in the name of Fenner. I have won perhaps a dozen times in the name of Farrell in Stoddart's competitions, but only once in the name of Fenner, and once in the name of Naylor, giving my business address. I have won as small an amount as 6d. and as much as £100 in the name of Farrell.

Further cross-examined. Cowley vouched me to be a bona-fide competitor under the name of Naylor. I did not tell him that my name was Fenner or Funnell. I gave him money because he gave me a pretty good hint that he expected a tip as I had won £100. When I win I find plenty of people who think I have money to give away. I have won in at least a dozen of Stoddart's competitions; probably I have won in more. I do not think I have won so many as fifty, including minor prizes. I will not swear either way. I cannot tell you the total of the prizes I have won. I have won £100 as Naylor and £150 as Fenner. In all I should think I have won £450 during the last eight or nine years. I competed in Stoddart's competitions when they were running "London." I should think I have won £250 in the Stoddart competitions in 1908, and I also won largely in 1906 and 1907. I think it was in 1907 that Reed won a praise of £300, but that was nothing to do with me. I am not certain whether Beach won in 1906 or 1907. I think his name is down for £150, but I have nothing to do with that.

The Recorder. It seems to have been a wonderfully fortunate firm, this. Everybody who competed always won.

Witness. You do not take into consideration that one successful week out of 20 or 30 is not much.

Further cross-examined. Naylor and Co. are box manufacturers.

The name of the firm at 29, Stockwell Park Road is Bown. That is a photographic firm. I bank with the Wallington branch of the London and South-Western Bank. I also used to have an account with the Economic Bank till it went into liquidation. Naylor and Co. used to bank at the Capital and Counties. Whether Reed had a banking account I do not know. I did not cash a cheque for £300 for Reed. I did not have a cheque for £150 from Beach. I know a man named Camm. If letters came addressed to Reed Camm did not give them to me. Camm was one of the servants in the Stockwell firm I was secretary to at 29, Stockwell Park Road. That was also Reed's address, and Reed asked me if I would ask Mr. Camm for any letter that came for Mr. Reed. That was some time in July. I think he took letters in for him, as he was competing from that address, as he did not wish his wife to know what competitions he went in for. I have said before that I am not Reed. I do not know what you are insinuating, I am sure. You are making very serious allegations.

Mr. Abinger. I hope I make it clear; I am insinuating that you have been defrauding Mr. Stoddart.

Witness. You have to prove it. I know a man named Grimes. I know that Bown was approached by Grimes in 1907 with the view to turning this business into a limited company. I was concerned in the formation of the company. Reed was concerned in it; he was a director. Beach was concerned, but only as signatory, and had nothing to do with the management of the business. At that time I had not known Beach long. I had a good deal to do with the promotion and drafted the articles of association, etc. Reed, Beach, and myself were not putting our heads together to win these prizes. We had been competing in competitions for years, and it happened to be a coincidence that the prize was a big one that week. I did not see either Reed or Beach fill up their coupons. I have never been in Ramsgate in my life, and never passed myself off as D'Avyet. What next are you going to insinuate? I shall soon refuse to answer your questions if you make such insinuations as that. I have never competed in the name of D'Avyet nor sent in a coupon as from the yacht "Marque." I have not competed in the name of Saunders. The offices at Great St. Helens consisted of two rooms, and were shared by Grimes and Reed. Reed's name was never on the door. Grimes and myself paid the rent. It was the registered address of Bown and Co. and also the offices of Grimes and myself.

To the Recorder. The Derby was one of the races included in the three. I was fortunate enough to win on that occasion. That was in the name of Naylor. I do not know whether Beach competed that week. It is quite possible that Reed did, but I do not know. I was put down as having selected winners in three different races. I was very much surprised that I won, as the horse I selected for the Derby was Signorinetta. It is a fact that Signorinetta was a 100 to 1 chance, and that practically nobody backed the horse. It was simply a matter of chance that it came off.

The Recorder. You know the suggestion made against you—

The suggestion is that you were in league with somebody over on the other side, and that after the race was won your coupon was put in as if it had been sent in before the race was won.

Witness. I know it is; it is false. I cannot help the prizes being large; sometimes they have been small. Occasionally I spend £2 or £3 on a competition, and I have had a return as small as 10s. There is nothing said about the weeks that I lose. For the Stewards' Cup I put down a horse named Seaham. I am not certain what the price was, but I think it was a fairly long one. For the Epsom Town Plate I put down Hymettus as the winner. There were large odds against all these horses, because there was a large entry. If it is suggested that Hierli was in league with me, I never saw Hierli in my life, and it is a coincidence that his selections should have been the same as mine.

Witness was then asked to write the following for the purpose of comparison with the coupon." I, the undersigned, authorise Mrs. Fogg to receive any letters, either registered or ordinary; will you kindly give bearer the same." He was next asked to write on a separate line," 17, Bellevue Road, Ramsgate," and" S. W. D'Avyet, yacht' Marque. '" Being shown two documents which it was said would be proved to be in the handwriting of the man who pretended to be D'Avyet, he denied that they were his writing or anything like it. (The documents were handed to the jury for comparison with witness's writing.) Witness was then referred to a number of exhibits showing that in Contest 19 he won £150 in October, 1907, in a" Football Record" Competition in the name of E. Fenner; that in Competition No. 33, in "Football Record," he won £100 in February, 1908, in the name of Farrell, of Wallington; that in May, 1908, in a "Racing Record" Competition, No. 25, he won £83 6s. in the name of Farrell; that in June, 1908, in the" Racing Record" Competition, No. 28, he won £100 in the name of Naylor, making between October, 1907, and June, 1908, £433 6s. Witness added that he believed be also won several minor prizes in the Stoddart Competitions during that time, ranging from 10s. 6d. down to 6d. In addition to those he had mentioned he won upon one occasion £42, but was not certain of the date. On an average he thought he had spent £2 or £3 a week on the competitions, sometimes more. He won prizes in connection with the" Football Echo," now extinct, and had competed in competitions promoted by the" Athletic News and Sporting Chat," "Football Luck," "Sporting Prophet," and others, and had won prizes in all of them. He had been going in for the competitions, he should say, for about ten years, having first won in 1899 in the" Echo," and up to date he was about £200 to the good. Usually a printed form of receipt was forwarded for acknowledgment of the prize money, and he sent the receipts back when he sent in for the next competition if the amounts were large, but if the amounts were small he did not trouble.

ALBERT EDWARD PICKNELL . In 1907 I was living at Aylesbury "Street, Leicester, and at the end of 1907 entered a competition promoted by "Football Record." The result was published in the issue

of January 3, 1908, and from that it appeared that the prize of £300 was shared by one Rowlandson and myself, so that we were each entitled to £150. I subsequently received a registered envelope containing bank-notes to the amount of £150, which, I cashed. I subsequently addressed a letter to Mr. Rowlandson at the address given in "Football Record" congratulating him on his success. To that letter I received no reply, nor did it come back through the Dead Letter Office. I filled up a printed form of receipt and returned it in a printed envelope, which was sent with it to Middelburg.

Cross-examined. I sent 1s. with the coupon. This was not the first time I had sent in by many times.

Mr. Abinger. I am not instructed that this witness was anything but a bona-fide winner.

STANLEY VINCENT , manager of" Bruce House," a lodging-house in Kemble Street, Drury Lane, stated that the witness Cowley slept there from June 16 to 26, and after that off and on till the end of July.

EDWARD COX PRICE , Newstead House, East Finchley. I am a journalist dealing with sports and pastimes. I have been connected with the game of football for very many years as reporter and official referee. Formerly I was proprietor of "Athletic World" and "Football Chat." In July of last year I was anxious to dispose of the paper, having been advised by my doctor to get out of business for a time. I called upon Stoddart at the end of July at his office at 58, Fleet Street by appointment about selling the paper. The question of publishing a coupon competition was then raised. Stoddart asked me what I was going to do if I disposed of the paper, and I told him my doctor had advised me to take a rest for a time and that some of my friends had advised me to start one of the football competitions in Holland later on. Mr. Stoddart said some of them were surprised that I had not done it long before that. He also said, "I am not disposed to purchase the paper; it would be the best dead so far as I am concerned," and he asked me if I had approached Mr. Windust. I said, "No, I had not," and he said he was the man who would be likely to purchase if anybody would. I told him I was in treaty with two newspaper people. Stoddart said, "If you are disposed to start a competition in Holland and will see me later on I may be prepared to help you financially." After a subsequent interview I went to Holland and registered "Football Sport" at the post office as required by the Dutch law. When I came back an agreement was come to between me and Mr. Stoddart that he put into writing by which Stoddart agreed to guarantee my accounts for printing and stationery and to pay half the postage and to find the whole of the moneys needed until October. The next step after that was to send out the circulars for the first competition. I was to have partial management of the business. When I was at Middelburg I saw Klinge, who was office manager at Middelburg. The first advertisement or circular was sent out by post on August 23, and was headed" E. C. Price, founder of the Football League," etc. It requested friends to support me and contained printed extracts about

me from different publications and the rules of the competition. I had a number of addresses I had been collecting for a considerable time—about 34,000—people I knew were interested in football, and a number of others were bought from Mr. Mackenzie, a man who was running competitions in Holland some time ago. Mr. Stoddart provided me with others. I understand that in all 68,000 were sent out. After that circular had been issued Catling and I went over to Holland to receive the posts. I first met Catling on the day the agreement was signed—July 22. Stoddart told me to go to him for all the working details, and that he had made an arrangement with Catling to give him half his profits. I believe it was the last day of August that Catling and I went to Holland. Catling told me he would give me all the assistance he could, as he knew more about the business than I did; in fact, he practically wrote the address, because he said my effort was too journalistic and would get no custom whatever. He said in a jocular sort of way he would give half his life to be able to write anything like it. Another circular which he had prepared was substituted, commencing "Friends all." The original letter I had prepared was, I think, destroyed. My signature in fac-simile appeared on the one that went out. Stoddart allowed me the use of a room at his existing offices in Middelburg until it should be seen how the competition went and whether it was necessary to have additional offices. Klinge was to supervise both businesses, the existing business of" Football Record" and the new business of" Football Sport." Before going to Middelburg Catling and I discussed the business nearly every day from its various aspects. Catling's own office is at 77, Fleet Street. I was there on some date between August 25 and August 30. He had been pacing backwards and forwards about the room for some little time and suddenly stopped and said, "Price, can I trust you?" I said, "Trust me! What you mean, Fred?" Of course you can trust me. We have got to work together. You are going to have a share of the profits, I understand. You can certainly trust me." Then he said, "You do not understand what I mean." I said, "Well, what do you mean?" There was another pause and then he said, "Look here, we are commencing the competition on a day other than Saturdays. These competitions are usually run for matches played on Saturdays, and this competition is commencing with the Tuesday matches, which is very unusual for one of these football competitions. There is a tremendous big post gone out, and there may be very indifferent results on account of it not being the usual day. It is quite possible there will be a fearful loss on the first issue. Have you got one or two good addresses that we might use in case of a disaster like that?" I said I had never thought of anything of the kind; I had never dreamed of it. He said, "Well, cannot you think of anyone? If you can find two I can find one or two, and Joe (Stoddart) can find one or two." I told him I could not decide at once on anything of the kind; I would have to think about it very seriously. He asked that the addresses should be well away from London. I began to understand what he was driving

at. Probably a little more was said to make it plain, but that was the substance. I did not understand at first that I was being asked to do something fraudulent. Then he made it clear what he wanted, I told him I would have to seriously think it over and discuss it with my wife, but he begged of me not to say anything to my wife about it. I said I had always consulted my wife in everything and should continue to do so. Next day he asked me if I had thought out any addresses. I said I had thought of one, but it was only to be used in case there was a very disastrous post, and I would not tell him what it was until I had had a reply. I communicated with a Mr. Hudson, a brother-in-law living at Leicester. Having got an answer from him, I spoke to Catling about it again and told him my brother-in-law had agreed if he could to help me against any serious loss on certain conditions. Those were that the competitors should receive the whole of the money and that he himself should receive no prize whatever. My brother-in-law agreed to do this, as some years ago I had done him a service. It was arranged that my brother-in-law should send a registered letter with a coupon bearing his name and address, but with the competition part left blank. I accordingly sent him one of the forms with a letter of instructions. When Catling and I crossed on August 30 Mrs. Klinge, the wife of the manager in Holland, was with us. She had been staying at my house a week, paying a return visit to my daughter, when the latter returned from Holland. Mrs. Klinge is a Dutch lady, and had never seen England. In the course of the voyage Catling told me that there had been one or two letters from Klinge on the previous Friday and Saturday, stating that letters had commenced to come in very favourably. He also said: "Joe has told me that he is not going to give me a half share of the profits; I have got to look to you for something." and asked me what I thought of it. Catling also said I need not go to Holland for some weeks; he would go and do the work of both competitions. I said, "Well, it is only right and proper (that you should have something. It will be hard work crossing every week right through the winter months, and I will give you 5 per cent, out of my profits." He said, "That is not very much. We will leave it over and talk about it to-morrow." Letters came in; there were two posts on the Monday and two on Tuesday. Klinge took charge of the postal orders, which were for various amounts. Amongst others a letter came from my brother-in-law, enclosing 2s. The amount to be paid depended of course on the number of chances taken. I went with Klinge to the Post Office for the competition letters; you have to go to the Post-Office for them. The unregistered letters they hand over in bulk; the registered letters of course are handed over separately. Klinge gave gave a receipt for the registered letters and handed them over to me, and I put them in my pocket. Hudson's was amongst them. There was a hamper full of the ordinary letters. I was at the office till about midnight, and when I got to the hotel I remembered the registered letters, and out of curiosity opened them. One of them was Hudson's. It contained a postal order for 1s. 6d. or 2s., a" Football

Sport" coupon. The coupon was destroyed for a reason which will appear later. It was filled up in the name of" Stanhope," so that the name Hudson was not used. The address given was Moorledge Road, Leicester, my brother-in-law's address. I handed the registered letter to Klinge on the Wednesday afternoon in the presence of Catling. Klinge said it had not been filled up as it ought to have been. I asked him what he meant by that, and he said, "You should not have used ink; you should have used indelible pencil. There is a difficulty in matching ink, and it might cause a difficulty if the coupon had to be produced at any time." I told him I knew nothing of any such business. Then, reaching over to his right, he lifted up another coupon which had been filled in with indelible pencil, and said, "This is the way that it ought to be done. I said, "I know nothing at all about the business." Catling said, "Well, you had better see to the one that has come in." Klinge said, "I had better do it all over again, had not I?" Catling said, "Well, you know best what is to be done. Klinge then asked whether there were any half-sheets that had been torn off some of the other coupons. In some cases the competitors had only filled in one side, and the unfilled halves had been torn off. He asked me to reach him one of the halfsheets that had not been filled in, and then Klinge made out a new thing altogether under Hudson's assumed name of Stanhope. The postal order went with the other postal orders. No alteration was made in it, to my knowledge, but I think Klinge filled in too many columns, and it was necessary to add some stamps to the postal order to make it agree, with the new coupon. The original coupon I threw down the w. c. at the suggestion of Catling. Klinge filled in the new coupon in ink, and it was placed in the alphabetical pigeon-holes with the genuine ones. The postal orders, amounting to £300, remained in the custody of Klinge, but Catling had the key of the safe until he returned to England on the Wednesday night. I remained in Holland until Mr. Stoddart wired for me to come back to London. As the clerks had been having to work very late and very early Catling asked me to write a letter to Stoddart saying how well the clerks worked, how well Klinge did his work, that I was satisfied with the arrangements of the office, and that I might put in a word for" yours truly," meaning himself. I accordingly wrote a letter to Stoddart for Catling to bring across with him to England, and Catling, when I asked him whether it would do, said, "Yes; it will do splendidly." On the Thursday I received a telegram purporting to come from Stoddart: "You must return on to-night's boat. See Stoddart eleven o'clock. Important." To the best of my belief the original is in the handwriting of Mackenzie, whom Stoddart had financed in similar business. I accordingly returned on the night of Thursday, December 3, and next morning went to Stoddart's office, 58, Fleet Street, in company with my wife. We first had conversation about the sale of my business. There was £200 due to me from the company I had sold my business to. I showed Stoddart a letter Mrs. Price had sent me to Holland, in which the company disputed the payment. Stoddart said he had consulted with Mr. Alpe (Messrs. Alpe

and Ward, solicitors) about it, and they were of opinion that third parties would be better able to get the money than I should be, and that I must assign the £800 due from the sale of my business to Stoddart, and let him get it. The sale price of my newspaper was £1,000, payable by instalments of £200 every three months. I had arranged that out of the £200 then due I would pay a proportion of the postage of the competition that had gone out. We had a long conversation about the assignment, and he said that unless I did assign the £200 to him he would not go on with the competition. I told him I could not do anything of the kind, as the money was not actually mine, as my printer and paper merchant were both waiting for their accounts, and to make such an assignment would be a criminal act. Then he said, "I shall not go on with the business unless you assign the £800 to me." Mrs. Price was with me; we both broke down for a time; there was a good deal of weeping. Then he said he would send for Mr. Alpe, who would advise me it could be done with perfect safety. Stoddart sent his lady clerk out for Alpe, who came in instantly, suggesting that he had been waiting in the next room. He asked me if I had a bankruptcy notice, and I said No. As to my creditors, I said in one instance I had given bills and in the other instances they were content to wait. He asked me when the first bill fell in, and I said in October. Then he said I would be able to pay my bill if I would do what Stoddart wanted me to do, as they would be able to get the money out of the company, and I should be able to go along properly. Alpe and Stoddart then went out of the office for a few minutes, and when they came back asked me what I had decided to do. They pointed out that these circulars had gone all over the country, that I had been tricked into doing a misdeed, and that I should be kicked into the gutter if I did not make this assignment, which Mr. Alpe already had in his pocket ready for me to sign. I thereupon signed it. (The document having been produced and read, the Recorder ordered that it should be impounded and kept in the custody of the court until ordered to be given up.) Stoddart said the competition had not been the success he expected it would be. I told him that Catling and Klinge both thought that as it dealt with matches played on Tuesday instead of Saturday, the thing promised splendidly. Stoddart said it had not been quite up to expectation, but he would see how it went on Saturday. In the meantime, I had better not return to Holland, where Catling would do all the business that was necessary, but had better remain in England and see what business wanted doing on this side. While I was in Holland the second number of" Football Sport" came out with Competition No. 2. Six winners were announced as dividing the £300 prize, amongst them being" F. Stanhope," of Moorledge Road, Leicester. I continued to see Stoddart frequently up to September 14. In the fourth number of" Football Sport," issued September 12, the winners in Competition 2 were given, in respect of which Stoddart told me that £287 had been received. All I know about the money is that I saw a lot of postal orders lying on the carpet in his office, and he said that was the result of the second competition. That would be a disastrous week. We

offered £400 in prizes and only received £287. Stoddart in the early part of the business showed me a little black book, in which he kept an account of the previous season's competitions, and, turning over page after page, said, "See, we have lost heavily all these weeks; you must not expect to make any profit until October is getting well advanced or November; that is where we commence to make profits. "Only four numbers of "Football Sport" were ever published. Stoddart told me on September 14 that the result of the third competition was better than the previous one, and amounted to £320. I did not see the postal orders that week, as he had already sent them to the bank at Peckham. The prize money was announced to be posted on September 15. Stoddart said." What about your prize money?" I said, "It is due to go out to-morrow. Shall I come down and take it away?" He said, "Have you got it?" I said, "No. I have not got it. You had all the competitors' money and you are financing me." He said, "Oh, no: I do not find any money." I said, "What! you won't find any money?" He said, "No; I do not find any money; you must find the money." I said, "You have had about £950 in the three weeks from the competitors, and you compel me to assign £800." He said, "Yes, but I have not got that." I said, "You know the money is quite safe. The first week's price money is due to-morrow, and it must go out to-morrow." He said, "I do not find the money." I said, "What is to be done?" He said, "You must think what is to be done; come and see me on Wednesday." I said: "I shall not come and see you on Wednesday. It is due to go out to-morrow and must go out to-morrow." He said, "You will have to find it then." I said, "I cannot find it; you know I cannot find it" He said, "I won't find it." I said, "Are you going to ruin me?" He said, "I do not know about that; you must find the money." Then I pleaded with him and told him it meant ruin and suicide if this money was not paid. He made some remark about Mackenzie having said something of the sort and being still alive and kicking. He would not give me any promise, but told me to come on the Wednesday. Mrs. Price was waiting for me down at Mr. Catling's office. I went there and told them I was a ruined man as Stoddart would not pay the prize money. Mrs. Price said, "I shall go straight to Scotland Yard this moment and expose the whole thing, and get justice for my husband, my children, and myself." She made also a violent outburst against Catling, which I thought was not fair, as I thought Mr. Catling was a gentleman. Catling asked Mrs. Price to control herself and asked me to persuade her to go to one of the tea shops in Fleet Street and have a cup of tea while he and I discussed it. I told him what Stoddart had said at the interview, and Catling said, "Will you arrange for a composition with the prize winners?" I said, "Certainly not." He said, "Well, you see it is a failure." I said I did not think it was and that he knew it was generally understood that these competitions did not pay before October or November, and I insisted that the prize winners must be paid in full. Catling said, "I will see Joe to-night and see that they are paid in full. Will you leave it to me?" I said; "Yes, Fred, I will leave it to you." The result of all

this was that Mrs. Price did not go to Scotland Yard. I went home and was threatened with brain fever. On the Wednesday Mrs. Price went to see Stoddart to ask him what he was going to do. It was still the same; there was to be no prize money. On September 13 I telegraphed to the postmaster at Middelburg to stop all letters which were in his hands. I do not know where they are, and tried to ascertain because I wanted the money for the fourth competition to be returned to the competitors. As a matter of fact nobody has ever been paid anything in respect of the competitions in" Football Sport," and one of the competitors served me with a writ in Court yesterday. Personally, I never had so much as a postage stamp out of it. Stoddart had the whole of the money. Circulars were afterwards issued to the competitors by Stoddart purporting to explain the situation.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I have never been accused before of defrauding prize-winners. I refuted that false and malicious assertion at the Mansion House. I sold "Football Chat" to the Union Trust. I do not know that they are disputing the sale on the ground that I was guilty of fraud. I know it is alleged that I misrepresented the value of the paper, but I do not think it is alleged that I injured the paper by not paying competitors their prizes. The amount of the claim is £1,740, £800 damages for misrepresentation, loss of profit occasioned thereby £800, and £100 damage caused by "Football Sport." I am now living on my wife. We have had to take in boarders, and I am having to clean the boots of the lodgers, and do the utility work of the house. I know Mr. Windust, and have seen him to-day. I was last at his house when I saw Inspector Collison there. When Windust heard that I had been to Holland and registered a competition he telephoned to my house and asked if it was true. I told him yes, and he said he thought I had made a mistake, and was sorry I had not seen him before doing that. I met him afterwards in the City, and he again said I had made a big mistake. I said, "Well, it is done now." He said, "You know Stoddart's reputation; be very careful." I said, "I shall certainly be careful, but I think the man intends to deal honestly with me." Before I left Windust he said, "If things do go wrong, if you want any friendly advice, I will only be too pleased to give it to you, or my manager will give it to you free." As Mrs. Price's visit to Stoddart on the Wednesday was unsuccessful as regards getting him to pay the prize money, I went to Mr. Windust the day following. I went to him because he knows the competition business; it would be of no use going to anyone who did not. It was not long before I went to the police. Windust, I believe, was indicted for conspiring to defeat the ends of justice and sent to prison for contempt of court, in commenting upon proceedings before a Court of Justice. Windust was not the bitterest enemy of Stoddart; that I know from Stoddart's own mouth. When I went to Stoddart about the purchase of my paper he told me that the rivalry there had been between him and Windust had all ceased, and Mr. Catling had been peacemaker between them. Before I went to Esher I had never spoken to Cowley. I did not

know that Cowley was being paid; I knew nothing whatever about him. I deny that Windust, Cowley, and I were there to put our heads together to prefer a false charge against Stoddart; it is a wicked lie to say that I ever conferred with Cowley in any shape or form. We did not discuss Stoddart or anybody else. The conversation at dinner was on general topics, and afterwards I went upstairs and finished my statement. I had previously asked Windust if he could introduce me to somebody. I was determined to have the thing brought to justice. My statement took me seven and a half hours. As to why I did not go to the police before going to Windust, my wife would have done so if I had not stopped her.

Mr. Abinger. My case is that this was a conspiracy got up by this man, Cowley, and Windust, and that Collison is no party to it.

Cross-examination continued. Donald Mackenzie was at one time the proprietor of "Football Chat," and I was the editor. Mackenzie was convicted of defrauding prize winners. I was not myself systematically engaged in defrauding winners. I swear I paid Henry Neville Piper. There is my cheque for 20s. to him, which has been through a bank at St. Albans. With regard to the winners announced on November 19, 1907, I produce a cheque showing that Reeve, of Bruce Grove, Tottenham, has been paid, and, to the best of my belief, they have all been paid. When Catling first spoke of bogus addresses I understood he was making an objectionable proposal. As I said at the Mansion House, it was the one mistake of any life to ever have agreed to it, and I am a ruined man in consequence. I never mentioned to Stoddart that I had agreed to do it. He sent me for all the working details to Catling. Stoddart was always with his face to his desk and his back towards me. He never alluded to my sending in a bogus winner, but he said he was not going to let me go back to Middelburg. That arose when we were discussing the advisability of saving expense. I did not go back to Holland after that. I told Windust that the name given by my brother-in-law was fictitious. I made a clean breast to him and asked his advice. Klinge, Catling, and myself took part in the sending in of the bogus prize-winner. I have no document which would show that Stoddart knew of it. I do not accept the suggestion that it was something between three of us behind Stoddart's back with intent to defraud Stoddart. When Stoddart taunted my wife with it and said, "I have got that against Mr. Price," he evidently knew then. That was when she called upon him about paying the prize winners. He never intended to pay them; it was a trick. I published a letter in" Football" from the football Rob Roy Macgregor. I do not know that he wrote next day to the" Daily News" repudiating it.

(Saturday, January 23.)

EDWARD Cox PRICE, further cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. In July, 1908, when I was anxious to sell my paper, "Football Chat," I wrote to two or three people about it, and amongst them Mr. Stoddart, with whom I got into communication. I was in a railway accident.

and was away from business for a long time. My health was broken down. I lost considerable money over the damages I got from the company. I was advised that it would do me harm to take the case into court. The compensation awarded me was £274, but I lost several hundreds over and above that. I was not at that time pressed for money. My principal creditors were not pressing me. I had not at that time £200 at command, nor £100, nor £50. It was in that condition that I entered into an agreement with Mr. Stoddart in which he agreed to give me assistance in launching a foreign business, and to guarantee my account for printing with the Argus Printing Company for stationery, and half the postage account for the first two weeks in September. In return I agreed to pay to Stoddart a sum equal to one-half of the net profits of the football competition carried on by me at Middelburg in the name of "Football Sport" or any other name. The agreement provided that it was not to be construed as a partnership. I considered it was my competition and Stoddart's, and that document makes it a partnership. I did not provide any money for postage at all. Stoddart paid me two cheques. On July 23 he gave me £50 and again on July 24. That was not for my own pocket; that was to open a banking account at Middelburg. I insisted that the whole of the financial transactions of the business must be done over there and not in England at all. I rendered him an account of how the money had been disposed of. Mr. Stoddart was to find everything until October. On July 25 Stoddart gave me another £50. I think that was to pay for the addresses from Mackenzie. Stoddart knew I had no money at all; he was to be the financier; I was the man with the name. It is a good one, and I am not ashamed of it. The next amount I had from him was a loan of £50 on September 4. I gave the I O U. produced. This was on the morning that he forced the assignment from me. I told him that I wanted money, and he told me that I must have a working salary. I told him that I must have some money for maintenance—personal expenses. After we had finished the assigning business he told me to come back in the afternoon and then he asked me what I wanted and gave me £50. He put me on the same arrangement that he had with Mr. Terry, his other partner in Holland. All the money was spent in connection with the business. I was allowed £5 for each journey to Middelburg to cover the train, mail boat, hotel, and everything. I told Stoddart that I had sold my business for £1,000, of which £800 was due, and he knew my financial position fully, so that he knew I could not pay half the postage account. Stoddart said that there would be substantial profits in October, and that was when we were to go into finances. The £800 which was to come from the Union Trust was my main asset. I do not regard that asset as purely imaginary. I understand that £200 has been paid into Court. I have seen the counterclaim in the action for £1,740, which is ridiculous. My solicitor stopped the assignment the day following I gave it and gave notice to the Union Trust that they were not to pay Stoddart any money under the assignment. I understand that the Union Trust say that they have been defrauded on the contract and

there is litigation pending. In the first competition the amount received was £285 14s. 4d., in the second £289 2s. 8d., in the third £286 3s. 4d., and in the fourth, which I stopped, £60 3s. 8d., making in all £921 4s. The amount of the Argus Company's printing account was £153 18s. 9d. for printing, publishing, and circulating the numbers of" Football Sport." I did not spend 1d. The amount received by Stoddart in respect of the competitions is less by £600 than the amount expended by him. To the best of my knowledge, I wrote my brother-in-law after my conversation with Catling and did not wire to him. He came up to London to discuss the matter with me. I do not think I had seen him previously for about seven years. My brother-in-law consented to assist me because he said I had rendered him a service many years ago and he had never forgotten it. As a matter of fact, I started him in a stationer's shop. I did not consider I had any claim upon him, the affair was wiped out of my mind altogether. I do not know whether he had been in the habit of going in for competitions of this sort. He said he had been in a "Limerick" competition in which he had used the name of Stanhope. Hudson married my wife's sister. I should say he is a very honest man. I do not accept the suggestion that I requested him to send in a blank coupon in order that Klinge and I, who would be over at Middelburg, might fill in any winners that we liked and charge it against Stoddart. Klinge knew nothing at all about it until after Catling and I arrived at Middelburg. I should suggest from the way Klinge acted that it was the custom of the office to have blank coupons sent in to have the winners filled in afterwards, but I was only there two days. I and my brother-in-law did not put our heads together to see how we could get a coupon sent in and get the football winners put in afterwards. It is not true to say that I was assisting Klinge in this. Klinge did the work entirely himself. I do not say that from a desire to avoid responsibility; I am telling you exactly how the thing was done.

The Recorder. Is it not quite clear that this was a gross fraud? This coupon was sent in in blank, and when it reached the other end in consequence of the difficulty of matching the ink it was actually altered and written in again in ink. The object, of course, of the names being filled in is as plain as a pikestaff.

Cross-examination continued. Stoddart was in London while this was going on, and unless it was communicated by Catling, knew nothing about it. On September 2, 1908, I wrote to Mr. Stoddart: "Dear Mr. Stoddart,—The finances of No. 1 contest did not quite come up to expectations, on the letters received the average coming out at about 11d., but I presume it is what you would about anticipate on a first run. I must say that I am surprisingly pleased with the way the office is worked. It is anything but child's play, but so well are things arranged here by Mr. Catling and by Klinge that a big lot of work is got through very smartly. Mr. Catling has fixed up the office so that my new staff will get a quick insight into the work, and although they are, of course, a long way short of the very clever staff you possess, the system of working adopted will soon quicken them up. With but a very few exceptions, the letters I have received

have been full of encouragement, and the players have been run into pretty good figures. Hoping to get a letter from you to-morrow, for I am most anxious to know what you think of the kick-off, being quite new at the business myself, I remain, yours very sincerely," etc. Klinge was not consulted about writing this letter to Stoddart, Catling asked me to write expressing satisfaction with the way the clerks did their work. The object of the letter was not to throw dust in the eyes of Stoddart as to what I, Catling, and Klinge were doing. I was under the impression that Stoddart was a man who grumbled a great deal. It was not a piece of rank hypocrisy to say that I was surprisingly pleased at the way the office was worked when all the time I was swindling in the office. It was a surprise to me to see the way these Dutch clerks got through their work. Mrs. Price went with me to see Stoddart, because she met me when I arrived from Holland. Stoddart did not say that he had just ascertained that I was sending in a bogus coupon. I said yesterday and I say to-day it is a wicked lie. He never mentioned it in any shape or form. He did not say, "Unless you give me a satisfactory answer you will have nothing more out of me." It is a lie. He did not say, "You have broken your part of the contradict of July in the sense that you have found nothing for the postage." That is a lie. The account in front of me showing the figures was received by me. He did not, having upbraided me in respect of the two matters mentioned, put the account before me. What you are suggesting took place on the later date—September 14. On September 4 Stoddart had only received £350 9s. 4d. It is untrue that the interview on the 14th was terminated by Stoddart saying he would not be concerned any more with me, having found out about me and my brother-in-law. I agree that if Klinge, Catling, and myself were arranging for bogus winners Stoddart would be paying large sums of money for our benefit. Messrs. Coote and Ball were my solicitors at that time. The London Athletic Printing Company was a small printing business I was engaged in three years back. They published" Football Chat." I deny that I attempted to foist upon Stoddart a security which is worthless; I say it is not worthless. A very able firm of solicitors are defending the counterclaim for fraud. When I asked Stoddart on September 14 to pay the prizes he never mentioned the Union Trust at all. I swear that every word I have said about that interview is absolutely the solemn truth.

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. When I embarked upon a No. 1 competition in" Football Sport" I knew that Catling had a business, of his own, quite independent of Mr. Stoddart, in which he had been engaged for some 14 years. What Stoddart said to me with regard to Catling was, "For all the working details consult Fred. He will tell you everything. He has a spare room down at 77, Fleet Street and will let you use that. You can go there whenever you like and consult him and he will help you to get out the coupons and give you all the working details." The financial part having been arranged, I was not to consult Mr. Stoddart again. Catling said he had been promised a quarter share of Mr. Stoddart's heavy profits

and would lend me all the assistance he possibly could and hoped we would work well together and I could go there every day and have the key of the smaller office. Catling did give me all the assistance he could down to the very last. He could not have done more for me if he had been my own brother, and I have no complaint to make of him. I think he kept his word in everything he said or promised. I am sorry he made the suggestion to me about the bogus coupons; otherwise I should never have done it. In every other particular I found 'him perfectly straight. As editor of Mr. Mackenzie's paper, of course, I knew something of the competitions he was carrying on, and I knew a great deal of the Continental business in addition and the methods by which it was worked. The experience I had had with Mr. Mackenzie had not, however, given me full knowledge of the work. At the time of Mr. Mackenzie's trouble I was asked by Mr. Mackenzie and his friend if I would look after affairs in Holland for a short time, and for about six weeks I looked after the business in Holland in addition to the business in London. Then Windust took up the Holland business and I had nothing more to do with Holland until I went over in connection with this business. I think Mr. Windust purchased Mackenzie's business. That was five or six years back, so that I did not retain much, of the knowledge I gained in that six weeks' experience. There was no suggestion of bogus winners in connection with any of Mr. Mackenzie's competitions while I was connected with that business. I believe Mackenzie was convicted in connection with some racing competition and sentenced to a term of imprisonment in this Court in October, 1904. I do not know whether, in Mackenzie's case, coupons had been sent in in blank. He worked through relatives, not strangers, but I do not know how it was done. It struck me when Klinge filled up the fresh coupons that that was not the first time he had done such a thing. It did not strike me that if such a practice was already in existence there would be no difficulty in finding names and addresses without confiding in me at all. The necessity of confiding in me was a trick to get me fixed up. That is as clear as possible from the incidents which follow. It was a trick to get me tied up, and I was to be kicked out. As I said this morning, another man was served in just the same way once before by Mr. Stoddart. In my opinion, the idea was to get me under Mr. Stoddart's thumb—to get me into a position so that I could not help myself. They were getting my names; they were getting my customers, 14,000 of whom sent in in three weeks. Then they offered me an inducement to try and compromise with the competitors. The object was that I should compound with these people, the prize winners, and the object was that in regard to those 14,000 people I should plead to Mr. Stoddart for his philanthropy to help me out of the difficulty; that is proved by the circulars that are here; and after that I was to go to the wall. They were to get my 14,000 customers on their books, and as the letters are supposed to average £50 a thousand, if they succeeded in getting all that business they would have had £700 a week added to their then existing business. In my opinion that was the object of the trick which was being worked—to get my business fixed on to theirs. I do not see that

they were rather putting themselves in my power too. I cannot say whether there may not be another aspect of the case and whether Catling in making the suggestion to me that I should become a party not only to a dishonourable act but to a crime was putting himself absolutely in my hands. With regard to Klinge, he was a Dutch clerk, and I suppose he knew he was out of the jurisdiction of the Court. To an extent, no doubt, he was putting himself in my power and giving himself away. They perhaps put themselves and Stoddart in the position, if I had any quarrel with them, of enabling me to go to the police and say this business of Stoddart's is a fraud and a swindle and I can prove it. Catling said I need not say anything to Stoddart about the bogus coupons; I could leave that to him. Catling told me after Klinge had sent the first post to Stoddart that Joe evidently thought the affair was going to be a great success and that he meant to have his full half-share. It was then he said that he would look to me for something out of it. Eventually I agreed to give Mr. Catling 10 per cent., but that was one of the very first things that made me distrust Stoddart, because he was not going to give Catling what he had arranged to give him, although he was doing all the hard work. To the best of my knowledge there was no other bogus coupon but that of my brother-in-law in connection with "Football Sport." I have never had the competitors' sheets in my possession. I tried to get them in the early days before I left Mr. Stoddart, but I have never seen them since the night I left Holland. I always wanted to test the genuineness of the winners, but I never had the originals. The police who have investigated the matter on behalf of the prosecution have not told me whether they have tested the names that appear as prize winners in "Football Sport." When my brother-in-law was in London I did not take him to see Mr. Catling because he came on the Sunday afternoon and returned the same evening. Mr. Catling has never been to my house and I have never been to his. When I knew how I had been tricked I wrote to my brother-in-law and told him that if Mr. Stoddart sent him anything to return it to me. If I had not understood from Catling that no money was to be diverted from the public I should never have entered into the idea of supplying addresses. It was anticipated in the early days of this concern that the money subscribed by the public would not be sufficient to pay the prizes, but the winners were to receive whatever came. The senders of coupons from certain addresses never competed at all. Whatever the competitors sent in was to go back in prize money. The idea was to save some of the loss which would have been entailed if the full prize money promised had been paid I certainly took it that the postage and other expenses were not to be deducted from the money actually subscribed by the public, but that matter was not discussed fully. If, for instance, the prizes offered were £500 and the amount actually received from the public was £300, the £300 was to go back to the public, and the loss in respect to the postage and other expenses was to fall upon the paper. That is how I took it and that is how I explained it to my brother-in-law. I understood that the £200 which the public had not in fact, sent in was to be credited to the bogus winners. There was never any

suggestion or hint that either Catling, Mr. Stoddart, or myself was to receive any of the money so diverted. We were not to divide between us the £100 or £200 awarded to the bogus person. It was purely a negative transaction. Supposing that on the first occasion the post had brought us in an avalanche of wealth, I should not have allowed the proposition to have been carried out at all, nor do I think Mr. Catling would. My honest opinion is that Hudson's coupon would have been torn up; the addresses were a suggestion in anticipation of possible loss. I was only asked about that one issue, not in regard to future weeks. If there had been any further suggestion as to future weeks I would not have entertained it for a moment. I take the primary idea to be to enable the paper to go on long enough to get into safe waters—to get over that difficult week. Mr. Catling thought it would only be necessary at the worst during the first few issues. He conveyed to me the idea that he personally firmly believed that ultimately the project would be a very great success, and he acted in every way as though he had that anticipation. I believe there is no man regrets what has happened more than Mr. Catling does. He had brought about reconciliation between Stoddart and Windust and stopped the slanting that had been going on. I do not suggest that Mr. Catling was to any way a party to the difficulty which arose between myself and Stoddart about the payment of the prize money. I believe Catling did his utmost to get Stoddart to pay it, and he told me that if Stoddart did not pay it he would go to Scotland Yard himself, and when my wife and I were reduced to great distress he did all he could to soothe and assist us. He promised to go and see Mr. Stoddart with reference to his promise to finance me right through, and I believe the did.

(Monday, January 25.)

EDWARD COX PRICE , further cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. My brother-in-law, not Catling, suggested that the former should assume a false name for the purpose of sending in a coupon, and I informed Catling. When I was in the Holland office Klinge took possession of the registered letters and opened them in a separate room. After Nos. 1 and 2 of "Sport" I had very little control over the publication and am not responsible for subsequent advertisements of competitions, though I read some of them as they were going to press, but Catling was responsible for them. On Wednesday, September 3, the registered letter containing my brother's coupon was handed to me in the post office with five other registered letters by Catling—an oversight on his part. I opened them, having forgotten to give them up. I tore up the coupon, but not, as is suggested, after Catling had demanded possession of it. Catling left England that evening, and early on the next morning I received a cable ordering my own return to England. I returned and have never since been in Holland, though at Stoddart's instance I was offered all sorts of inducements to return to Middelburg to get the" fourth post," which I had left in the hands of the authorities, who would deliver it to none but me.

I thought that the letters were best in the post office and left them, there, and that the postal authorities would ultimately return the moneys to the competitors. I could not go there in person, for I heard that certain trades people had taken out a process against me for certain debts.

Re-examined. After my return I had an interview with Stoddart on September 4. No. 3 of" Football Sport" went to press, I believe, on September 8 and gives the name of Stanhope as a winner. I did not compose any part of that number. A man named Jones, who was at the printer's, took an active part in Stoddart's business, being Catling's manager in the process-block making department, and also assisting in the competition arrangements. My own competitions in "Football Chat," when it was my property, were for small sums not exceeding £20. None of the winners, I believe, remains unpaid Some winners of cricket bats are still my creditors, and I cannot satisfy them. I have not made any profit out of these competitions. The bats were rewards for news items furnished. Exhibit 10 is the original of my draft agreement with Stoddart, and this (produced) is his letter to me of July 20, 1908. By the agreement he was to undertake to assist in financing my foreign competitions at Middelburg, but he told me from the outset that there could be no profits. He was to find the money for the prize winners if it was not subscribed by the public. I wrote to him about this, and he replied that there must be some confidence between us. No. 1 competition in" Football Sport" was issued on August 25, and the subscription should have arrived at Middelburg by September 1. No. 2 competition was issued on September 1, and money should have arrived by September 5. No. 3 competition was issued on September 8, and money should have arrived on September 12. On September 15 the money (£400) was due by me for the first competition, so I expected to have in hand three weeks' subscriptions to pay the prize money which Stoddart had estimated at £950. He also told me that postage for the three issues would amount to £921. If Stoddart had paid half of this as agreed, and the other half had been paid by the public, a balance of £90 would have remained after paying £400 in prizes. The printer's account, payable monthly, was not due. I produce signed statements made by me to Detective-inspector Collison.

The prosecution proposing to call Mrs. Price, Mr. Abinger objected to her evidence. The Court of Crown Cases Reserved had ruled that the corroboration of an accomplice was no corroboration at all.

The Recorder held that, although the evidence might not be sufficient, it was admissible for whatever it might be worth.

SARAH FLETCHER PRICE , wife of last witness. On Sunday, August 30, I went with my husband to Holland, and after my return was present on Friday, September 4, at an interview between him and Stoddart in Stoddart's office. Mr. Stoddart said he could not go on with the competition; it was not a success. My husband said it was a success. They spoke also of the assignment of the paper, "Football Chat." On Wednesday, September 16, I went to Stoddart's office because my husband was too ill to go. Stoddart wanted" me to take this letter (produced) for my husband to sign and to come back quickly as they wanted to go to press at six o'clock—

(Letter read.) He asked me to sign it. Stoddart showed me his pocket book and said, "You see, we have this against Mr. Price." The entry in the book was an address. I did not know what to say. I did not say anything. After thinking over the matter (during the luncheon adjournment), I remember that the letter which Stoddart wanted me or my husband to sign was written in my presence by Catling at the dictation of Stoddart.

Detective-inspector JOHN COLLISON, City Police. During last September I received information as to the Butterworth case, which, after inquiry, was referred to the City Solicitor. At the Mansion House Klinge was called into Court and confronted with Cowley, and Klinge afterwards called at the Guildhall and made a statement in my presence. He was examined at the next hearing, which was adjourned. I applied for a summons to secure his further attendance, but he disappeared and a witness-warrant taken out has not been executed. During an interval between the hearings at the Mansion House, defendant Catling said he would like to go into the witness-box and speak the truth. On October 12 he made to me a voluntary statement, which I wrote down, and on October 27 a further statement. On October 30 we met, and he asked me to get into communication with Klinge about the Ramsgate affair, and said that Stoddart had sent Klinge to Ramsgate to arrange an address to which letters could be forwarded. Catling subsequently brought me a coupon (produced), dated October 12, 1907, and bearing as the address of a winner," D'Avyet, yacht 'Marque,' care of 17, Bellevue Road, Ramsgate. "

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. When I took the statements of Mr. Price and Cowley at Mr. Windust's house I did not know that Windust was the bitter enemy of Stoddart. Catling has given me a lot of information of great assistance to me, and I think it does tell somewhat against himself. I took steps to verify some of the statements. I believe his statement is not true that Jones handed Stoddart £100 and that Stoddart paid it to the Argus Printing Company for work done. I produce a warrant for the arrest of Jones. The delay in its issue was due to lack of information. I do not believe that Catling actually told me that Stoddart had sent him to Ramsgate.

WILLIAM HENRY HUDSON , lithographic artist, 27, Moorhead Street, Leicester. I am brother-in-law of the witness Price. On Sunday, August 23, I called, in response to a telegram, at Price's house in East Finchley, and after returning home I received copies of" Football Sport," similar to these (produced), each containing a coupon I filled up the lower portion of a coupon, using the name Fred Stanhope, and sent it with a postal order for 1s. 6d. to "Football Sport," Middelburg, Holland. I did not fill in the names of clubs. Subsequently I saw my name, and the names of five other persons, advertised in the paper as the joint winners of £300 for correctly selecting the successful clubs in various matches.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I had previously entered for many other competitions, such as Limericks and "Lipton's Motor

Car," but not my brother-in-law's. I did not know why my brother-in-law wanted me in London, but he had done me many good turns, so I went. Price said that he had a friend named Stoddart financing him; that there might be a disastrous loss the first week; and would I put my name down as a winner. Price said the names of the clubs would be filled in. He did not say, "After the event," but that was the object.

ALFRED GARNER , umbrella mender, 69, Lefever Road, Bow. In August last I subscribed a coupon in a" Fotball Sport" competition, and subsequently saw myself and five other persons advertised as winners of £300. I never received any money.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abmger. The coupon had Price's name on it. On another occasion, by subscribing one shilling to a Stoddart competition, I won 4s.

WILLIAM JOHN GRIMES , managing director of the Empress Music Hall, Brixton. I know defendants. Catling is a friend of many years' standing. About September 24 Stoddart called on me and" said he was in serious trouble, as some people, Charlie Windust, Price, and Cowley, were trying to blackmail him; that he had had a summons, and that a summons had been issued for Catling also, who was in the motor car with Stoddart. Stoddart asked me to take his motor car and go next day to Windust to ascertain particulars of the charge. Stoddart said to Catling, "You must not receive this summons. You had better leave the country to-nigt," I told Catling he would be very foolish to do so if he were innocent, and that if he tried to leave the country he would probably be arrested. He said he would receive the summons. Next day I called on Windust. and subsequently went to Stoddart's house at Tulse Hill, where Catling was sent for, and I told him Windust had" said that if Stoddart had paid Paul Price's coupons there would have been no trouble. I understood Catling to say that Stoddart had paid this money into has wife's account with the London and Southwestern branch bank at Peckham. I asked Catling if this were true, and he said, "It is quite true," and that he knew that if Stoddart had paid the winners there would have been no trouble at all. Then Stoddart arrived, to whom I reported my interview. I said, "Why didn't you pay Price? You are a rich man. That would then make you an honourable man in the eyes of the world?" He replied, "Price owes me money now, and I will pay nothing. I have nothing to fear." Catling was then present. Both, with the ladies from the dining-room, accompanied me to the front door, where Stoddart said to Catling," Now you will have to leave at once; you must leave the country to-night." I cannot swear to the words. I said to Catling," Catling, be a man. and say you won't go." He said, "I won't go." Catling left with me and promised not to leave the country. I advised him to try to get his father to pay.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I did not mean Catling's father but his father-in-law, Stoddart. I did not volunteer to go to Windust's. I said at the Mansion House that I did; but I was called suddenly into the witness-box and had not times to collect my

thoughts. (Both defendants asked me to go. I went to find cut what was the charge. I had known Windust for about 20 years. I did not know he had been convicted, nor that he had been running in Middelburg an opposition business to Stoddart's. It is untrue that on my return from Windust's I said that if £2,000 could be paid the case against Catling would be at an end. Stoddart did not reply that be would not give £2,000. He was not there. The ladies sent for him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Moses. I have known Catling for 15 or 16 years and have never known him to do a dishonourable act. He begged his father-in-law to pay up the £2,000, and said he would even mortgage his own house to do it.

Re-examined. I was summoned to the Mansion House on the eve of the hearing and arived there just before the case came on.

(Tuesday, January 26.)

ALFRED ROE , financial agent, Stamford Hill. Towards the end of 1907 I was alone with Stoddart in his Fleet Street office. Pointing to an envelope he said, "Someone is trying to do me for one of my competitions." He then asked, "May I send you some pamphlets to your address under the name of Rowlandson?" I consented rather readily. He said, "Is a 'fiver' of any use to you?" I said, "Yes." In former days I had rendered many services to him. I felt this was a solatium for some of these. I received his cheque for £5. I had helped him with investments; had introduced people to him; and profits had resulted. When the pamphlets came to my address, 58, Linthorpe Road, I threw them into the fire. In the first batch I saw the name of Rowlandson and my address in connection with a prize of £300. I did not get any of the money, nor did I apply for any. I should have been entitled to £150 had I filled in the coupon. I left this address in March, 1908, together with my landlady. The house has since been empty. During my 12 years' residence there no one named Rowley ever lived in it. I see by No. 26 of the" Racing Record" that" A. Rowley" of that address won a sixth share of £500. At this time the house was closed and there was no caretaker. I never assumed the name of Rowley, nor received the prize.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I am a financial agent, and find financiers to take up such investments as foreign concessions—for instance, a Peruvian railway and Maxim's Restaurant in Paris. I did not get £500 from Stoddart for the John Hopraft Boiler Scale Paint Company. From the cheque produced, it appears that Stoddart gave £500 to J. Richardson, but this, Stoddart told me, was to procure Stoddart's reinstatement on the turf. Two and a half years ago I was bankrupt for £400, which I intend to pay, with 5 per cent. interest.

DOUGLAS WILLIAM DABBS , owner of 58, Linthorpe Road, Stamford Hill. Since March 24 last this house has been unoccupied and without a caretaker.

ELIZABETH DOUGLAS , till March last the servant of 58, Linthorpe Road. I never knew my lodger, Alfred Roe, by any other name.

GEORGE JOSEPH ROBINSON , silversmith, 30, Harpur Road, Barking. Henry John Jones is my brother-in-law, and was employed by Catling at process-engraving. In February last Jones asked to be allowed to use my address for letters in respect of the" Football Record" coupons. He gave me a letter to post at Barking addressed to some person at Middelburg, Holland. I posted it, and, some time afterwards, a postcard which he gave me. At a later rate a registered letter was delivered at my house addressed to T. Payne. I see by the" Football Record" of February 27, 1908, that T. Payne is one of five winners of £60 each. I gave the letter to Jones in Fleet Street. I do not know his present address. He gave me about four or five pounds. About May last, at the suggestion of Jones, I took a room at 14, Fly Street, Plashet Grove, Upton Park, for the same purpose, the receipt of letters. The" Racing Record" of May 6 contains the name of G. Collins, of that address, as a winner. I had taken the room in that name and had posted for Jones a letter from Upton Park to Middelburg. Subsequently a registered letter arrived at my room for" G. Collins." I took it to Jones, who gave me £6 on that occasion. In August last I took a room at 32, Westwood Road, Seven Kings, under the name of James White, and from there I posted for Jones one letter to Middelburg. No. 46 of the "Football Record" shows that James White, of the same address, is a winner of £27 5s. A registered letter came, which I gave to Jones, who gave me £2. Again, with Jones's knowledge, I went to Prittlewell Street, Southend, where I took lodgings as S. Roberts, and sent a postcard to Middelburg. The Football Record" announced S. Roberts as a winner of £12 10s., all of which I received.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I am aware that I have done wrong. I consented, not knowing it was going to run as far as it did. In December I got into communication with the police. I did not see the contents of any of the registered letters mentioned, except of the last one, containing £12 10s. There was no definite agreement as to my remuneration. I did not take part in any competition except those mentioned.

ISABEL PICKING , 15, Essex Road, Islington. In April last letters came to my shop addressed to (c). Barnes. He called for them. One was a registered letter. Another man afterwards showed me the "Racing Record," which announced that Barnes had won £83 6s. G. J. Robinson, recently in the witness-box, is not the man.

Sergeant FRANK BURGE, Somersetshire Constabulary, Weston-superMare. I am well acquainted with Cleveden Road, but my inquiries have failed to discover in it a house named "Suniton." There is no" Clevenden Road," and I cannot find that anyone named W. T. Jones lives in the neighbourhood.

ELIZA MARY FROST , widow, housekeeper at the Williams Hotel, Ramsgate. My mother, who keeps a tobacconist's shop at Ramsgate at 17, Bellvere Road is now unable to leave her bed. About October 23, 1907, I got certain information from a postman. I had seen letters addressed to" D'Avyet" come to my mother's. I called at the

post office to get a letter for D'Avyet, but could not get it as it was wrongly addressed. A few days afterwards I met D'Avyet and told him of the letter. He said his yacht was in the harbour and he must catch the next tide. So that I might get the letter he gave me the authority produced, and I received a registered letter like this (produced). He never called for it, and I kept it till it was handed over to the police.

MARIA RISELEY , wife of Henry John Riseley, tobacconist, 59, Broadway, West Hendon. In October, 1907, I agreed to take in letters for a man named J. (Browning, but he never called for those that came. Mr. Funnell, whom I see in Court, is not the man.

Detective-constable ALLEN ERNEST HARRIS, City Police. I have been unable to find at the address he gave F. W. Collier, one of the winners in the" Racing Record" competition case. I was told last month that one Collier was there two and a half years ago.

WILLIAM FRYER , hairdresser, 52, High Street, Wandsworth. I arranged to take in letters for a man named Tom Willis. He called as arranged and was handed his letters. This (Jones's) photograph is not that of Willis.

GEORGE EDWIN JEFFERY , caretaker, Brunswick Mansions, Hunter Street, W. C. I have lived at this address since September, 1907. "Football Record," No. 24, announces that A. Foster, of the same address, is a winner of a share in £300. I do not know that any "A. Foster" has lived there in my time.

CROMWELL J. ASHE , manager to the agents for the Brunswick Mansions, corroborated the previous witness.

EMILY LAUDER CARTER , wife of J. G. Carter, musical instrument dealer, 37, Tyneham Road, Lavender Hill. My husband and I have been in the habit of entering for football and other coupon competitions. We were winners in" Football Record" competition No. 22. The" Record" had announced that J. Browning, of 250, Broadway, had been a winner of No. 20. I received my £100, Foster, Jones and I being the winners; but if Foster is not a genuine winner I am entitled to £150.

JOHN GEORGE CARTER , husband of last witness, corroborated her evidence.

Detective-sergeant ERNEST THOMSON, City Police. "Football Record," No. 34, announces 12 winners in a competition; prize to be divided among" T. Morris Harledene, Brunswick Square, London," and others. I found two Brunswick Squares, but no T. Morris Harleden, and no Harledene House. A letter which I posted to the address came back through the Dead Letter Office.

ARTHUR SINGER , mechanical driver, 248, Soot Ellis Gardens. I know Henry John Jones, and saw him about January, 1908, at Brixton, when he asked me whether he might use my name and address for a football competition; and said he could not use his own, as Mr. Stoddart would think that he and Catling were "working something dirty." I understood that competition prizes would come to

my address, and that I should hand them to Jones. I was to open the letters, and did so, including two covering 5s. and about £25 in bank nctes respectively. Jones called, and insisted on my keeping the 5s.

CHARLOTTE GRANT , shop assistant, 169, Upper Richmond Road, Putney. In No. 42 of the "Football Record," dated March 21, T. Deacon, of my address, is announced as a winner of £50. A man of that name had been calling for letters at my employer's shop, but had not called since the second week in February, though a lot of letters arrived notwithstanding. I gave them to the police.

(Wednesday, January 27.)

CHARLOTTE COUSINS , 32, Westwood Road, Seven Kings, Essex. On August 17 a woman called upon me with a view to taking a room for her brother, giving the name of White. On the following Monday White arrived and he occupied a room in the house about four weeks (The witness Robinson was brought into court and identified as "White.") He brought no luggage. Lots of letters came for him, one registered. I signed for that and gave it to him. Three or four days afterwards he went away, paying me a week in lieu of notice. He left no address. After he had gone other letters arrived for him. I handed them to the police.

SARAH THOROUGHOOOD , 63, Prittlewell Street, Southend-on-Sea, identified the witness Robinson at "8. Roberts." On September 19 his wife came and took rooms and he subsequently arrived with his wife and three children. Letters arrived for him, one being registered.

Detective-sergeant ERNEST TOMPSON produced bundles of letters received from witnesses in the case. The letters addressed to S. W. D'Avyet he received from Mrs. Fogg, the mother of Mrs. Frost, and the dates of the postmarks ran from October, 1907, to April, 1908. Neither of them contained notes or any form of money amounting to £300 or any other sum. They contained circulars with regard to competitions. One was a registered letter. The circulars addressed "J. Browning, care of Mrs. Riseley, 259, Broadway, West Hendon" he received from Mrs. Riseley, and the dates ran from October 29, 1907, to December 6, 1907. There was no registered letter amongst them and no payment of money. The letters addressed "T. Willis, 51, High Street, Wandsworth," witness received from the witness William Friar, and were dated from October 30 to December 5. There was no registered letter and none had contained money. The letters addressed to Deacon received by witness from the witiess Charlotte Grant were dated from February 26, 1906, to October 7, 1908. Neither of them was registered nor contained money, and the last bundle addressed to" White. 33, Westwood Road, Seven Kings," was dated from September 26, 1906, to November 7, 1908.

Cross-examined. One of the letters addressed to Willis has been mislaid by the officer in charge of it, Detective Ernest Thorpe. That letter contained a coupon. I do not know who runs the "Sporting Prophet" competition. Mr. William Barnes runs a competition in connection with" Football Life. "

JAMES HENRY FOSTER , manager of the Peckham branch of the London City and Midland Bank, produced a certified copy of Stoddart's. account, in the name of Joseph Stoddart, from October 1, 1907, to October 31, 1908, showing debit entries and the dates and numbers of notes drawn out. Witness also produced a copy of the account in the name of Ada Jane Stoddart at the same branch. Stoddart sometimes operated on the Peckham account from the Ludgate Hill branch; either branch cashed his cheques.

EDWARD THOMAS WHITING , cashier, London and South-Western Bank, Fleet Street branch, produced a certified copy of the account of Fred Catling from October 3, 1907, to November 9, 1908, with analysis appended giving details of the payments in, made at the request of Catling. Stoddart's cheques figured largely among the credits.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. On June 25, 1908, two sums amounting to £25 13s. 9d. were paid in, a cheque for £15 13s. 9d. and a £10 note. I have no particulars as to the note. On June 19, 1908, £140 was paid in—£90 gold and £50 in notes. I do not think there is any previous instance of so large a sum as £90 being paid in in gold; the next largest, I think, is £20. On July 2 £100 was paid in gold, on July 3 £25 by cheque, on July 6 £105 18s. 9d. £100 being gold and the balance in two or three small cheques. The document produced shows the notes paid into the bank during the time under consideration. £50 was paid in on July 9, but the details do not appear here. Catling also has with us an account as Catling and Co., Limited, upon which two directors draw—I think, Catling and Jones. The note produced, No. 15444, for £20, dated July 12, presumably was paid to the account of Catling and Co., Limited. It might have been exchanged or it might have been paid in; I cannot tell, but I can swear it was dealt with for Catling and Co., limited. There might have been an exchange on that account without touching the account" Catling and Co. Limited," was written on it by one of our cashiers. A £10 note, No 16769, on April 15, 1907, went to the credit of Catling, Limited.

Re-examined. I know Jones's handwriting, and, to the best of my belief, Exhibits 5 and 6 (the Butterworth coupon and letter) are not written by him.

FRANK HEATH BOTTEN , assistant cashier of Messrs. Barclay and Co., 19, Fleet Street. I produce a certified copy of defendant Stoddart's account there from October 1, 1907, to February 17, 1908," when it was closed. On January 15 £376 10s. was withdrawn by cheque to the order of Catling.

JOSEPH PERCIVAL HUDSON , clerk in the Bank of England, was recalled to produce bundles of notes withdrawn from Stoddart's account.

WILLIAM CASH , Messrs. Cash and Stone, accountants, Cannon Street. I have examined the file of the" Football Record" and the few copies included in the exhibits. I have had produced to me a copy of Stoddart's account with the London City and Midland Bank and

the statements of the numbers and dates of the notes drawn out from that account, a copy of the account at Barclay's, and Mrs. Stoddart's account. I have not had the opportunity of seeing a copy of Catling's account which has been produced this morning, but I have inspected a copy of Catling's private account. I have also examined the bank notes produced by the last witness and the copies of the entries in the books of the Bank of England relating to them. That is the whole of the material I have had before me. From those materials I have extracted certain figures which I have put into the form of schedules. With regard to the notes drawn out, I have endeavoured to check those so far as the information on the note and the information given me by the Bank of England will permit, and in that way have been right through Stoddart's account and exhausted every payment which in my opinion or judgment would be in any way applicable to these competitions. Taking, for instance, the case of "J. Browning, West Hendon," I can find no trace of any payment to him of £560. I have prepared a lengthy statement dealing with each competition and am prepared to deal with each competition if necessary. In competition No. 17 ("Football Record," September 21, 1907, payment announced for October 15), I can find no trace of any payment to D'Avyet, the winner of £300. In competition No. 20 (" Football Record," October 19, 1907, date of payment November 12, 1907) there are five winners of £60 and there are the 51 who have to share the consolation prize of £100; there is no trace of £60 having been paid to J. Browning. I find that notes were drawn out of Stoddart's account, under date November 13, amounting to £240, the amount necessary to pay the other four competitors. Two notes, £50 and £10, numbered respectively 91552 and 39118, are endorsed" Thomas Cooper, Woolwich"; two notes, 91951 and 39117, are endorsed John Mallon. Glasgow, and have been paid to the Bank via Belfast; two, 93619 and 39115, are endorsed" E. A. Salter, "and two, 93620 and 39116, are endorsed" James Wall" and paid to the Bank via Bristol. In every case except that of Browning the money seems to have been properly sent. That cheque having been drawn on November 13, the next withdrawal is £15, and on the 15th there is a withdrawal of £70 in notes. I have seen those notes, and they are not. applicable to this competition. The next cheque is £100 on the 16th; those notes are marked "Argus Printing Co." On November 13 £100 was drawn in cash which I allocate to the payment of the £100 prize, making £400. If it had been intended to pay the whole amount of the competition the amount needed to have been drawn out would have been £400, presumably something over for the expense of remitting these small sums. There was on the date in question a credit balance of £876, so that there was ample upon which to draw for the full £400. In Competition 21 the alleged bogus winner is "Tom Willis, High Street, Wandsworth." Five winners divide the £300 between them, that is £60 each, and 114 divide the £100. On November 19, the date on which the prize money was due, there was drawn from the bank £340 in notes. The first winner is Mr. Davis, Margate. One £50 note and one £10 note

came back from Margate, one through the P. O. and the other through the London and County Bank, and rightly or wrongly I attribute them to Mr. Davis. Another £50 note and another £10 note comeback from Newport, where Mr. Harris lives. Another £50 note and £10 note come back endorsed "Hoffmeyer," which is the name of another genuine winner; and a fourth £50 note and £10 note are endorsed" Robbins." There are eight notes of £10 each paid by the London City and Midland, Fleet Street, which I suggest relate to the 114 winners of 17s. 6d. each who would have to be paid by Postal Orders. As regards the remaining two notes I put those in a separate column, one being endorsed" Stoddart" and the other" Fred Catling," making £340 drawn from the bank. After drawing the £340 there was a balance of £257 left. In Competition 22, where it is alleged that" A. Foster," of Hunter Street, is not a genuine winner, there were three people to share the £300 prize and 27 to share the £100 prize. £200 was withdrawn from the Peckham branch under date November 27 and £110 in cash, the money being probably drawn at Ludgate Hill on November 26. One of the £100 notes conies back endorsed by Mrs. Carter, of Lavender Hill, and the other endorsed James Jones, Liverpool. The cash I attribute to the £100 prize. There is no trace of anything having been drawn from the bank for Mr. Foster. £100 was drawn on November 29; those I have not seen, and it is within the bounds of possibility that the £100 may have reached Foster in that way. In Competition No. 29, where the prize of £300 was. divided between A. E. Picknell of Leicester and J. T. Rowlandson of Stamford Hill and there were six winners of £16 13s. 4d. to divide the prize of £100, there is no trace of any payment to Rowlandson. £400 was drawn out of the bank, £390 being in notes and £10 cash. On January 15, 1906, one £100 and one £50 came back from Leicester. Provision had evidently been made for sending the £150 to Rowlandson. Further notes drawn on January 17 I trace to other destinations than prize winners, having at first thought they might be attributable to Rowlandson. In Competition 32, where twelve people had to share the prize of £300, I find no trace of £25 having been paid to" T. Morris, London," or" A. Singer, Brixton." In this case the £100 was divisible amongst 186 people and the prizes were due to go out on February 4. Under date of February 5, notes to the amount of £400 were drawn out. I show how those notes returned to the Bank of England. £50 is accounted for as follows: One £20 note is endorsed" Fleet Street, Catling and Co., Ltd."; one £20 note is endorsed "J. Stoddart"; a £5 note was exchanged for gold by Catling and a £5 note is endorsed" J. Sto. S.P.," and the note is torn. The other notes I can trace by the endorsements to the places of residence of the different winners with the exception of Morris and Singer, so that unless Morris and Singer had the two twenties and two fives which come back endorsed Stoddart and Catling, there is nothing provided for them at all. Assuming that those notes had found their way to Morris and Singer, the competition would have been paid in full. A £100 note marked with the Fleet Street P. O. stamp I assumed to have been used to pay the 186 competitors their

10s. 6d. each. There was no one to whom the £100 note could have been paid without being split up. In Competition No. 36 (" Football Record," February 8, 1908, payment announced March 3, five winners of £60 are given and 80 winners of £1 5s. each for the £100 prize, on March 4 there was withdrawn from the Peckham branch £300 in notes and £100 in gold. Of the notes a £50 and a £10 note came back from Watford, where A. Evans lives; a £50 and a £10 note paid to E. Foley of Motherwell came back from Glasgow marked "Greenock"; a £50 and a £10 note paid to R. H. Pettman, Battersea, came back via Newington marked" Pettman "; and a £50 note and a £10 note paid to F. Key, Gomersal, came back via Clerkheaton, marked" Gomersal." There is no trace of £60 having been paid to the remaining competitor, F. Payne, Barking. The £50 note, 77869, the last of the sequence sent to the other competitors, was exchanged for gold by Catling and the £10 note 16769, also the last of a sequence, is endorsed" Catling "; so that unless Payne had the two notes endorsed" Catling" there was nothing drawn for him. In competition No. 40, in which J. Deacon is alleged to be a bogus winner, there were five winners of £60 each for the £300 prize and 83 winners of £1 4s. The money being due on March 31, there was drawn on April 1 £200 in £50 notes and £98 in cash. The four notes had come back, one of them being endorsed" Catling and Co." One of the notes came back from West Brompton instead of from Derby, so that three of the competitors apparently were left unsatisfied. No other notes were drawn out until April 22, but there were intermediate withdrawals of insufficient amount to pay the winning competitors. In Competition No. 44, where there are 12 competitors announced., the bogus competitor is James White, Carlisle, and 317 competitors split up the £100. A £20 note and a £5 note have come back endorsed" Catling and Co." In Competition 46, "F. Roberts" being the bogus winner, there are 24 winners of £12 10s. each and 557 snared the £100. Payment being due on September 29 there was drawn from the bank on September 30 £340 in notes and £60 cash. I attribute the £100 note then drawn to the 557 competitors receiving 3s. 6d. each, because it is endorsed "Stoddart, P. O. Fleet Street." As to the payments of £12 10s. I can give no information. The competitors might have had a £10 note and the rest in cash. In Competition No. 25, where there were 6 winners of £83 each, I trace notes of £50, £20, and £10 to F. E. Farrell. A £50 note and a £20 note are endorsed" Catling and Co., Ltd." Only £249 was drawn out of the bank, and so far as I can discover four of these supposed winners have not had their money. With regard to the Butterworth case and the Stanhope case I give no evidence at all. I have looked at Mrs. Stoddart's account. As regards explaining how winners were paid it does not seem to help the matter at all. So far as I remember there are no notes coming out from that. Neither does Stoddart's account at Barnes afford any explanation. With regard to Catling's account I have prepared a schedule setting out the amounts paid to him by cheques drawn by Stoddart. I have taken the analysis prepared by the bank which has been proved by the bank officials and I have summarised the amounts

which appear as credits from Stoddart. Between October, 1907, and October, 1906, these amount to £1,764 in cheques and £130 in notes, making £1,894. There is a credit from Windust. to Catling of £16 13s. 4d. on February 27, 1908. The payments from Stoddart vary from £1 to £2 up to £500. (Witness pointed out credits which have no reference to the competitions.)

Cross-examined. There are a great number of notes drawn from Stoddarts bank with the P. O. stamp on them, showing that they have gone through the post office.

WILLIAM SIDNEY NASH , recalled, produced the official record of the posting of registered letters at the Chancery Lane P. O., 1908. Registered letters were posted to B. Barnes, G. Collins, F. E. Farrell, but none to W. T. Jones, Cleveland Road, Weston-super-Mare, F. W. Collier, Ballingdon Mansions, Kensington, or A. Rowley, Stamford Hill. There were registered letters to T. Cooper, E. A. Salter, John Mallon, and James Ward in November, 1907. There was no record of a registered letter being sent to D. J. Browning, c. o. Riseley, 259, Broadway, West Hen don. In Competition 21 (Willis's case) registered letters were recorded as having been sent to four winners, Davis, Harris, Hoffmeyer, and Robbins, but none to Willis. (Witness gave similar details as to other competitions.)

HIBBE HANNES DEFRIES . Examined through an interpreter. I live at Middelburg and was formerly in the service of George Stoddart. It was a coupon business and there was also a turf department. The business was taken over by Donald McKenzie and I remained in his employment till he was arrested. After that I was employed by Windust till April, 1906. In January I centered the service of the defendant Stoddart. Klinge was employed as manager of the business. At first there were 15 people employed, but latterly only eight. When letters arrived the postal orders and stamps were always taken care of by Klinge, who was authorised to sign the orders. Catling came over to superintend and to see what Klinge was doing. As a rule he came on the Saturday and returned on the Sunday night. Letters arrived mostly on Saturday nights. The postal orders and stamps were counted and taken to the bank and I found that afterwards Catling used to take them with him to England. It is impossible for me to say precisely how long that has been going on, but it would be from about September, 1907, to the end of the football season in March, 1908. After that date I have neither heard nor seen anything of that matter. Coupons were kept until the claims had come in They were then compared with the claims and kept for some long time after that. The names of winners were manifolded and duplicates kept in a book like that produced. The entries are mostly in Klinge's handwriting, but there are a few in mine and some in that of another clerk. A letter was sent to England showing who the winners were. I find that pages relating to D'Avyet and other competitors have been torn out.

(Thursday, January 28.)

DEFRIES, recalled, further examined. The registered letters were always opened by Klinge or under his superintendence; he was always

present. I never opened them; I was only in charge of the Turf Department. I sometimes fetched registered letters from the post. Coupons for competition in No. 29 of" Racing Record" had to reach Middelburg on or before June 17. Klinge was there then, I believe.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I found a record that Klinge had received the registered letters on June 17. He never gave receipts in advance for registered letters. I cannot swear I saw him there, but I have other reasons for thinking so. I speak English a little and can write it when dictated to. Before going into the coupon business I was a school teacher. I had nine months' imprisonment for embezzling school funds. I had the sympathy of the officials and was assisted by the President of the Court to obtain employment. In December, 1902, I entered the service of George Stoddart under Klinge, and was with him when the business was sold to Donald Mackenzie, with whom I continued until Mackenzie was convicted. I was then employed by Windust until April, 1906, when I left because he did not want so many clerks. I was employed by Joseph Stoddart on January 7, 1907, when he began business in Middelburg I wrote letter produced of November 27, 1906, to Stoddart's solicitors, offering to give proofs to start an action against Windust. I decline to give those proofs as they have nothing to do with this case.

Mr. Abinger submitted that the answer should be given, as the defence of Stoddart was partly an alleged conspiracy to procure his conviction.

Mr. Muir: I say this question is not relevant, even on that issue.

Held that question could not be answered at the present stage; it might become-admissible hereafter, when the witness could be recalled.

Cross-examination resumed. I did not know that Windust was. assisting in getting up the case against Stoddart. I have not spoken or written to Windust lately. On January 16, 1909, my wife received telegram produced from J. Stoddart, and I saw it three days afterwards:—"With respect to your letter to Alpe, come over and see me." I wrote letter produced to Stoddart December 26, 1908, stating I would visit him if he sent me £20." My proofs against Windust are very good indeed." (Letter read.) Return fare from Middelburg to London is £2 10s. There was another person I suggested coming with me—I decline to give his name. Windust did not speak to me about £2,000. It was said in Middelburg that if Stoddart gave Windust £2,000 he would be able to stop this case—I cannot remember by whom; by several clerks dismissed from Windust's services. I swear by my old father and by my wife that Windust did not tell me that. On December 20 I received letter from Stoddart stating that my letter looked like blackmail—"My agents have traced a very suspicious winner in No. 49 contest, viz., J. Bushey, 37, Clapham Road. When you stayed at 65, Finden Road, Brockley, last week you could have seen me." I know nothing about letter Exhibit 101; it is not in my writing. (Letter read, "Middelburg, December 12, 1908.—"Sir,—I beg to inform you that I am coming to England. I do not see why I should not report to the City Detective Department the part you took in the disappearing of Klinge. ") I swear by my old father that letter was not written by me or by my authority. I know Drake as carrying on the betting business of Drew and Co., Middelburg.

I did not send Exhibit 101 to J. and H. Drew. I know Kneeht, or Knight—he is no relation of mine. I slept last night in Aldersgate Street. I have never stayed at 37, Clapham Road, and do not know it. I spent a night at Finland Road, Brockley. I do not know Bushey. I have seen Smallman and know he has a large business at Middelburg. I do not know that his London office is 17, Great St. Helens. I have never robbed Stoddart. Manifold book produced is partly in my writing and that of other clerks. Klinge gave me three books before he left the last time for England to be packed up. I brought them over here and handed them to the police when they summoned me. Page 94 of book produced giving result of Football Competition December 26, 1907, £300, is in Klinge's writing. Price never told me a bogus coupon was coming in in the name of Stanhope. I cannot remember whether Klinge told me about the Stanhope coupon. Catling came to Middelburg fairly regularly every Friday. I have never seem Stoddart there during the last 12 months.

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. When Catling first came over things were very bad indeed and they improved greatly. I do not complain of Catling; he has always treated me as a gentleman. He did not interfere with Klinge's management. He never received the registered letters. Catling always arrived at Middelburg on Saturday morning after the list of winners had been sent to London.

Re-examined. I last saw Klinge an October or November, 1908. I saw Windust in court this morning. I last spoke to him in January or February, 1906, at his office in Middelburg while in his employ. I last saw Catling in Middelburg in September, 1906. Page 94 of book produced is Competition No. 38; it is copied from another 'book. I do not know Pleydell. My conviction was in 1902. WHITING, recalled. Further cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. Banknote for £20, No. 15440, endorsed "Catling and Co., Ltd.," was cashed across the counter. We have an exchange form for each banknote cashed Which would probably, but not necessarily, be written by the person presenting it. Note 43969 for £20 was cashed over the counter—it is endorsed by Jones. Notes 68049, 77669, and 96206 were changed for Catling and Co., Ltd.

Mr. Abinger submitted there was no jurisdiction in this court to try defendants for obtaining money by false pretences, one of the ingredients of the offence being committed in a foreign country. Although the false pretences were made in England, the obtaining was in Holland. (Counsel cited Reg. v. Holmes, 53 L. J., M. C., P. 737.) Mr. Elliott took the same point on behalf of Catling. The Recorder said there was quite sufficient evidence to leave the case to the Jury.

(Defence of Stoddart.)

JOSEPH STODDART (prisoner, on oath). I have been running competitions for many years. I have been prosecuted once under the Lottery

Act and acquitted and once under the Gaming Act two years ago. When I was sentenced to three months' imprisonment. I have never been charged with any other offence. In 1904 my son, George Stoddart, had a competition business in Middelburg, which he sold to Mackenzie, who was convicted at this court in 1905. In 1906 I was not running competitions in Middelburg. In 1907 I started "Football Record" there, which was carried on by a staff managed by Klinge. I did not know Defries had been convicted. I employed as many as 20 and as few as six clerks. No charge of dishonesty in my competitions had been made up to the time Catling joined me. I had carried on" Football Record" competitions from January, 1907. I had started another called" Football Sport" in September, had become rather tired of the business, which necessitated someone going over to Middelburg every week, and had determined to give coupon competitions up for both football and racing. Catling heard that was my intention and said he would like to put his back into it and see there was any money in it. I closed with the idea and said, "You can have it for three weeks to have a try." Catling started going over in October, 1907. I have been connected with coupon competition business since 1887, and have carried them on for 22 years, except when my son George had the business and when I sold it to Mackenzie, who barred me for two years from carrying on any contest, Up to the time Catling joined me no charge had been made of dishonesty in my competitions. I arranged to give Catling £4 a week for travelling expenses and half the profits and wrote letter produced:" November 27, 1907.—This is to notify that I am agreeable to Mr. F. Catling receiving half of the net profits on my" Football Record" contests, commencing with No. 22, on condition that he superintends the contests in Holland weekly. This bargain holds good as long as the" Football Record "is in property and is conducted as at present.—JOSEPH STODDART." Catling had then conducted two or three weekly contests, and the business showed a marked improvement, more money coming in. I do not know how many competitors there were, but it showed a marked improvement as a competition. If it had not I should have dropped it. I have not been in Middelburg since January, 1907, and could not say, except from general experience, how the competitions were conducted. Catling had charge while he was there; Klinge was in charge of the staff as manager. Catling went on Friday night and returned to London on Sunday night or on Monday if the business was very brisk. He would arrive at 8.20 a.m. at Herne Hill, meet and report to me how many letters they had had, and bring, over the money, which I would bank. The money was at first banked with Zip and Teilinger. I used to give Catling a cheque to pay the wages of the staff. Klinge had authority to draw £20 a week for expenses, but Zip's allowed him to draw a further amount without my authority. When this prosecution started I gave the competitions up, paid off the staff, and closed; the matter entirely. I have closed up all my connection with, Holland. It was the duty of Klinge to see that every envelope was pinned to the coupon so as to trace the

remittance if a coupon was questioned. Each coupon had to be stamped by the clerk who opened it with a numbered stamp, which was given to him for the day, and the number of which he would not know until the stamps were distributed in the morning. Catlin had the giving out of these stamps when the work was started. That was a check on the moneys received. The stamps were locked up by Catling when he left. Claims were received at Middelburg up to Wednesday at latest, and a sheet was sent by Klinge to London. The football matches which were competed for were all played on the Saturday, competitors posting their coupon at latest on Friday evening to arrive at Middelburg on Saturday. No communication was made by the competitor with the London office. The coupons were placed in alphabetical order. A claim coming in would be compared with the coupon, and if all was straight the claimant would be declared a winner; if there was any question Klinge would send the original coupon and claim to me in London for inquiry. The names and addresses of winners would be published in" Football Record" the following week.

(Friday, January 29.)

JOSEPH STODDART , recalled, further examined. The list of winners would be sent to me by Klinge with other correspondence in the ordinary way. Either Catling or myself would pass it on as copy to the printers. The printers were Cate and Co., Ltd., then Sully and Ford, afterwards the Argus Printing Company. If any claim struck me as suspicious I should direct Klinge to send the original coupon and make inquiries. Cowley was employed to make inquiries. If the inquiries were satisfactory I drew a cheque for the prize money in full or less any winner that was queried. It was usually Catling's business to send bank notes in registered envelopes for the prizes. I have done it when he was busy—perhaps half a dozen times in all. Catling was assisted (by Jones; I was assisted by Miss Gardiner. Jones never assisted me. The sticking down of the envelopes was done by clerks. Sometimes we had as many as 6,000 winners in one week who received small consolation prizes paid by postal orders. In the case of Premier prizes when I attended to them I always saw the note put into the envelopes and the envelopes stuck down. Miss Gardiner assisted me. Catling occasionally has posted them for me, and a receipt was brought back for the registered letters. About £400 was paid every week. It went on throughout the year, including the football and racing seasons. I first paid Catling a share of the profits on January 14, 1908, by a cheque on Barclay's for £376 10s., that was his share of the profits to the end of 1907. On April 23, 1908 I paid him £105 by cheque; May 22, 1908, £100; June 9, 1908, £130; August 8, 1908; £102 12s. 3d., making a total of £814 2s. 3d., Catling's profits to that date. I generally gave Catling a cheque for the" prizes, including in it any sum required for petty cash or expenses; sometimes I paid him in cash. I frequently had as much as £1,000 in the office. On February 4 I drew a cheque for £400 for the winners in Competition No. 32. There

were twelve winners of £25 each, and £100 for consolation prizes. In the" Football Record" of January 25 the names of only eleven prizewinners were published, and I then arranged to pay them £27 5s. each. I took two bank notes for £20 (28064) and £5 (305523) and gave gold for them so that Catling could divide the money. That is how those two notes have 'been traced to my account. A twelfth winner named Singer was added to the prizewinners. That is the man who swore that Jones requested him to send in an application in the name of Singer, and that Jones used his address for fear that I should suspect him and Catling of doing something dirty. With regard to Competition 21 a £10 banknote No. 68040 has been traced to me. In that competition there were five winners of £60 each and £100 for consolation prizes. Tom Willis was a claimant for £60. I suspected his claim, as the writing on the claim and the coupon were not the same, so I drew a cheque for £340, which I handed to Catling. He undertook to make inquiries about Willis; he afterwards told me that Willis was all right, and I paid his prize by cheque payable to Catling of November 25 for £73, being £60 for Willis and £13 for petty cash. I handed the cheque to Catling. I have no further recollection on the matter. If the £10 in question is endorsed by Miss Gardiner Catling may have given it to her to change and she would cash it for him possibly out of gold in the office received in connection with my betting business. £10 note No. 20209 of January 6 is endorsed" J. Stoddart, 58, Fleet Street," by Miss Gardiner. In No. 29 competition there were two prize-winners, Picknell and Roe. I drew a cheque for £250 only for Picknell and the consolation prizes. Roe owed me money and I refused to pay it him. I ultimately gave him £5. I can only suppose that the £10 note No. 20209 came into my possession by being changed by Miss Gardiner for gold in order to split up the money for consolation prizes. Picknell received £150 paid by two banknotes of £100 and £50, the consolation prizes being £2 13s. 4d. each. That deals with all the banknotes that have been traced to me. Jones was Catling's manager and is a director of F. Catling and Co., Limited, which is Catling's business as a process engraver. In November, 1907, I noticed that Jones was a prizewinner, also Dent; both were sent forward from Middelburg. I knew Dent was a personal friend of Catling. I spoke to Catling about them. He said they were legitimate competitors. I said I did not doubt it but he had better ask them not to compete any more as I did not like personal friends of either of us to be winning prizes. He said he would do so. Jones was never an employee of mine. Prior to October, 1907, when Catling came into my business, I had never received from anyone a complaint of their not receiving the money. Until this case started I did not know that Jones was dealing with banknotes which belonged to prize winners. I never asked Jones or anybody to write the Butterworth coupon. I know nothing of the matter. Jones did not bring me £100 or any part thereof received for the Butterworth banknote. It is untrue that I paid any part of such money to the Argus Printing Company. I owed them nothing; they were doing no work for me. Klinge was frequently over in London and at my office; I

believe he was there on June 16; he may have posted the three registered letters in the Butterworth competition. I last saw klinge at Maidenhead in August to my recollection. I have not spoken to Jones half a dozen times in my life. Catling was instructed not to allow him in my house. He was considered a man without moral balance—he was keeping three establishments. I first heard Jones's name associated with this case during the proceedings at the Mansion House. I thought he might be a good witness and have made every effort to bring him here. I am in no way responsible for his disappearance. My solicitors wrote letter of November 25 to the City Solicitor stating that I had two private detectives engaged to ascertain his whereabouts, and that I could assist the police in securing his attendance. I telephoned from Croydon to Old Jewry in December stating that I thought I had found Jones and asking what I could do. The Detective Department replied that there was no warrant out and all I could do was to give Jones 5s. and a subpoena; I stated that I had traced him to a house in London Road, Croydon and asked if I could give him into custody. They said I could do nothing except subpoena him. I have never spoken to Robinson in my life. I have known Grimes for many years as a music-hall proprietor; but he has not been at my house until September 24, 1908, the day the summons was served, when, at about 6 p.m., I drove over to Catling and we drove to the Brixton Empress and told Grimes that I had been served with a summons, that I was in great distress about it, that I was given to understand Charley Windust was at the bottom of it, and that he and others were blackmailing me. Grimes said he was surprised and volunteered to see Windust. The next day (Friday, September 25), when I arrived home at Forest Lodge, Tulse Hill, Grimes and Qatling were there in the drawing-room. Grimes said Windust had got a mass of evidence together." Windust is well in with Stanger (of the City Solicitor's office) and Inspector Collison—they will do anything for him." I said, "I do not care whom he is in with—if there is going to be any fighting I shall fight it right out." He said Cowley and Price were two of the principal witnesses. We went into the dining-room, where my wife, my daughter Jessie, and Mrs. Catling were. Grimes said he thought the best thing would be for me and Windust to have a good dinner and shake hands, but if £2,000 could be found the whole thing could be stopped at once against Catling. My wife said, "Who is going to handle the £2,000?" I said I would find no £2,000; nor two thousand pence. I should have had no difficulty in paying had I wanted Grimes said, "It is a pity." I then suggested that Catling should go off on his usual journey to Middelburg. Catling asked Grimes if he ought to go under the circumstances. Grimes said he thought he ought not to go—he might be arrested. I laughed at the idea as he had had the summons, which was returnable on October 21, and asked Catling to go as usual. I could not have said to Catling," You must not receive the summons, but must leave the country to-night"—he had received the summons the previous evening. Grimes's statement is untrue. Grimes said nothing about paying Price. I said, "I

will pay nothing, I have nothing to fear." I told Catling to get off at once and catch his train. Catling said he would not go. Grimes then left with Catling and I went to bed. I was called up again at 10.30 p.m. I got into my dressing-gown and found Mr. and Mrs. Catling with my wife and daughter. They asked me if I was going to find the £2,000. I said I was going to pay no £2,000; they had heard my decision on that matter; I had a perfect answer to any charge that was made against me. Mrs. Catling said, "Then if you will not find it, dad, I must sell (or pawn) my jewels." My wife said." You have heard what dad says, and if he says anything it is settled—he won't find them the money." I then returned to bed. That is all I know about Grimes. I employed Defries on my staff in Middelburg under Klinge. I knew nothing about Defries having been convicted. I have never seen ham since January 7, 1907, until he appeared at the police court. He wrote my solicitors a letter saying that he had proofs against Windust. On January 16 I telegraphed him to come over, and on January 19 I received a letter saying he would come over if I sent him £20. Exhibit 101—a letter to my solicitors by Drake—I have never seen until to-day. I wrote to Defries saying that his letter looked like blackmail. In Competition No. 49 Bushey, of 37, Clapham Road, was returned as one of seven prize winners, each entitled to £42 17s. I queried them all—especially Bushey. I inquired at 37, Clapham Road and found that it was a place of business managed by Knight. I refused to pay. Defries has been mentioned in connection with that bogus claim. Knight lived at Finland Road, Brockley, where I believe Defries lived. I have known Klinge nine years, and have employed him since January, 1907, at £3 a week and afterwards at £4. I trusted him. Since the prosecution started I have made inquiries about him. On the summons being served I wired to him in Holland; he came over to my solicitors and gave evidence at the police-court on October 15. I have not seen him since. I am not a party to his disappearance. I sent my daughter over to wind up matters in Holland before Klinge came over. I employed Cowley from time to time to make inquiries into doubtful prize winners, paying him 5s. to £1 for his services. I did not know that he had obtained money from Catling. I know he was convicted for indecency. Catling paid his fine without my instructions, and I afterwards repaid it to Catling. I asked Cowley to make inquiries about Butterworth and Naylor and Rawley. The whole of his story with regard to Butterworth is untrue. I received he Butterworth coupon on Monday, June 9. We went to press on Wednesday, and the list of winners was published that week, being Butterworth, Naylor, and Rawley. I was not questioning Butterworth's coupon then. I drew a cheque for £310, being £300 for the three winners and £10 for petty cash, which was cashed bv Catling. Miss Gardiner prepared the envelopes and I saw the three £100 notes put in the envelopes. I believe Klinge was in London at the time. The last I saw of the three £100 notes was when Miss Gardiner put them into the envelopes; I do not know who posted them. That was absolutely the last I saw of my £300. I know nothing of Butterworth's

£100 note being cashed at the Bank of England. I received none of the proceeds. I have known Windust four or five years. He took over Mackenzie's coupon business in Middelburg after Mackenzie's conviction in October, 1905, in his own name, having assisted Mackenzie for some time before in connection with "Football Chat." I wrote articles in the" Football Record" charging Windust with gross fraud and called him a swindler. He did not bring an action for libel. I have seen a letter of August 26, 1906, from Windust to Calling threatening that I should be prosecuted for perjury and that I should get 12 or 18 months. No such proceeding has been brought against me; that letter made me think that Windust was the originator of these proceedings. I first met Price in July, 1906, when he called on me and offered to sell me" Football Chat." I said it was no good to me—as it was part and parcel of Windust's business it would suit me better to see it dead. Price then said he would like to run competitions in Middelburg. I said if we could agree I might be able to assist him with some money. Agreement produced was drawn up and signed under which I was to pay certain expenses and receive half the profits. I refused to guarantee the prizes. I wrote letter of July 20, 1908. That had no reference to my guaranteeing she prizes.

(Monday, February 1.)

JOSEPH STODDART , recalled, further examined. I wrote a letter to Price on July 19 to the effect that we must have confidence in one another. I knew nothing at all of any arrangement for Price to send in a bogus coupon in the name of Stanhope. I first heard of it some time after September 4, when Price came back. I never arranged with Catling or Price that any bogus winners should be sent in. I made no arrangement with Catling to remunerate him in respect of the Price contract. As to the alleged conversation between Price and Catling, I was no party to that. On September 3 I wired to Price to return, because Catling said that something crooked was going on. Catling told me he thought Price's competition was very little good and that Price's idea of being a big man in the football "world was erroneous. He said, "I think something is going on that is crooked; you will find it out." On September 4 Price came into the office by himself, but his wife was at the door. He brought the six winning coupons of the first competition, in the names of Bond, Baker, Dawson, Gardner, Stanhope, and Gibbs. Klinge took them back with him after he had given evidence here at Catling's suggestion. That would be about October 8. I did not look at the coupons at the moment. I had no knowledge of StanHope at the time. Price said there would be more winning coupons when they had all the claims in. I said, "Are you sure these are all right?" He said, "Yes; they are all right." I passed away from the incident then. His wife came in and I took possession of the coupons. I told him I did not think the coupon competition was going to be such a success as I had expected it would be from

his statement that he was a great magnate in the football world, and that I did not feel inclined to find very much more money unless I could see where he was going to put some in. I did not tax him with the Stanhope coupon at that time; I did afterwards. The exact sum I had spent up to that moment was £781, and I was liable for £254 more On July 22 I had given him a cheque far £50 to open his banking account; he never opened his banking account. On July 25 I gave him £50, because he said he wanted to buy some addresses from Mackenzie. On August 5 those addresses were delivered to me; they were very much in duplicate and they had to be collated, and that cost me £6 5s. I am prepared to produce receipts for the whole of the £781. The outstanding liabilities were to the stationery people in Middelburg and Amsterdam and the printers in London. As to Price's half of the postage account, I had disposed of that early in August, when he could not find the money for his half. He said then he was very sorry, but the Union Trust would not pay him his money; he could not find his half of the postage and would I pay it for him? I said, "That is all my eye. You made a bargain and now you are trying to wriggle out of it." He said, "You can take the whole of the orders for the competitions, and if there is anything more wanted you can pay it into my account at Zip's." On that date I had only received one week's coupon money—about £350—which had gone to my bank and is shown in my own, not my wife's account. With regard to the assignment, there is no truth in the suggestion that Mr. Alpe was already there with the document in his pocket. I had suggested to him that the assignment should be prepared. The document was fully explained to Price, and he was left for half an hour to consult with his wife about it. When Mr. Alpe and I returned to the room Price said he was quite willing to sign, and did so, Miss Gardiner being brought in to witness the signature. Price afterwards asked for £50 on account. I told him if he would assist me in getting this money from the Union Trust I would assist him, and I drew him a cheque there and then, and he gave me an I O U for it. I did not mean to give it to him as a present. I looked upon the assignment at that time as a valuable asset. I did not contemplate that I should be called upon to pay the prize winners. I have never received a brass farthing in respect of the assignment. I commenced an action against the Union Trust to recover the £200. There was an action against me which was struck out and a cross action against Price claiming £1,740. I believe the Argus Printing Company charged the ordinary price for printing "Football Sport." They did not charge more because the competitions are illegal in this country. I did not when Price called on me on September 14 take the Stanhope coupon out of my pocket and say, "I have got this against you." By that time I had paid £1,266 9s. and there were still liabilities of £254. I had received up to that time £637 13s. 9d., and in respect of the third competition I received £308 3s. 3d. in all £945 17s., so that I had not, as has been suggested, sufficient in hand, after recouping myself, to pay the prize winners.

I went very particularly into the figures with 'Price on September 14 and he seemed to understand them. He said there bad been a lot of money spent. I told him the Union Trust were fighting their liability. He said it was an awkward thing not being able to find the prize money—a dreadful thing for him. I said,' "Well, you have got your friend Mackenzie, who has often not paid prize money; go and consult him." He started crying in the office. I told him to pull himself together. I said, "Mackenzie has done a lot of nasty things in this way," and tried to get him out of that crying humour. I was £1,200 out of pocket; he was not a penny out of pocket, but. on the contrary, had had three cheques of £50 out of me. I asked him to come on Wednesday and we would talk the matter over when he was more quiet. I had an inkling then of the Stanhope coupon, but did not get the exact particulars until September 24. I asked Donald Mackenzie where Price's people lived. I was director of the Crown Cigarette Company, Limited, which Mackenzie had started and put £900 into it. I did not remain a director long as I did not like the business the company was carrying on. They were running coupon competitions to get the sale of the cigarettes and I did not think it was legal. For 1s. you had 12 guesses and you got the cigarettes for nothing. Whether the cigarettes were worth anything I do not know; I never smoked any. I brought an action against the company to recover my money, but the action is still in the air; I do not know where the money is. On September 14 I asked Price about the Stanhope coupon. When he said it came from Leicester I tumbled to it.

To the Recorder. I am not going to call Mackenzie as a witness. I do not think his reputation is good enough for a witness.

Examination continued. I looked at this Stanhope coupon very, very critically. I then searched the list and found out there was only one coupon from Leicester and I started to make inquiries. In the course of conversation Price said, "If you had only let me stop at Middelburg we should not have had so much prize money to pay." I said, "If you mean putting bogus winners in, it is just as well the whole thing should be stopped." I sent a man named Pearce to Leicester to make inquiries. I think he went on the 17th. When Mrs. Price came on September 16 she said her husband had brain fever and she did not know what to do. I was very sorry for her and told her we might come to some arrangement and get the prize money paid if she would get me some security or some promise of Price's that when he got some money he would pay me back. Catling was sent for and drafted a letter for Mr. Price to sign agreeing to indemnify me if I paid the prize money. If that letter had been signed I would have paid the prize money, including the Stanhope coupon, but I should not have paid it after I had got full particulars on the 24th. (To the Jury. I do not employ Pearce often. Cowley is a friend of his.) I never saw Price any more. Having failed to get the indemnity I sent out a circular stating that the competitions had been stopped owing to the inability of Price to pay the prize money. Cowley left my employment on June 18. On that day he

came into my office and asked me to give him some money and said he could tell me something surprising about my competition. He was somewhat the worse for drink and I told him I did not want to. discuss my competitions with him. I ordered him out of the office. He would not go and I pushed (him out. Kemp, the old convict, came up to me in the "Opera Tavern," Haymarket, one evening and said that Cowley was wanting some money and if I did not find some he was going to make it very hot for me. I parted with no money to Kemp or to Defries, or to Windust—a big No to that. I plead guilty to being a man of means. It is known to this clique that I am worth £100,000. I have made as much a/c £30,000 in one week in one competition. To my knowledge I have never made a false representation to any of the prize winners. With regard to Competition No. 20, in which J. Browning, of West Hendon, was said to be a bogus competitor, the reason why I drew a cheque for £340 10s. that week instead of £400, was because Brown was a queried winner. The man did not seem to have made up his mind how many results he had sent in, and when he sent in his claim the number of results was left blank. The matter seemed to me unsatisfactory and I thought it better it should be left over for further consideration. Catling said he would find out about it and, after he had made inquiries, said Browning was quite right. I then paid the £60 less £15. I think it was a" self" cheque dated November 26. I do not as a rule put on cheques for what purpose they are drawn. Klinge deducted the £15 because when a winner wins a big prize he often leaves part of his winnings to pay other competitions. The cheque itself was given to Mr. Catling. It was intended that he should have nine £5 notes and that is what is on the exchange slip, but it was altered afterwards to "sovereigns 5. notes 40." That is in Miss Gardner's writing. It was given to Catling with instructions to pay Browning. I do not dispute that Browning is a non-existent person. I did not know that this man Browning was" in the air" till I heard the evidence at the police-court. With regard to the description given by Mrs. Riseley that the person who arranged for Browning's address at her house was a tall, stout man, that was not me. I do not know who went to Mrs. Riseley. I know of no one within my entourage who is a tall, stout man of about 5 ft. 9 in. I was in no way concerned in producing Mr. Browning as a winner. I do not accuse Catling of keeping the money. In the case of Foster, he was paid either by cheque to order, endorsed by myself, or cheque to bearer. The cheque I drew that week was for £310 5s., including the £100 consolation. I did not send Foster his £100 at once because when we have large winners previously to sending them the money we send them a circular to see if we can get them to bet, giving particulars of a betting firm we are interested in. I did not pay the money at once because I did not like his letters coming back" unknown." I also circularised Carter and Jones; I did not get a reply from them but their letters did not come back. I have not got Foster's returned letter. I presume it was thrown away with other letters. Catling took in hand the inquiries at Brunswick

Mansions. I drew a cheque on December 10 for £100 after Catling had reported that Foster was all right. I was informed in Anderton's Hotel that some man named Foster had been grumbling at me for not paying his prize. Catling reported afterwards that Foster ha had the money. I did not ask him—how he came to meet Foster. I first heard that Foster was a bogus winner in the police-court. With regard to Competition 21, where there were five winners of. £60, of whom four, Davis, Harris, Hoffmeyer, and Bobbins were paid and Willis's disputed, she cheque I drew that week was for £340, four winners of £60 and £100 for the consolation money. I disputed it because the writing on the coupons did not correspond with the writing on the claim. It was queried in the first instance at Middelburg and sent on to me. Toat matter was left to Catling also, who told me some time afterwards that he had made inquiries and it was all right, and I then gave him an open cheque. It is endorsed by him and he could get the money if he wanted it. I never paid anything to D'Avyet. He was the sole prize winner in No. 19 Competition of £300. I received from Klinge letter produced dated Paris, October 17, 1907, from D'Avyet claiming the £300 prize and on October 27 replied stating that we only paid prizes to the address on the coupon and that if he would arrange to be in Ramsgate we would send cheque or cash. I heard no more from D'Avyet and sent no money. I know nothing about Klinge going to Ramsgate. I still hold the money in case he can claim it. I have paid prize winners a long time afterwards. I had a claim from a man who went into Ladysmith, stayed through the siege and I paid him after he came out. D'Avyet may be a legitimate winner for all I know, and I hold the money for him. In Competition No. 25 there were six winners of £83 6s. each. I drew a cheque for £249 18s., payable to self, dated May 12, 1908, which I gave to Catling together with £250 in bank notes. At that time I had won £1,500 by backing Rhodora for the Thousand Guineas; I received it in bank notes on May 12 and gave Catling part of the money in cash. I never heard there was any bogus winner in that competition until it was mentioned at this court. It was not mentioned at the police-court. I have since learned that Cranworth Gardens, Brixton, was the address of Jones (that is Singer). So far as I was concerned I paid the whole of the prizes and if the notes were cashed by Catling I know nothing of it. In Competition No. 29 Picknell and Rowlandson were winners of £150 each. Picknell was paid. I drew a cheque for £250 for his £150 and £100 for consolation. Rowlandson called on me and I recognised him as a man named Roe who was indebted to me. I had known Roe for 10 or 11 years. He got £500 from me to invest if a bogus company called Hopcraft's Boiler Scale Company. About 16 years ago I was warned off the Turf through my jockey pulling my horse, Red Rube, in the National Hunt Flat Race. I backed my horse for £650 and he was pulled without my knowledge. Roe afterwards came to me and told me that if I gave him £200 to give to the Hon. Hanbury Tracy, he could get me restored to the Turf. I gave him the £200 and learnt afterwards that he had not paid it to

Mr. Tracy. On January 2, 1908, he walked into my office and told me he had won a prize in my competition in the name of Rowlandson. I told him the prize was £150 and said, "Do you remember that you owe me a bit and if you have won a prize you are not going to get it because you owe me a little amount of £200?" That was besides £500 that I considered he was responsible for getting from me by fraud. He said he had had a hard time and things were very bad. I said." If a fiver is any good to you you can have it with pleasure," and I gave him the £5 cheque produced dated January 2, 1908. His evidence as to my putting him forward as a bogus winner is false. I never doubted his coupon. The copy giving Picknell and Rowlandson as the winners was sent to the Argus Printing Company on January 1, 1908. I received a copy of the paper on January 2. In No 32 Competition there were 12 premier winners of £25 each and £100 consolation. I drew cheque produced of February 4 for £400 to pay the winners and had nothing further to do with the matter. In No. 36 Competition there were five winners of £60 each and £100 consolation. Cheque produced for £400 dated March 3 was drawn by me to pay everybody. In competition No. 40 I drew a cheque for £298, having previously paid £100 to Catling personally. Cheque produced for £298 is drawn to and endorsed by Catling. The odd £2 was, I think, a deduction. I never heard of there being bogus winners in that competition and so far as I was concerned I paid the whole of the prize money. In Competition No. 47 there were 10 winners of £30 each, with the consolation prizes £100, making £400. I drew a cheque for £530. In the subsequent competition there were 6,000 consolation prize winners to divide £100 between them. As the postal orders had to be ordered beforehand I added the £100 and £30 for expenses to the £400. In Competition No. 46 I drew cheque produced—£400—to pay all the prize winners. I never heard of Robinson getting £12 10s. out of that. I know nothing of any bogus winners in connection with it. During the year I have had over 100 competitions from" Racing Record" and" Football Record." I have never in any case conspired with anybody to defraud the public; I have never directly or indirectly received a penny piece in connection with fictitious prize winners, and have had nothing at all to do with them. In the cases of Browning, Willis, Foster, and Deacon, I was not concerned in dispatching the money. In all those competitions Catling had charge; I had nothing to do with them after handing over the money to Catling. Catling's statements of October 12 and 22 to the police are untrue except in so far as they agree with my account of the interviews given above. Cowley's evidence is false. It is quite untrue, as Catling says, that I assaulted my daughter. I love my daughter too much ever to touch her. I said to Catling that if I told the truth it would make London ring with his name and he would be ashamed of it. This case had started then, and I knew all about him. Catling had not told me that he had made a statement to the police. I know there has been fraud, but I was not a party to it. I did not like Klinge coming over without my knowledge to see Catling. I

did not know Jones had gone until the case had started (To the Recorder.) So far as Catling's statements incriminate me, either in writing or to the police officer, they are without foundation and untrue; many of them have been proved to be untrue by the officer himself.

(Thursday, February 4.)

JOSEPH STODDART , recalled, cross-examined by Mr. George Elliott. I first knew Catling eight years ago, two years before he married my daughter; he was then in business as a process engraver on his own account. I knew his father as connected with "Lloyd's Newspaper" for over 50 years, and I have great respect for him. Catling had not been connected with me in business up to October, 1907, but we were great friends, he being my son-in-law; he knew what my business was. He used to do engraving work for me. I always found him honest and straightforward up to the starting of this prosecution. I do not accuse him now, but I have some singular thoughts. He began his interest in football competitions in October, three weeks before the agreement of November 27, 1907, and had gone over to Middelburg at those three week-ends. I allowed him a share of those three weeks' profits when we settled up on January 14, 1906. Foster's competition was No. 22; the cheque was drawn December 9, but the competition took place a fortnight previously and Catling was interested in it. Klinge had been in my service since January, 1907; I had known him for seven years as associated with the management of competitions or betting business. He had been with Webster, a betting man, Mackenzie, my son George Stoddart, and Windust. I did not finance George Stoddart in his business, but I made him a present of some money. When Klinge was managing we only had two winners who were challenged. I never had any complaint. Klinge sent over the list of winners and I paid the money, sending it with the assistance of Miss Gardiner. The business was too strenuous for me; it required someone to go over to Holland every week, and Catling offered to take it up; otherwise I should have given it up. I wanted Catling to see the money banked and to generally supervise, Klinge had previously banked the money. I did not distrust Klinge, but the receipts did not come up to my expectations and I thought there was a loophole somewhere. I wanted to be sure that I was getting all my money. Catling was to see that the envelopes were properly opened and the postal orders properly checked and accounted for. I think Competition No. 44 of March 28, 1906, was the last Catling was interested in; he had nothing to do with the "Racing Record." From November to April there was no disagreement between us. I was rather proud of the way he worked the business. He received from me for profit £814 2s. 3d. on accounts made up by himself and taken by me as correct. The first payment was January 14, £376 10s. I had not given him £50 previously, to my best recollection. All previous payments were for expenses. On November 25 I gave him a cheque for £73 to pay Willis, £60 and

£13 for expenses. That was not £50 for profits and £23 for expenses The cheque was payable to Catling. Each week a sheet was made out showing the profit; those sheets were kept by Catling. (To the Jury.) I kept no proper cash book. I kept the cash book for my betting business. I do not keep a private ledger. (To Mr. Elliott.) The money was paid into my banking account in Holland; I had complete control of it. Klinge could draw up to £20 a week for expenses, giving a voucher. The Dutch bankers advised me and sent a cheque to me on Coutts. Afterwards, on Catling's suggestion, he brought the money over and I gave him a cheque for the wages. If Catling used for expenses some of the money paid for the profits I should return it. The cheque of April 23, £105, was given to Catling at Maidenhead. Bank note for £10, No. 27656, appears to have gone through the post office. It could not have been for stamps or postal orders, as we had no football competition at that time. Other notes, the proceeds of the £105 cheque, appear to have gone through the post office. My cheque for £130, June 9, is drawn to self, and was handed to Catling as profits. If he used part of it for expenses I returned it. If part of the notes had gone through the post office I do not know what it was for. With regard to the last payment for profit, £102 12s. 3d., the £2 12s. 3d. was added under a mistake by Catling. He did not return it, but we had a bottle of wine over it. That amount was paid in three cheques of £50, £50, and £2 12s. 3d. They were profits—it ought to have been £100. It is very unlikely that I paid Catling four £5 notes on May 14 for profits. I did not pay him £50 in gold on June 18, £100 in gold on July 2, £100 in gold on July 6. I never paid Catling any gold in my life. We never sold stamps since 1900, when it was stopped by the post office. I saw items amounting to £250 in Catling's banking account; I thought they wanted a lot of explaining; I never gave them to him. We used up the whole of the penny stamps received in making up postal orders; the shilling and the sixpenny stamps we used for paying small winners. I think the only cheque payable to Catling was the £73; the others were payable to self. Browning was a winner in Competition No. 22 "Racing Record," of £60. He was paid £45 on November 26; there was a deduction, I believe. I know Wade, of Earlsfield; he was paid on November 12 £40 on betting account. I do not know whether the notes, the proceeds of the £45 cheque drawn for Browning, were in fact paid by Miss Gardiner to Wade, a betting man. He was a customer of J. and H. Drew. I suggest that Catling got the Browning cheque and gave Miss Gardiner the proceeds so as to get rid of them. That is my opinion—you have asked me for it and I have given it. He never thought this case would come up. With regard to the Willis incident, there is nothing on the cheque to show that the cheque to Catling for £73 was as to £23 repayment of an advance by Catling, and as to £50 to (be paid by him to Willis as a prize winner. I never saw a receipt 'by Willis; there is no necessity for receipts in these matters; if people who have won are not paid they soon begin to shout. It is not true that the £100 cheque drawn by me to self (Foster case) was given to Catling for postage

stamps; it was given to him to pay to Foster. (Witness adhered to his statement that he drew cheques for the payment of all the winners handing the cheques for that purpose, except in cases where he (Stoddart) paid the winners direct.) I have known Jones about 18 months; he has betted with a business I am connected with. It is untrue that he has seen me constantly the last six or seven months; he may have seen me two or three times. On September 24 I saw Catling; it is untrue that I said to him, "You must leave the country to-night, as there is a summons out against you and me over Cowley," or that he said, "I am not going to do any such thing, as the Cowley business has nothing to do with me," or that I said, "You must leave the country, otherwise I shall be ruined"; that is all invention. What happened was, I told him I had been served with a summons; he said, "I thought it was coming; Charlie Windust is at the bottom of this; we had better go and see Grimes, because he is a pal of Win dust's." We went and saw Grimes. (Catling's account of this interview—see his evidence in chief—was put to the witness and denied by him.) On the fallowing day I saw Grimes at my house; I had no talk with him alone; myself and he and Catling were all together. Grimes did not say that £2. 000 ought to be found to pay Price's prize money. I did not say that Catling' ought to leave the country; on the contrary, I wanted him to stay and fight the thing out; we both of us had a perfect answer to the charge. There was a reference to £2,000; I understood it was suggested that £2,000 should be paid to Windust, and I said I would not find 2,000 pence.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I say that Windust started this" conspiracy "; he gave information to the police about Cowley and Price that has turned out to be false; he has been an enemy of mine since I commenced to expose him for carrying on bogus competitions in Holland. I started competitions in Holland in 1900; in 1901 I transferred the business to my son; in 1904 he sold it to Mackenzie, with whom was Windust as an assistant; on Mackenzie being prosecuted and locked up, in 1906. the business was put into Windust's name. In January, 1907, I began in the" Football Record" exposing Windust as a swindler; he did not bring an action for libel. In his own paper he denounced me as" a common gaolbird, a convicted sharper, a notorious welsher, outlawed and ostracised by all decent society." I attempted to take legal proceedings; I laid the facts before Scotland Yard and they did nothing; I consulted solicitor and counsel, and was advised that it was no use proceeding against a man of straw—I think I may call myself a rich man. I have made as' much as £30. 000 in one week out of coupon competitions; The money received from the public came, not in small sums, but quite large sums; sometimes £30 or £40 in a single cheque. I have known Cowley about two years. A person conducting these competitions has to be pretty wide awake and have experience in order to detect the tricks and frauds that are tried on. Catling when I first employed him to make inquiries had had no experience; but making inquiries and detecting frauds are different things; anyone can make inquiries he is directed to make; experience does not matter, so long as the

inquirer is trustworthy. When Cowley was employed to make inquiries I believed him to be trustworthy. I heard five or six years ago that Jones was a man of no moral balance. The letter produced from me to Mackenzie, dated October 30, 1908, is to the man I had denounced as "an exposed rogue"; it begins "Dear Mac"; I had forgiven him for the past, and was quite friendly with him. Klinge was my manager; I would not call him my confidential man; I had to trust him. and did.

(Friday, February 5.)

JOSEPH STODDART , recalled, further cross-examined. I telegraphed to Klinge to come over on September 28. By that time we had got the information and wanted him to give particulars as to what it was about. After he left the train at Herne Hill on the morning of the 29th and came up to my house by my instructions I saw him at about a quarter past nine, and told him I would prefer that he should go to my solicitors to make his statement. He said something about being mixed up with the Butterworth coupon and said he should prefer to see Mr. Catling, but he said he knew nothing about the Price case. Those were the only two cases included in the original information. I gave him the information to read and left him in my library whilst I had my breakfast and got dressed. After that I got my motor-car out and took him to town. I went to my office first. I opened my letters and then went round to Mr. Alpe's, when I found Catling. Catling said, "Klinge has been arrested." He said he had tried to meet Klinge at Herne Hill Station, but he was not there; he had not come. I did not understand that he had tried to meet him personally; I thought he had had someone there to meet him. I said, "You know a lot about it; Klinge is in my office," which is only a few yards away. Catling immediately rushed out of Mr. Alpe's room. I stayed with Mr. Alpe a few moments and then I went back to my office and found him and Klinge together. Then we all went round to Mr. Alpe's together. Klinge made some sort of statement to Mr. Alpe, but I do not know what it was because I was not there. I do not remember the statement being put in at the Mansion House and read by my counsel. Some remarks were made on his evidence, but I could not remember whether an admission was put in there. I could not say for certain Whether the document was put to him clause by clause. I believe he was told to mark it in red to distinguish what was true from what was untrue. I gave him no inducement to speak as to the Butterworth case. After he had read the information he said, "I was mixed up in the Butterworth affair, but I know nothing about Price." I told him that if he was mixed up with anything of that sort it was very disgraceful. I did not ask him any particulars as to the manner in which he had been mixed up in it. I had been advised to take him to my solicitors when I had caught him. I thought it better that a solicitor should deal with him than that I should. I did not suspect him of being mixed up with it before he

came. My solicitors wanted him to go to them direct. I said, "You had better let me get hold of him, because if he is supposed to come direct to you goodness knows who he will get into communication with" I did not suspect him. I did not go specifically into the details of the Butterworth case, but I said, "If there is anything wrong with the coupon competitions they will be stopped instantly; you will be sacked." Later in the day I gave Klinge some money—either £5 or £10. I handed him a cheque on my bank. I did not send him to the Bank of England to change a £20 note. I see that the note produced, which was drawn from my account on September 29, has been cashed at the Bank of England. Klinge did not bring me back gold for that note. Whatever the amount of the cheque was he had it all. He would want it for his wages; Catling had not been over. It is absolutely untrue that I sent Klinge to cash that £20 note into gold and that I did so in order that he might know what the practice was with regard to changing notes at the Bank of England. I remember that the story which was put to Cowley in cross-examination by my counsel was that he and Klinge met on June 16 and that Klinge went to the Bank of England with Butterworth's £100 note and changed it into gold. I believed that story was based on the statement of Klinge to my solicitors. Klinge, if he had stuck to that story, might have been called as a witness and cross-examined as to the details of his cashing that note. If he had never been to the Bank of England and cashed a note in his life he would not know what to say, but he has been in England so often and I expect been there so many times that he is quite as much an Englishman as a Dutchman; he speaks English and knows English ways.

Mr. Muir. Did you hear Klinge say at the Mansion House that he had never cashed a Bank of England note in his life until he cashed that £20 note?

Mr. Abinger objected that this was an attempt—he would not say an illegitimate attempt—to get in evidence.

The Recorder thought Mr. Muir was not entitled to pat to the witness the deposition of Klinge.

Mr. Muir said that Klinge had made a statement to his solicitor, and upon that statement Cowley was cross-examined. The question arose whether that statement was a true one or not.

The Recorder: Klinge was examined as I understand and partially cross-examined and then absconded. The objection taken by Mr. Abinger is that you are seeking to get before the jury the evidence given by one of your own witnesses who has absconded. That cannot be done.

Mr. Muir submitted that it did not matter where the statement was made or how. If, in fact, Klinge made statements contradictory to the statement upon which Cowley was cross-examined, the mere fact that he made them upon oath and at the police court did not render them inadmissible.

The Recorder: You can put to him in cross-examination any statement in writing you may have by another witness; very often evidence is obtained in that way with regard to what a person has said; but I think it is quite a different thing to place before the jury the evidence of a witness for the Crown who has absconded.

Mr. Muir: I am going to suggest the circumstances under which he absconded.

The Recorder: Even supposing he had not absconded and was here giving the evidence which he gave before the magistrates, he would be an accomplice, and his evidence would require to be corroborated. Now you are seeking to get indirectly

before the jury his statements upon oath, and you are going to ask the jury to accept them an facts. Even if he were here I should have to tell the jury that his evidence, unless it was corrobated in material particulars, was evidence they ought not to act upon.

Cross-examination continued. Klinge gave evidence on October 15. On October 17 my daughter Jessie was in Holland and saw Klinge. He demanded his wages—I think three or four months' wages in lieu of notice. So far as I know the only persons who have seen Klinge since are Stockley and Pleydell, both of whom were competing for my business. I daresay I have known Pleydell for two years. I have not employed him to make inquiries for me but he has done commissions for me in the ring; he is a betting man. Pleydell himself has told me that he and Klinge went into figures as to the value of the business. Pleydell has a business of his own in the Haymarket as "J. and H. Drew," and he wanted to have my place as a foreign office. I did not know that Pleydell is a convicted forger who has done penal servitude until Inspector Collison indiscreetly shouted it out at the Mansion House. I thought before that he was a gentleman; he always acted as such when he was with me. As to his having been sentenced to eight years' penal servitude on July 22, 1895, this is the first time I have heard the length of time or the date. I was very much surprised when I did hear of it. I have never heard of other convictions. It would be almost immediately after October 17 that Pleydell was in Holland because I did not then know whether I would sell my business or shut it down. I am not aware that Pleydell played any part in the disappearance of Klinge. The question was put to him at the Mansion House and he denied it. I believe Pleydell is now at Monte Carlo. I do not consider him rather lacking in moral balance; he is not married. I say Jones was lacking in moral balance because he was unmarried and had three establishments. Of course, the mere fact of Pleydell not being married does not prevent him having half a dozen establishments. Pleydell had no commission to execute from me with regard to Klinge. As to Jones, who has also disappeared, I can prove that I have made every effort to find him. If Catling's story is true Jones is the man who cashed the £100 note; but I can prove it is not true; I have letters from Mrs. Jones. If Jones disappeared on September 29, the date on Which Klinge says he cashed the £100 note, that may be a coincidence. Jones was a director of Catling's company. I should not think he was very wealthy. He was wealthy enough to keep a motor-car. He has had more or less conjugal ties of threefold strength; I cannot say whether 'he has left them all; he has left one. I believe he disappeared before Klinge arrived in England. Mrs. Jones is going to be called again and will prove it in the witness-box. It is not true that I said to Catling on September 24," You must leave the country to-night; you must not receive that summons." It is not true that I lent Catling my motor-car in order that he might go and see Jones. Catling has his own motor-car. All the friends have motor-cars. Cattermole has a motor-car and keeps it in the garage adjoining his house. It is absolutely untrue that I was instrumental in getting

Jones out of the way. I have made most strenuous endeavours to get him here. I have not been instrumental in getting Klinge out of the way, nor have I tried to get Catling out of the way. I said in examination-in-chief that I had been proceeded against in respect of illegal businesses on several occasions and that I had been successful in every case except one. I was asked about the case in which the City Solicitor prosecuted me. I was convicted at the Mansion House on March 1, 1901, for offences against the Betting Act, and fined £5 on each of two summonses; that was the AntiGambling League. On March 7, 1901, there was another conviction, with a fine of £100 and 20 guineas costs; still the Anti-Gambling League. We were fighting the case on the interpretation of the Betting Act. On April 30 I was sentenced to six months for the same offence; that was still the Anti-Gambling League; I never served it, as I obtained a medical certificate that I was unable to serve. Dr. Scott, the medical officer of Brixton Prison, and a gentleman of great reputation, was one of my medical attendants, and the Home Secretary in September withdrew the warrants. 'In the meantime, in July, I had attended my daughter's wedding with my doctor to look after me. I attended the wedding breakfast; they said I made a speech. I remember very little about it. I was photographed in the garden; it did not look very much like my photograph. On July 25, 1901, there was another conviction under the Lottery Act at this Court. That was the second time I had a tussle with the City Solicitor. In the previous one I had beaten him twice over. I won on the appeal before Mr. Justice Wright and Baron Pollock. I used to keep a file of "Racing Record"; I have not got it now. It was taken away by Mr. Catling, I think. A lot of things were taken away from our office. I think the police are in possession of it now. I think you are wrong in saying that of the nine winners named in No. 25 eight are bogus. I say the names of winners published on May 6, Barnes, Collier, Collings, Farrell, Jones, and Rowley, are all bogus. In the Butterworth case I say that two of the names are bogus. I do not think Funnell is a right one; he is too lucky. I think I know where the conspiracy is now. Mr. Funnells offices at 23, Great St. Helens, are in the same building with the firm of Arnold and Co., which is the betting agency of a man named Smallman. Smallman is running a coupon competition at Middelburg. The matter was reported to me, and I said I thought Smallman should not be coming into my office too much, not that I suspected him, but I thought it was not right to have a competitor in and out of my office, and I think that is where Funnell got his coupons in. I do not say there would be many clerks in the office who are acquainted with Smallman. Butterworth I should like to have inquired into if I had a chance. The one I think may be right is Hierti. With regard to the announcement of winners which appears on May 6, the last date of posting would be Tuesday, April 28, at midnight, so that they would reach Middelburg not later than Wednesday. The subscriptions were at that time banked in Holland, and if I wanted any money from my Dutch bankers I just told them to send a draft on London for any specific

contest for whatever amount I required, £600, £500, £200. I cannot tell what was the subscription for that race, and ray banking account in London does not give me the slightest indication. After February, 1908, the money was all banked in England. As May 6 was a Wednesday, the results might have come ever on the Tuesday or the Monday. It must have been previously to May 6. We did not keep the results sent to the printer. We only had the copy sent back from the printer, when we had a number of consolation winners, whose names and addresses were not printed. Then Klinge would verify the names and addresses instead of taking them from the printed copy. Klinge kept records of how much money came in. I had no need to show it to Catling at all; he was not a partner. There was a record sent from Holland of the amount of subscriptions for each competition. The only record were the slips from the bank. When it was verified the bank would have no further use for it. I have no documentary evidence to show whether a profit or loss was made on that race. I can trace the amounts Catling brought over, but they do not represent the actual receipts in any one competition. As to the sealing of the envelopes in which the banknotes were sent out, I do not think I ever licked one in my life. I have an objection to it. Seeing that successful competitors get the prizes is, of course, a very important part of the business. No sealing-wax was used. The envelopes were wetted and stuck up in the ordinary way. Not only do I dislike doing that, but after the banknotes had been put in the envelopes Miss Gardiner had to put some literature in. That was the last thing that was put in, and then she fastened them. When she hack registered them she brought the registration receipts hack. When Mr. Catlin did it he was supposed to bring them back, but he was not checked. The register receipts were kept in a drawer in the office. When Miss Gardiner came back she put them with the papers connected with the competition. I did not keep a postage book. Our staff was a very small one and we knew each other's work. If Catling posted them I should not think it necessary to check him. With all my experience I trusted him as I would have trusted my own wife to do it. We started in September of this year to keep a record of the numbers of the banknotes sent out, not before. We did not send receipt forms as a rule to the competitors. If receipts were sent they were sent back to Holland; I never saw them any more. I never drew anything front the bank for D'Avyet's Contest, No. 17. The date mentioned for payment was October 22, 1907. When my daughter went over in October, 1908, she took possession of all the books and papers that were left. The place was in a dreadful state. Everything was torn up and the books partially destroyed. I never suspected D'Avyet until he did not ask for his money; I thought that was rather funny. The printer's copy, which seems to have been mercifully preserved, shows an entry in Klinge's handwriting that D'Avyet was a genuine-winner. I did not suspect D'Avyet for perhaps a couple of months afterwards, when he did not turn up for his money. I did not take any steps to investigate the matter; I thought I would wait to see

if he did turn up. The D'Avyet coupon would be destroyed with the others when they were useless; they were generally destroyed about every two or three months. I should not like to say that the letter from D'Avyet asking that his prize money should be sent to the Grand Hotel, Paris, is palpably in Klinge's handwriting; it has a certain resemblance, for instance, in the word "rules." (The Jury examined the handwriting.) The letter from D'Avyet was found during the course of this case amongst a mass of other correspondence, which was put in a bag. When I sold the business I was allowed to take my private correspondence away, which had been accumulating for a long time. It was quite by accident that it happened to be preserved. The literature was the last thing put into an envelope containing prize money, because I thought I would like to have a witness that the money was put in. I am not yet convinced that this was a bogus claim, though the writing of the D'Avyet letter has a resemblance to Kinge's. I can suggest no intelligible reason why the man should not have gone to the post office and got the money. He may be dead; he may be drowned; heaps of things—I do not know. I say that no person was acting in conspiracy with me. If D'Avyet had been acting in conspiracy with somebody else he might not go for it if he got a hint that there was something wrong. I have heard Catling's story that Klinge was in fact D'Avyet, and went down to Ramsgate to personate him with a cap and jacket purchased at Hope Brothers' to make him appear to be a yachting man. If I had known it to be a bad claim I should have divided the money amongst the other competitors. As to Browning, I kept back the amount of his prize money because I queried his coupon. I believe it was queried in Holland first. I gave the cheque to Catling to post, and when I asked him afterwards if it had gone all right he said, "Yes. "

Mr. Muir. The plain suggestion there is that Catling is a thief.

Witness. Well, I am in a very awkward position. He is my son-in-law, and every stab at him cuts my daughter. I have no registered letter, nothing to show that that money was ever sent at all; only his word. I cannot say what the deduction of £15 was for. It might have been for the "Drew" business. I did not know he was a bogus winner at the time; I know it now. My opinion is that the deduction was made in order to throw dust in my eyes. As to the Roe transaction, I adhere to my statement that Roe told me he was a winner as Rowlandson; he did not "allow" me to deduct from the £150 £145; I did it without his permission; we did not part very good friends, and I did not see him again till he appeared against me in this case. To the best of my belief Klinge was in London on June 16, 1908; I would not like to pledge my oath about it; I know he was here in Ascot week. As to the Butterworth coupon, I obtained only on Saturday last certain letters written by Jones to his wife saying that he had written that coupon. My belief is that Jones cashed the £100 note under dictation and compulsion; I would rather not say whom I suspect, but Jones was Catling's manager. I cannot say exactly when I first began to suspect that Catling was a party to the putting forward of these bogus coupons; it was after the case

started, as the evidence began to widen. In the early stages of the business Catling was quibbling about having a separate barrister; I said, "If you leave the question of defence to me, we will have a good barrister to defend us both." I did not say, "You did not post the letters, and you did not receive the registered letter from Cowley." I never discussed the Butterworth matter with him at all. I did not say, "You will hear in court our defence—follow the lead." I did say to Catling that I would tell something that would make his name ring through London. If you really want to know what I meant it was this. He had been very seriously mixed up with one of the originators and assistants in the pirated music business two years ago; it was a source of great annoyance to us all, and it was with considerable difficulty that he was kept out of the case; nobody knew who was at the bottom of that business; it was Jones and Catling.

Re-examined. Catling came into partnership with me on October 1, 1907; prior to that date no single charge had ever been made against me of running bogus competitions or providing bogus winners. On my oath I never had anything to do with providing bogus winners; I was under no financial necessity to be. I had established a reputation for conducting honest competitions. The total amount suggested in these charges is about £500; I was not in want of any such amount; between October 1, 1907, and October 1, 1908, I drew out of my bank £16,500 in notes and £5,800 in gold to pay prizewinners with.

(Monday, February 8.)

JOSEPH STODDART , recalled, further re-examined. On September 4, when I had an interview with Price, I did not know that the Stanhope coupon was bogus. I had not looked at the coupons. I never knew it until September 24, when I was served with the summons in this case. When Price called at my office I challenged him as to the correctness of the whole of the coupons. I did not know the Dawson coupon was bogus until these proceedings started. I discovered exchange slip (Exhibit 132) on October 28, when I had sold my business and offices and my documents were taken to fotest Lodge. I cleared out the first week in November. I was last in Holland in January, 1907. The Butterworth coupon was also found when we were clearing out the offices. All these papers were found before we knew anything about Browning. I heard of Browning on November 12. Those which had been mentioned we searched for and found immediately and they were handed to the solicitor and have been put in evidence. These are the original receipts for the consolation prizes in the Browning competition. We also found the deductions; that of £1 3s. in competition 37, March 23, 1908, and others are all in Klinge's writing. I think the deduction of £15 in Browning's case has been made to throw dust in my eyes. It was a bogus winner, and those who were interested in it knew I was making inquiries. The deductions only come when we are going to pay the money. I should naturally, if a man was going to deduct

some money for betting purposes, think that he would be a legitimate winner. I have had nothing to do with the disappearance of Klinge. I employed ex-Inspector Downs, from whom I received report produced, to watch his movements, and I instructed Mr. Terry in Middelburg to watch Mrs. Klinge. Downs employed Williams to watch Jones; Miss Jessie Stoddart and Miss Gardiner and others have been trying to trace his movements up to the time the trial started. Flowerdew's have also been employed. In August I Was living at Maidenhead. Catling came there repeatedly to discuss the profits and account produced was made out at that time. It is in my writing. Catling had a copy. Cheque October 7, 1907, for £17 was given to Catling for expenses; he bad such cheques every week. He took over the management from the beginning of October, 1907. I think that is the first Cheque; it included wages of the Dutch clerks. November 1, £7 10s., is a similar payment to Catling; November 14, £13 14s. 3d., is a similar cheque. Some weeks I gave him cash or bank notes. On October 15 and 22 and November 10 Klinge received £15 each week for wages—Catling took those cheques over. The wages of the Dutch clerks would vary. On November 20 Catling received £11 2s. and Klinge £15; they would be wages and expenses. The total payments to Catling to November 24 amount to £74 6s. 3d. Those amounts appear in the pass book, but I have not the cheques or counterfoils; counterfoils are destroyed after a few months. I get through 200 cheque books in a year. £376 would be too much for four or five weeks' profits; that amount included three weeks before November 27. Cheque for £105 on April 23 could not have been given to buy postal orders for consoleation prizes. At that date we were running the racing competition, in which there were no consolation prices. This also applies to the payment of £130 on June 10. On June 19, when Catling paid £90 in gold into has bank, three days after the Butterworth £100 is cashed at the bank, there was no necessity for me to give him that money in gold and I did not do so. I had difficulty in getting a copy of Catling's banking account. I taxed him with that payment. He said he could not explain it; he would endeavour to find out about it. I did not instruct my solicitors to cross-examine Cowley as to whether he had had the Butterworth £100, because I had not received Catling's banking account. Cheque for £100 of December 9 was given to Catling to pay Foster. It is quite untrue that it was for the consolation pries in the McNulty competition. In the McNulty competition there were 30 competitors sharing £100 and getting £3 6s. 8d. each. Exchange slip produced (Exhibit 147) was originally written by Miss Gardiner for a £100 note; that has been altered into 84 sovereigns and £16 in half-sovereigns—I do not know in whose writing. I am not, an expert in handwriting and should not like to give an opinion. Documents produced are in Catling's handwriting. The "8" on the exchange slip is very much like his figure. (A number of specimens of Catling's handwriting were handed to the Jury and examined.) The exchange slip was in the possession of the bank

and was handed to my solicitors directly I received it. To pay the 30 competitors £3 6s. 8d. each would require £90 in gold and £9 15s. in silver, the odd 2d. each being paid in penny stamps. The consolation prizes in the McNulty were settled on November 7. At that time my Dutch bank had sent me money which I had not passed into my English banking account and I provided the cash out of that money. I did not give the four £5 notes from the Collins prize to Catling. They were never in my possession. I had no knowledge that Robinson was providing fictitious names and being paid for it by Jones. (The Recorder said with regard to the Morris and Singer fraud, that must have 'been Jones's fraud.) That is a case where I was undoubtedly defrauded by Jones. At that date Catling was paying most of the prizes. In the Singer case I paid £40 for the prizes to Catling, and I distinctly remember he dealt with that because only 11 winners were returned and he said I had provided the wrong money. He said, "You made a double bloomer. I got you the correct money and then you went and sorted it wrong." I had nothing to do with the competition in which an empty envelope was sent to Morris. I paid the £400 and the money was dispatched by Catling. I knew Jones was betting with J. and H. Drew. I asked Miss Gardiner to stop it because it was a London account and I did not like London accounts. I knew that Klinge had been to Jones's house repeatedly. I never sent Klinge to rehearse the cashing of a banknote at the Bank of England in order that he should give false evidence. He cashed no note for me. I gave him a cheque for £20 which he cashed at my bank. I never sent him to change any notes or to get the Butterworth banknote. Stockwich went to Klinge at Middelburg to get particulars of my business, which he afterwards purchased. I never instructed him to get Klinge out of the way. My daughter Jessie went over on October 17, 1908, and settled up all the business. I received from Stockwich letter purporting to come from Defries; he handed it to my solicitor. Klinge was in London during Ascot week. He brought over a lot of cash in connection with the Ascot and the Royal Hunt Cup. To the best of my belief he was in London on June 16. Ascot is always a heavy meeting. Klinge arrived in London on Monday or Tuesday morning of Ascot week.

HUDSON, recalled. I produce £20 note No. 38494. The stamp with the cashier's initial shows that it was cashed over the counter.

HARRY HARDING , recalled. I produce books showing when the issues of "Football Record" were printed by my firm. As far as I know, we were in the habit of printing them week by week. I really could not say whether the issue has always been dated Saturday.

JAMES McROBERT , manager of the Argus Printing Company. I have had some 30 years' experience of the printing trade. "Football Record" of January 4, 1908, was an issue printed by my firm. Looking at the machine book, I see we commenced printing at eight o'clock on the morning of Thursday, January 2, 1908. We printed a few after that, but practically we finished on January 3. The working hours are from eight a.m. to seven p.m. The number of

runs that day was 4,500. No. 1 machine and No. 10 machine were in use doing different sides of the paper. Having regard to those entries, the "copy" must have been supplied at the latest on the Wednesday. I form that opinion because when we get the "copy" from Mr. Stoddart we have to set the type, and the typing and stereotyping would require over 10 hours. The proof must have passed through somebody's hands some time on the Wednesday. Of course, when once the stereo is cast it cannot be altered.

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. Friday was not the usual day we started printing. Looking at No. 29, which is dated December 21, I find the last date upon which claims may be received in Holland is Wednesday; that is marked in red. The results would be posted to reach us on the Thursday morning. We should not be able to start setting up the type until Thursday morning. I have no record to show how in this particular case it comes about the type was completely set the day before (Wednesday). I cannot remember 12 months ago. Assuming that we had information from Holland on the Wednesday, my record would be quite correct. I have no knowledge of how Mr. Stoddart gets his "copy." I am positive a proof was sent to Mr. Stoddart on January 1.

Re-examined. Our books, as tradesmen, are open to the inspection of the jury, whether we are printing for Stoddart or anybody else.

GWENDOLYN GARDNER , 78, Guilford Street, Russell Square. I entered Stoddart's employment as clerk 11 years ago. I left his employment, and after five years re-entered it three years ago. The earlier employment was at Red Lion Court and the later at 58, Fleet Street. I was with him when he started the "Football Record." Besides my duties with regard to "Football Record" I had duties in respect of J. and H. Drew, the betting business. The head offices of" Drew" were at Middelburg, where the cash was received. After Catling became associated with" Football Record" in 1907, Stoddart took a less active part in the business, leaving it to Catling and myself. My duties with regard to J. and H. Drew were to keep part of the books and attend to the correspondence. As regards the competitions, I paid the prize money and addressed the envelopes. After October, 1907, Catling had charge of the competition business, drew the cheques and received the money. Catling used to go to Middelburg on Friday night and return on Monday, bringing with him the queries and correspondence and whatever there was to bring from Klinge; sometimes he brought the postal orders. The winning competitors came by post from Klinge and were received sometimes on Wednesday, sometimes on Thursday. They would not be known when Catling left on the Sunday. Mr. Catling prepared the "copy" for the printers. The block for the" Football Record" was changed every week. One week the motto was "As sound as the Rock of Gibraltar," and next week something else. The blocks were done at Catling's office. As to the practice with regard to putting the prize money into the envelopes, if Mr. Stoddart was paying the money I would help him; if Mr. Catling paid the money he had his

own clerk, Mr. Jones, to help him to put the notes in. In the early part of 1907 this was done in our office; at the later period in Mr. Catling's. No post book was kept. Sometimes I posted registered letters and sometimes Catling did. I cannot say if Jones ever did; and if he posted letters from Catling they would not be posted from our office. Morris in one of the competitions was one of a dozen winners of £25. The amount was increased to £27 5s., but finally-altered back to £25 as the result of a re-search. The posting of the prizes in that particular competition was left to Catling. I have never been a party to sending a letter forward with nothing in it. When Stoddart put a large Bank-note into an envelope he would give the envelope to me, and before posting it I would put a yellow receipt from a "Drew" sheet and that week's coupon. The receipts, if any, would go to Middelburg. Klinge came over from Holland pretty frequently, perhaps every fortnight or three weeks. He has helped me to pay the prize money, and would take letters to the post just the same as I did, but the envelopes could all be traced to the Klinge posting. If Mr. Catling posted the letters I should not ask him for the receipts; I should take it for granted the letters had been posted. It was the practice for Klinge to make deductions both from the premier prize money and from the consolation money. £15 is a large deduction, and I do not think I remember one so large. I used the stamps that came over from Middelburg on the "wires." In case of an exchange slip I used to make it out, and the writing on the slip produced (Exhibit 131) is mine. I see that someone has struck out my handwriting and altered the manner in which the cheque was to be converted. I can express no opinion as to whose handwriting the alteration is in. I know I did not cash it because if I had done so I would have altered it in my own handwriting. I did not write the figures £100. He words "of Eight £5 notes" are not in my handwriting. Stoddart frequently went to the bank himself. I remember the D'Ayyet competition. I did not know at the time the prize money was not paid. It sometimes happened that when Klinge sent over on the Wednesday or the Thursday the winning competitions they were queried by the office. The payment of a queried winner would be left over. Stoddart generally drew the full amount of the prize winners, but I think on two occasions they were left to be inquired into. No books of account were kept in respect of the competition business. I kept part of the books of the Drew business; that was Mr. Stoddart's private affair. When Stoddart was away Catling provided me with money to pay "Drew" claimants. Two letters came from the person calling himself "D'Avyet." One I have been unable to find. I have searched for it at the Fleet Street office and at Forest Lodge. I quitted Mr. Stoddart's employment before the competition business was finally given up in November. Mr. Stoddart and Miss Stoddart took part in the search at Forest Lodge. We found numbers of prize winners done up in rolls, and the packet produced relating to the Browning contest. With regard to Cowley, from my knowledge of his appearance in the office I should not describe him as a bosom friend of Mr.

Stoddart. I never paid Cowley. I remember Cowley coming in June, 1908, but I cannot fix the date. Miss Stoddart came in while he was there. I went to tell Mr. Stoddart that Miss Stoddart was there, and as I did so I heard him say, "Get out." Stoddart was very angry. Cowley said, "If you do not give me £5 I know someone who will." Stoddart told Cowley he was to go out and never to let him see his face in the office again. Stoddart put Cowley out by the shoulders; I think he threw him out. After that disagreeable manipulation Cowley said, "You will be sorry for this." I remember that Klinge was over in the Ascot week. I never heard Stoddart instruct Cowley to go and get an address at Gravesend. Catling never paid anything himself in connection with the Drew business, but he has given me money to pay it when Stoddart has been away. In the months of July and August last year Stoddart had a house at Maidenhead, and only came to business occasionally. During that time Catling gave me several amounts to pay "Drew" winners. In particular I remember him giving me £50 in Bank of England notes to pay a cheque of Stoddart's that was returned by Wade because he had no banking account. The cheque was sent to Middelburg. I sent the notes to Wade. That is the only instance I remember of Stoddart's cheque coming back.

The Recorder. Are these notes referred to in the statement as cash?

Mr. Leycaster. No; we know nothing about them. This has come out since.

Mr. Abinger. These notes, which were paid to Wade, formed part of the Browning prize money.

Examination continued. I cannot remember the man Roe calling on Mr. Stoddart. I never saw him at all.

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. I recollect paying other sums to Wade, but not the amounts. The notes produced have all been passed through the bank at Earlsfield, where Wade lives. I cannot suggest any reason why, if they were sent to him in November, 1907, he should have kept them a whole twelvemonth. I do not keep any record of the numbers of the notes, I could not say whether those are the very notes I paid to Mr. Wade. I know I sent him the notes. I This business was transferred to someone else in October, and I ceased to be employed by Stoddart in October. I could not, therefore, have seen the notes in November, 1908. I cannot say whether the eight £5 notes produced are those I sent to Wade. It is not the fact that Stoddart produced the eight £5 notes and told me to pay the money to Mr. Wade. I received the money from Catling. Stoddart generally had a large sum of money in the office when he was there, whatever was required for the day; it might be £100 or it might be less. We never had much gold in the office—perhaps £20 or £25; always notes. A "wire" was sent to Middelburg every day at a cost of about 4s. per day. We never used the stamps attached to the postal orders. The bank gave us credit for them. I do not think the amount of stamps sent from Middelburg was more than about £2 per week, and what were not used for "wires" I used for

the parcels on Friday night. I do not know whether Catling had any remuneration from Stoddart in respect of "Racing Record." When Catling sent out the prizes he would send either Mr. Jones or Mr. Lennox to Stoddart's office for the envelopes.

(Tuesday, February 9.)

GWENDOLYN GARDNER , recalled, further cross-examined. I had known Cowley about two years. He was always very straight in his dealings with me, but he spoke against Catling and I did not like it. Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. If there had been any complaint with regard to non-delivery of the prize money the complaint would have come over from Middelburg at once. If any competitor had said, "I got a registered letter, but there was nothing in it but a circular," there was no record to show who was responsible. I could have remembered at the time, but I could not remember two years ago. I say that Catling was responsible for the payment of the prize in respect of the Browning coupon, because when he came into, the business he paid the prizes himself, both the consolation and the premier. I do not remember that Stoddart made any of the payments after that—at all events, for some months. There is no record in the office of any person signing as being responsible for putting the bank notes into the envelopes. There was no record of who posted the registered letters. It would, of course, be possible to open a registered letter 'by steaming. I do not think it was important to have some person responsible for the letters being intact. Stoddart paid the prizes and I always posted the letters. I believe Klinge has posted some, but there is no record to show whether I or Klinge posted them, but, of course, if the winners had not received their money they would have complained. Sealing wax was never used. Whether the competitions resulted in a profit or a loss had nothing to do with the matter. I never saw any return from Middelburg showing what the amount of the subscriptions to the competitions was. I believe a book was kept in which the expenses of the competitions were entered, but I had nothing to do with that and have no idea what it was like. Sheets were kept showing what had been expended on the competitions. To my knowledge, no book was kept which showed the total expenses of each contest. I know Klinge's handwriting. I do not think the D'Avyet letter, "I, the undersigned, S. W. D'Avyet, yacht Marque, hereby authorise Mrs. Fogg to receive any letters," is in Klinge's handwriting. In the address on the envelope, "G. W. D'Avyet, yacht Marque," the "D" locks like his handwriting, but I could not say whether the other is or not. I do not know Jones's writing very well and cannot say if the D'Avyet letter is written by him. The letter purporting to come from D'Avyet from an hotel in Paris looks like Klinge's writing. I cannot say whether Klinge was in London in September, 1907, or on October 28, 1907. It is too long ago to remember and I have no means of fixing the date. I am sure he was in London in the Ascot week of 1908 for one or two days. I remember it was in

Ascot week because it was a very heavy week. We discussed the starting prices for the Hunt Cup, which was won by Billy the Verger. Catling has looked after the proofs generally since October, 1907.

Re-examined. The form of the coupon was changed in October, 1907, and the new heading devised by Catling, and contains the name of D'Avyet as a prize-winner. Catling spoke in a slighting manner of Stoddart on two or three occasions, and familiarly to the clerks as" Joe." He spoke of him as if he did not like him. I do not know that Windust wrote to Catling," We will have a bottle of the best when Stoddart is in the dock. "

FERDINAND MARCUS COLLINGS , solicitor, Buckingham Street. On August 28, of last year, I was in the "Opera Tavern," Haymarket, in company with Mr. Hyde and three or four other men. There was a considerable number of people in the bar. Hyde is in a nursing home at 51, Welbeck Street, and absolutely unable to come here. I have met Cowley several times; he was at the" Opera Tavern" on this particular date. While I was there Mr. Windust came in. I had been introduced to him by a Mr. Lindsey. Some conversation-took place between us. He told a good many funny stories. Then somehow or other the name of Stoddart came up. Windust was abusive, and said that every night of his life he prayed for the death of that b—Stoddart, but God did not love him; that was how he finished up. He talks fairly loudly. He was not drunk; he was quite sober; it was at 11 o'clock in the morning. After that Windust went over to the corner of the bar where Cowley was sitting down, and without lowering his voice at all said, leaning over his chair, "Now then, Oowley, have you made up your mind to do what I asked? If you do I can 'shop' the b—"; of course, he meant by that he could do him a bad turn, put him away. Windust also said to Cowley, "I will look after you; you know I can and will." I heard this put to Cowley in cross-examination. He admitted part of it As to Klinge, I think I only saw him once, by the side of the Mansion House. It was during the morning before the sitting of the Court. He was in company with Windust. I only knew Klinge through him being pointed out to me. I would not like to swear really that it was Klinge, but I think it was. He was with two other men and Windust. I am afraid I cannot fix the date of this. It was before Klinge went into the witness-box at the Mansion House. I had been subpoeaned by Stoddart.

Mr. Muir: I suppose this evidence is admissible on the ground of his being a conspirator with Windust.

The Recorder: I suppose that is the object of it; you do not object to it?

Mr. Muir: I assume that is the object with which it is put forward.

The Recorder: The foundation of Mr. Abinger's case is that his client has himself been the subject of a conspiracy, and I presume he is calling this witness to support that part of the case.

Mr. Muir: It will necessitate my calling rebutting evidence to show what the fact was.

Mr. Abinger: I submit that Mr. Muir cannot conduct the case in that way. The Recorder: I should have thought the only remedy was to prosecute this man for perjury. Mr. Muir: Possibly his answer to perjury would be that he had made a mistake.

Witness. I said I would not like to swear to the man, because this is the first time I have seen him, but I thought he was the man. I am certain he is the man, but I could not swear to it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I saw Klinge in the witness-box. To the best of my knowledge that was the same man I saw in Mansion House Place that morning.

JAMES HENRY FOSTER , manager, Peckham branch, London, City and Midland Bank, produced a certified copy of Stoddarts account, and said he had known Stoddart eight or nine years as a man who had fulfilled his obligations honourably and straightforwardly. The account had been a very large one. Between October 1, 1907, and October 31, 1908, £16,400 had been paid out in notes and £5,648 in money.

ADA JANE STODDART , wife of prisoner Stoddart. My daughter married Catling in 1902. I have one other unmarried daughter, Jessie. I remember the summons being served on September 24. Mr. Grimes came to the house on the following day about five o'clock in our motor car. He had never been to the house before. My busband was not in. Grimes said he would like to see Mr. Catling. I said I thought the might be at home by this time and should I send down the car for him. Catling lives near us. Grimes said it was a good idea, so I sent the car, and Catling shortly afterwards came back with my daughter. Whilst we were waiting for Catling Grimes told me he had been to see Windust at Esher. My son-in-law and Grimes went into the drawing-room and my daughter and I went into the dining-room. In about 20 minutes my husband arrived with my daughter Jessie. I think they walked up. My husband came into the dining-room and I told him that Catling and Grimes were talking together in the drawing-room and my husband went in to speak to them. Afterwards they all three came out into the dining-room and joined us. Grimes said, "It is getting late; I must be getting back. What I should like to see would be Charlie Windust and Joe (Stoddart) have a good dinner together." Then Stoddart said to Catling," You must be catching your boat." Grimes turned to Catling and said, "I should not go if I were you. From what I heard this afternoon there is a warrant out and you would be arrested." Grimes then said that if £2,000 could be paid Catling would be out of this case. I asked whom it would be paid to. He merely shrugged his shoulders and said he did not know. My husband said, "I shall pay no £2,000. I have a perfect answer to any charge that may be brought against me." To that Grimes did not say anything. That was the end of the interview and they walked away, In the meantime Catling had gone home in the car. It is not true that my husband said to Catling, "You must leave the country to night." After they had gone my husband was very much upset and went to bed. This would be about a quarter past seven. The boat train leaves at nine o'clock. Jessie and I had a chat together and Mr. and Mrs. Catling returned later. Jessie being present, Mr. Catling said, "Do you think Mr. Stoddart will give that £2,000?" I said, "You heard what he said when you were here

before; I am sure he will not." Catling said he would have to get £2,000, and he said he was to let Grimes know before 11 o'clock at the "Empress" Music Hall. I sent one of the maids up to fetch Mr. Stoddart and he came down and said he had a perfect answer and he did not fear anything that Windust might say. Mrs. Catling said, "Well, if dad won't give the money, my jewels can be sold or my home or anything, if it means your liberty." Catling then told Grimes at the" Empress" that he would be with him in about half an hour. What was discussed in this conversation was how Catling was to be dropped out of the case; no mention was made of Mr. Stoddart being dropped out of it.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I was present in court when Grimes gave evidence. Inspector Collison did not call my attention to the fact that Grimes was giving evidence and say that if I was to give evidence I ought to leave the court. (Inspector Collison was put forward for identification.)

JESSIE STODDART . daughter of prisoner Joseph Stoddart. On September 24, when the summons was served, I came home with my father about half-past six. My father went into the drawing-room to Grimes and Catling and I went into the dining-room and remained with my mother and sisters. When my father, Grimes, and Catling came out of the drawing-room there was a lot of conversation. Grimes said, "From what I have heard this afternoon if £2,000 is forthcoming Mr. Catling's name will be dropped out of it altogether." The £2,000 was to be found the next morning. My father said, "I shall not pay a penny piece, as I have a perfect answer to all these charges." My mother said, "Who is this £2,000 going to be paid to?" Grimes shrugged his shoulders and said, "What I should like to see would be this man, Charlie Windust, and your father have a good dinner together and make it up." My father said, "Come along, Fred; it is time to catch your train. Catling turned round to Grimes and said, "Shall I go?" Grimes said, "No; from what I bear this afternoon you will be arrested if you do go." My father said, "You must go, Fred, because you know business over there is entirely at a standstill." Then Catling said, "I shall not go."" If you do not, somebody must." It is not true that my father said, "If you leave the country to-night it will be said that you are flying from justice." Grimes and Catling then left the house. Mr. and Mrs. Catling returned about half-past 10. My father had gone to bed. He was brought down in his dressing-gown. Catling said, "Will you pay this money, this £2,000," Joe?" My father said, "No, I will not, Fred." My father went upstairs and Catling turned to my mother and said, "Do you think: Mr. Stoddart will pay this money?" My mother said, "You have heard what he said and if he says no, he means it." Catling said, "Well, I must get this £2,000, and I shall have a bill of sale on my business." My sister said, "Well, Fred, it means your liberty. I will sell my jewels." Then he got on to the telephone to Grimes. Nobody went to Holland that night. Before the summons was returnable on October I at the Mansion House. I myself tried to find Jones's

address. I continually asked Catling for his address. Jones had a small tricycle which he used to keep in Catling's little garage. I tried to trace that motor-car, but could not find it. I was quite a month trying to find Jones before I went to see Mrs. Jones. Having traced Jones by his motor-car, I started watching the house where Mrs. Jones lived at 76, Elmsley Road, Wandsworth. A detectivenamed Williams took a room opposite and I myself kept observation on the house for three or four hours at a time. I never saw Jones go into his wife's house. Besides myself, Williams kept observation. I also employed Captain Gardner and another detective named Walford. Having failed to find Jones I called on Mrs. Jones on Nov. 6. I was anxious to find him because I thought he knew everything. I was anxious that my father's innocence should be established. I had also kept observation upon Catling because I thought that Jones having been his manager would come to his house. I saw Mr. Jones go to his house twice. During this period I had conversation with Catling. I went to ask him for an explanation of why he had treated my father in the manner he had done. He said, "I have got myself in a hole, Jessie, and I have got to get myself out at any cost." This was at his own house. He was there with his wife and Mr. and Mrs. Lawson, friends of his. I said to him, "I want an explanation why you have had my father's servant, Klinge, over, and had him in your father's garden all day long in the summer house?" I do not exactly know what reply Catling made to that, but during the conversation he said, "Get your father away; get him away to-night; take your car, get him to Dover, get him anywhere; he has got plenty of money." I said, "Why don't you go? You are the guilty one and you know it." He tried to frighten me by saying my father would be arrested in the morning at 11 o'clock. He did not tell me he had already been to the police. I said, "If my father is the guilty one, as you say, where is your proof?" He said, "Jessie, the greatest proof we have is that with that Butterworth money he went to the Argus Printing Company and paid their bill of £100." I have since ascertained that he had made that statement that day to the police. Mrs. Lawson turned round and said, "Oh! Jessie, do get your father away." After that I went, saying that I would tell my father what had been said. I remember being in my father's office in June or July last year when something happened with regard to Cowley. Miss Gardner told me someone was talking to my father in the front room and I said, "Well, you tell him that I am here." She went to the door, and as she knocked the door opened. There was a lot of scuffling going on, and I heard Cowley say, "If you do not give me £5 I know somebody who will." My father said, "Leave this office; never let me see your face in it again," and pushed him out. Cowley said, "You will be sorry for this." I went over to Holland twice, the first time on Tuesday, October 13. I went over to see Mr. Klinge to ask him what he was doing to the business, and to ask him why he had drawn £100 out of my father's bank without authority. When I arrived there and went to my father's office I was let in by Defries. I went into the inner room and handed him a letter from my father

giving me authority to go there and take full possession of the office. Mr. Defries took the letter. I said, "Where is Mr. Klinge?" He said, "He has gone to Rotterdam about his harp." Defries spoke fairly good English. The office was in a terrible state; papers and letters were littered about and coupons torn up. Mrs. Klinge came in and I put the same question to her. I next went over to Holland on the 17th. I saw Klinge at Herne Hill Station but did not speak to him. We crossed in the same boat, and I spoke to him on the boat. I said to him," What have you done?" He replied, "I am very sorry, Miss Jessie, for what I have done. I was with Mr. Catling on Monday, and he said it was best for me to do as I did as we had to save ourselves." I said, "I think it is very wrong of you if you are doing this to save yourselves to put it all on to my father." Klinge promised to meet me next morning at the office in Middelburg, but when I arrived at my hotel I found a letter from his solicitor stating that Klinge could not possibly see me, and whatever business I had with him I must do through his solicitor. I went to the office on the following morning, the 17th. It had then been swept up and cleaned. I saw Klinge at the office of his Dutch solicitor. I spoke in French because the solicitor did not understand English. I said I had come over to stop the business and to give the clerks their dismissal. The solicitor said I could not do so unless I gave compensation to Klinge, and I would have to sign a paper saying I would do so before I could go into the office. The Dutch law is that you cannot give a man who holds a responsible position a week's notice; you always have to give him six weeks' notice; so as Klinge had £4 a week I had to give him £24 in lieu of notice. Having signed the paper I was given the key of the office by Klinge, and went in accompanied by the detective Walford and Miss Gardner. There I had to argue with the solicitor to got Mr. Klinge to sign a paper, so that I might be permitted to draw the money out of the bank. He signed that, I went, and everything was satisfactory. That is the last time I saw Klinge. On October 13 I met Catling in Fleet Street. I said, "Look here, Fred, where is Jones? You must know." He said, "It's no good, Jessie; you will never find him now; he's gone to New York. I want you to tell your father that I am from to-day the bitterest enemy he has got. As I have got into a hole I must save myself. "

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. This is the first time I have given in evidence my account of my interviews with Catling.

Cross-examined by Mr., Muir. I went over to Holland to close up" the business there. I have had no experience of the business.

LOUISA GILBERT . My husband was formerly in the Royal Horse Artillery riding establishment at Woolwich. I was for some time in the service of Catling as a. maid. I remember Jones calling and seeing Catling on September 26. I heard Catling say to Jones that "he must pay the money "; the amount mentioned was either £200 or £2,000. On the next day Jones called. I heard Catling say to him that it was too late to pay the money; it had got into the police's hands. In the evening Catling said to me that Jones had eased

his mind and he could eat a good dinner. On the 29th Catling told me that Jones had gone away, and that if he was found he would tell a lie to get Catling out of it if Catling was in a corner. On October 11 a telegram came from Holland, and on October 12 Klinge and another man came and saw Catling. In the evening Stoddart came and saw Mrs. Catling. He said to her, "I want Fred. Why won't he come and face it out? He is not man enough to face me. He has had the money, tell me where he is, Maggie." She said she did not know where Catling was. I have never seen Stoddart and his daughter on bad terms; he has not in my presence cursed her or threatened to disown her; it is not true that he caught her by the arm and twisted it; it was hurt in a motor accident. Stoddart never struck me in my life. On October 20 Catling came down in the kitchen and said to me," Louie, if I was in a hole would you help me out of it?" I laughed and said, "Yes, sir; I would stand bail for you." He said, "Well, I want you to go to Court and say that Mr. Stoddart hit you." I said, "No, sir; I shall tell a lie for nobody." He said, I should have to go and I said I would not Mrs. Catling, who was present, said, "Neither of us will go, and if I hear any more of it I shall go and tell dad everything; there have been enough lies already in the case." On November 6 Mrs. Jones came. On November 8 Jones's brother came and saw Mrs. Catling; she afterwards told me that he had come for help for Jones; that Catling had asked Inspector Collison whether he might help him; that Collison had said "Yes," but only for charity; and that Catling had given £1. On the morning of November 6 Mrs. Catling called me into her bedroom; she told me that it was in the papers about me being struck by Mr. Stoddart, also herself; that it was an untruth and she was not going to have it, and was going to write to Collison. She did write a letter and I posted it. I saw the letter and read it. I forgot; I did not post it. Mrs. Catling said she would not write it now, because if this got into the hands of anyone they would not believe another word Catling said. (The letter was," The statement made by my husband that my father twisted my arm is wrong; my arm was twisted, but not on the occasion mentioned I write this in defence of my father. Mr. Catling must have misunderstood.")

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. I am now doing nothing; I live with my husband; he keeps me; we have his furlough money; he was a driver in the Royal Horse Artillery; I have come up here from Derby, upon a wire from Mr. Alpe. I made a statement to him the night after I left the Catlings. I first went to Mrs. Stoddart and told her that the statement I had seen in the paper that Stoddart had struck me was untrue; she told me to go to Mr. Alpe. With regard to the letter, when Mrs. Catling decided not to post it I gave it her back; she threw it in the dustbin and I picked it out again.

HUDSON, recalled, produced the eight £5 notes in connection with the Browning case; they were paid in to the Bank of England, through the L. and S. W. Bank, Earlsfield branch, on November 6, 1908.

Mrs. JANET JONES, recalled. I first made a statement to Mr. Alpe and Stoddart last Saturday week. I went to Stoddart voluntarily and he took me to Mr. Alpe. On the night of September 28 I and my husband had retired to bed at 10 o'clock; we were awakened about 12 by a ring at the bell. My husband went and answered at the front door of the flat; I distinctly heard a voice say, "I want you"; Jones returned to me and said, "It's Catling, damn him." Jones then dressed and went into the hall. In about an hour he came back again; he said to me, "Stoddart won't pay that £2,000"; I said, "What's the matter with Mr. Catling then?" Jones said, "He has got the fear of God on his head. "Jones then told me to rise at six. o'clock, as he had got to meet Klinge at Herne Hill Station by the boat train. He left about 6.30 or seven, and I have never seen him since. Miss Stoddart has several times called on me and begged and implored me to find Jones. On last Saturday week I handed to Mr. Alpe a bundle of letters I have received from my husband; I did that because I thought Jones was getting a very bad name through this, and also I knew Stoddart was, so I would do what I could to save him. The reason I did not do it earlier was because I have known Catling for many years, and I did not want it to be through me that he fell.

Mr. Abinger tendered in evidence one of the letters written to witness by her husband.

The Recorder ruled that a letter written by an alleged co-conspirator, after he had absconded from just i.e. could not be admitted.

Cross-examined by Mr. Elliott. When I gave evidence here before I had not these letters with me; I had not then bad any communication with Stoddart or with Mr. Alpe.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. When my husband left home on the 29th I had no notion that he was going to leave me; he just said good-bye in the ordinary way.

(Defence of Catling.)

FREDERICK ERNEST CATLING (prisoner, on oath). I am the son of thomas Catling, for fifty years editor of" Lloyd's News." I have for 14 years carried on at 76, Fleet Street, under the style of Catling and Co., Limited, the business of process engravers; I am a Freeman of the City; this is the first time in my life that I have been placed in a position of this kind. In 1902 I married Stoddart's daughter; under the marriage settlement my wife is secured of £200 a year—£100 provided by Stoddart and £100 by me; for some years Stoddart in addition gave my wife £2 a week pin money. When, in 1907, I joined Stoddart in these competition's, I was financially quite independent of him. In October of that year I saw Stoddart; he said that the business in Holland was getting worse and worse; he was sure he was being robbed—he thought by Klinge and Defries—and it was agreed that I should go to Holland and have a look round. I went accordingly, Paying my own expenses. I found that Klinge was in absolute control. The results of competitions were sent to Stoddart by a letter leaving Middelburg on Thursday, reaching Stoddart's office about 11 a.m. on Friday, generally marked private. On returning to England

I saw Stoddart and told him I thought that if I made one or two radical alterations the business could be made to pay. This was one that I suggested; the postage to Holland is 2 1/2 d.; if we took sums of 1s. instead of 6d., competitors would have 30 lines for 1s. instead of 12 lines for 6d. I also suggested a change of printers.

(Wednesday, February 10.)

FREDERICK ERNEST CATLING , recalled, further examined. The first week I went over to Middelburg there was a profit of about £20 to £30. That was Competition 21. Up to that time I understood from Stoddart there had been a continual loss. Klinge paid the money into Zips Bank. I left on Friday, November 1, returned to Herne Hill on Monday morning, and saw Stoddart. He expressed great surprise and was very pleased at the result. I asked for an agreement. He said he would ask Mr. Alpe to draw one up, which I believe was done and torn up by Stoddart. He said a letter would do now the competitions were paying. On November 27 he wrote a letter produced. On November 25, as the competitions were making over £100 a week, I asked Stoddart if he could give me something on account of profit as my hank account was small. There were expenses due of £23, and he gave me a cheque for £73, to include £50 on account of profit. At that time about £165 was due to me. There was a settlement on January 14, 1908, when we agreed my share of the profits at £426 10s. Stoddart gave me a cheque for £376 10s., deducting £50 cheque which I had received. That was for five or six weeks' competitions. I always arrived at Herne Hill at 8.30 a.m. and went home and breakfasted, when Stoddart called with his motor-car, took me to his office, and I handed over the money to him, together with an account which, was gone into and settled, and the money paid into his banking account, on which I had no drawing power. I deducted nothing whatever. It is untrue that I made out the account of the profits—I had no materials; Stoddart made it entirely himself, deducting such expenses as he said had been incurred, and he made out my share to be £426. Stoddart's statement that the £73 cheque included £60 to pay Willis is a wicked invention. I never had any money given me to pay Willis. I never paid any premier prizes at all; I never had any bank notes in my possession to do so. When the consolation winners were numerous I used to send the postal orders out. Sometimes £100 had to be split up into sixpences. I have never put a bank note into an envelope in my life. For the consolation prizes Stoddart would write or send Miss Gardiner to the post office with an order beforehand for the postal orders, because they would not keep such a large number at the post office and Stoddart would give me a cheque or send Miss Gardiner to get them. I had nothing to do with the payment of the premier competitors either here or in Holland. I received cheque for £45 of November 25, 1907. Stoddart never queried the name of Browning or any other name with me. I have never made or been asked to make inquiry into one single winner. I had nothing whatever to do with the Browning competition.

A discussion occurred as to whether the co-defendant Catling's evidence was evidence against Stoddart Mr. Muir submitted that what he said in the witness box was evidence for all purposes (Archhold, P. 395; Criminal Evidence Act). Held that that which would not have been evidence before the Act becomes evidence by the fact that the prisoner has elected to give evidence and has submitted to cross-examination.

Examination continued. I have never seen exchange slip Exhibit 131, nor the deduction. I never heard that Browning had asked to leave £15 on account. I have never heard of a deduction of over 45s. I agree the deduction is in Klinge's handwriting. I know nothing about it. I wrote on the exchange slip, "eight £5 notes and 5 sovereigns." The "45" at the top has been written in since. Looking at the exchange slip I think a cheque of £45 was handed me to change, but I do not remember what for. I have only been in Stoddart's bank four times. There may be 50 or 60 exchange slips with my writing on. I may have cashed that cheque and handed the change to Stoddart. I have never given Miss Gardiner any notes. I never gave eight of these £5 notes to he sent to a betting man. I now know there is a betting man named Wade, of Earlsfield. I had nothing whatever to do with the betting, with the "Racing Record," or with J. and H. Drew. Before these proceedings I heard of no such payment. It is absolutely untrue that Stoddart asked me to make inquiries about Willis, or that I told him he was all right, or that he gave me £60 to pay him. Stoddart is in a corner and if obliged to make some invention to get out of it. The cheque for £73 was £23 for expenses and £50 on account of profit. Stoddart has invented what he says. The Willis competition is before I started. Stoddart did not give me £100 to pay Foster. His story about that is untrue from beginning to end. The figures on the exchange slip Exhibit 147 are not mine. I produce specimens of my figures. (Same examined by the Jury.) I say that the flourish to the" 8" has been added since the slip was made out. With regard to Competition No. 25" Racing Record," Stoddart's statement as to Roe is absolutely untrue. I never paid the premier prizes. If four £5 notes, Nos. 01312 to 01315. part of the proceeds of cheque for £249 18s. are traced to my private account, they were paid me by Stoddart on account of profit and I put them straight into my bank. I never knew that any notes were being cashed at the Bank of England. I had no knowledge that Jones was connected as brother-in-law with Robinson. Jones was my manager and a co-director of Catling, Limited, with a salary of £3 7s. 6d. a week. Stoddart's story about there being 11 winners instead of 12, and about my saying he had made a mistake, is an absolute invention. With regard to Competition No. 40 and the payment of £396, the previous cheque for £100 on March 24 was to pay the consolation winners in the McNulty competition a week before. I admit having had the £100 on March 24 to pay the McNulty consolation winners. I deny having had £396 on March 31. In Competition 44 I had nothing to do with cheque for £530. I believe the £130 was given to Jessie Stoddart to buy stamps to send out for a competition in which a large number of persons got 6d. each. Jessie Stoddart was responsible for the addressing of the

envelopes. She had offices with a number of girls and traded as "Miss Jessie Stanton." It took a week to get the envelopes ready. I know nothing about Competition 46, and was never paid a cheque for £400 in it. Jones came into my employment when I was 21, 14 years ago. We had served our apprenticeship side by side at John Swain's in Farringdon Street. He was my manager and had power to sign cheques. Stoddart knew him well. Jones had a lot to do with his motor-car. and Jones used to go to the garage and assist his chauffeur. I knew nothing whatever about notes cashed at the bank endorsed Catling and Co., Limited. I was not a party in any way to any frauds that may have been committed by Jones. On May 26, 1906, Stoddart gave me a cheque for £100 and asked me to change it. I brought him back notes and he said, "You may as well keep them on account of profits." On June 19 he paid me £50 in gold on account of profits and £30 for money which had been laid out for stamps on June 2. On July 2 Stoddart paid me £100 in gold. I remember in the week ending July 4 Stoddart drawing out £328 in gold. It is not true that on June 9, 1908, he paid me £130 by cheque to bearer. I never paid money given me for profits through the post office. I paid everything into my bank account. My account is not credited with any such sum. The payment on August 28 of £102 12s. 3d. was a refunding of money spent by me for Stoddart. There were three cheques of £50, £50, and £2 12s. 3d.—£50 for Sully and Ford, £50 for stamps, and £2 12s. 3d. for a bet of Stoddart's which I had sent away. On Wednesday in Whit-week I went to Lindsay's in the Haymarket to see Cowley at Stoddart's request. I told Cowley Stoddart wanted him to make inquiry into two addresses. I wrote these addresses down on a piece of paper, which has been produced—Rawley and Naylor. I had nothing further to do with it. I know Cowley has been employed by Stoddart to make inquiries. After giving him these instructions I drove him in my motor towards Denmark Street, when he jumped down. That was June 8. On June 10 he came to me and gave me a white envelope—I think, directed" J. Stoddart." I borrowed the key from Miss Gardiner and put it in Stoddart's private room on his 'blotting pad. I had no idea what was inside the envelope. I saw him again on June 17 at four to five p.m. He came to my office, 71, Fleet Street, called me out into the court, and in a very, very confidential way said he had been up to Stoddart's office, Stoddart was out, and what was he to do with this, producing the Butterworth registered letter sealed up. I read the address on it. I was very surprised, because I had myself posted the letter the day before. I said I would take charge of it. (To Mr. Abinger.) This was all contained in my statement to the police at a very early date. (To the Recorder.) I knew this letter must have been improperly come by. I took the earliest opportunity of seeing Stoddart either that day or the next morning. I said, "Mr. Stoddart, what is the meaning of this?" and handed him the registered letter." There must 'be some fraud going on." Stoddart was very irate He said, "Don't be a frightened fool. The competition is mine, and

I am alone responsible for it." I said, "It is a pity you let me post the letter." I never saw Cowley again until he came to the Mansion House. (To the Jury.) I went down with Alpe to pay a fine for Cowley. We went down in my motor-car, and as Mr. Alpe had not enough money I advanced £2 10s. The new of Cowley being in trouble came from the Haymarket. I did not know what to do, and I simply went to Stoddart's solicitors. (To the Recorder.) Mr. Alpe paid the fine of £5 and costs. This was between the Butterworth incident and September. In June I was quite satisfied, at any rate so far as Butterworth was concerned, that gross fraud was being committed. That may have been an inducement for me to go and pay the fine for Cowley—not lest he should give me away; I had done nothing wrong. (To Mr. Elliott.) Stoddart repaid me the fine. On September 24, 1908, about nine p.m., I was at a lawn tennis club when Stoddart's servant brought a message. I would not go at first, but when she came a second time I went out and met Stoddart in his motor-car in Fyfield Road. He said, "There is trouble. Are you prepared to leave the country tonight?" I said, "What is the trouble about?" He said, "Over the Cowley matter, against you and myself." I said, "Well, that is nothing to do with me. I am not going away." He said, "You must, otherwise I shall be ruined. You must not go borne and have the summons—you must get away before you have it." As an excuse I said, "I have not got any. money, so I cannot go away." He said, "Oh, that can easily be got over. Let us go to the Empress and we can get some there." We drove to the Empress Music Hall and saw Grimes, who is the manager or proprietor, and whom we both knew. I bad been there pretty often and he always was very polite. Stoddart went in and fetched Grimes out after some minutes' delay. Grimes said, "Well, Fred, I am sorry to hear of this trouble." I said, "Don't you think I shall be silly to run away?" He said, "Have you done anything wrong?" I said, "No," and he said, "Well, you would be a fool to go." I declined absolutely to go. Grimes's account of that is absolutely correct. Stoddart then asked me to go to Jones's house and ask him to be at the office early next morning. This was about 10.30. Stoddart was in his suppers and his velvet coat; he went over to the" Prince of Wales" public-house hear the Empress, and I was driven in a car to Jones's place, when I saw Jones coming along. I delivered Stoddart's message and the car drove me home to my house. I then received the summons which had been left. The next morning I went to Mr. Alpe and had a conversation with him and later on with Stoddart. As we had not got the information, we really did not know what we were charged with. Alpe said there was a difficulty in getting a copy from the City Solicitor's office. Stoddart said it was absolutely imperative that we should know, and would I go down to Grimes and ask him to go and see Windust at Esher. Later on Stoddart's motor-car fetched me to his house, where I saw him with Grimes. Grimes's account of that interview in the drawing-room is quite correct. With regard to the £2,000,

Grimes said that if Price's debts were paid—he worked it out that there were four prizes, making £1,500 or £2,000—the matter might be settled. That seemed to be the chief trouble—the disgraceful way Stoddart had treated Price. On the night of September 28 Jones called on me and I afterwards saw Stoddart; I told him that Jones had told me that he had written out the Butterworth coupon at Stoddart's instructions, that he had taken the banknote to the Bank of England, signed the name of Butterworth, and handed the £100 in gold to Stoddart. I told Stoddart I was surprised that he should have used Jones in this part of the business. I asked to see the coupon and the claim, and Stoddart showed them to me; he said he did not think anybody would recognise the writing. When he showed me the claim the date it bore was June 2, the day prior to the race; it has been since altered to June 3; I said to him, "This is dated June 2, you have made a mistake." He said, "Oh, that's nothing." I told him that Jones had confessed to my wife that he had sent in the coupon and written the name of Butterworth; he simply shrugged his shoulders and said nothing. I said, "Jones is beside himself and does not know what he is going to do." Stoddart replied, "Oh, he need not worry: give him a fiver and let him go away till after Thursday." Jones turned up as usual that day and I gave him £5, wanting something done in Liverpool I sent him there. I have never seen him or heard of him since, directly or indirectly. The story that I visited him at his flat that night is absolutely untrue. In the evening of that day, after Stoddart and Klinge had seen Mr. Alpe, Stoddart told me he wanted me to make a statement to Mr. Alpe; I was to forget that I 'had posted the registered letters to Butterworth, Hierli, and Naylor.

Mr. Abinger protested against these matters being put to the witness, when they had not been put to Stoddart in cross-examination.

The Recorder said he would allow Mr. Abinger to recall his client if necessary.

Examination continued. I was to invent some excuse for Cowley's visit to me if anyone had seen him; I was to say I did not give Stoddart the Butterworth registered letter. I wrote out a statement, which Stoddart approved, and I sent it to Mr. Alpe. I attended the police court on October 1, and on discovering the line that was being taken for the defence I made up my mind to have nothing to do with it; the suggestion clearly put forward by Mr. Abinger was that Cowley was the thief in conjunction with Klinge; I knew he was not, and I would not back it up. I wired for Jones to return, addressing" Jones, care of Newell, Harrop, and Co., auctioneers, Liverpool"; I wired from the Fleet Street Post Office. I never had a reply to the telegram. Next day I saw Stoddart and told him I would have nothing to do with the idea of saddling the offence on to Cowley; he said, "I must stick to the tale; it would be suicidal"; I said I was not going to be a party to all the perjury and bogus defence and everybody getting into trouble; he said, "I must stick to it; it will be dismissed the next hearing. "I subsequently instructed a separate solicitor, Mr. Barnett On October 12 Klinge came over and I saw him in the presence of my father; in consequence of what Klinge said, my father went to the City Solicitor. Later on I had a conversation with

Inspector Collison in a City hostelry; there were present myself, my father, Collison, Klinge, and a Dutch journalist; I gave Collison certain information from which he prepared (not then, but afterwards) a written statement. The City Solicitor people declined to take the statement. At the hearing of the 15th Klinge gave evidence; I have not seen him since. Jessie Stoddart's account of what I said at the interview of October 12 is absolutely untrue. I did not say, "I have got myself into a hole, and I've got to get out at any cost." She said, You ought to have gone when he asked you," and I replied, "Oh, no, if there's any question of going away, he's got to be the one, not me." Mr. and Mrs. Lawson were present. It is absolutely untrue that I met Jessie in Fleet Street on October 13; I deny her story altogether. I was first introduced to Price in Stoddart's office; I had no interest in any financial arrangements between the two. Stoddart asked me to give Price what help I could; I agreed with Price that he should share my office; he used to come there every day; it is not true that. I had to teach him the business; he knew more about it than I did; he had been with Mackenzie. From start to finish there is no truth in the suggestion that there was ever any arrangement between Price and myself to put in bogus names. About August 27 Price did suggest to me, as we had had a disastrous week, could not some of the prize money be saved. Having had experience with the Cowley matter, I knew what he meant, and I said, "Don't you start any of that; if you do, I shall tell Mr. Stoddart immediately." With regard to the Stanhope coupon, I was in the office at Middelburg one evening after the clerks had gone; I went to put some money in the safe, which was not 20 yards from Klinge's office; Klinge and Price were in the office; the place was carpeted, and my footsteps were not very heavy; I evidently came upon them by surprise; when they saw me approaching they tried to hide something; I asked them what they were up to and they both looked very confused. I lifted up the blotting paper and found the Stanhope coupon; I knew there was something wrong because the figures were not filled in. Price and I had some words over it; the upshot was that I agreed not to tell Stoddart if Price tore it up; he said 'he would be ruined if Stoddart took an adverse view, and he had not got a penny in the world; he tore up the coupon and threw it away. Next day I returned to England, told" Stoddart the whole story; Price was recalled, to London by telegram and never went back. Subsequently I noticed the name of Stanhope returned as a winner; I told Stoddart I was surprised to see it; he said, "That's all right; I only printed it to have Price under my thumb. "I never received a single copper in connection with the Price business.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I wish the Jury to believe that I have never done a wrong action in my life and am guiltless throughout the whole of this business. I do not wish them to believe that Stoddart is guilty; it has never been my scheme to establish that I have told the whole truth in the Witness-box; Stoddart has lied from start to finish; all the witnesses who have borne out his statements have lied too. There is not an atom of truth in the suggestion that

my scheme was to get Stoddart to pay £2,000 to Windust so as to get my name dropped out of the case; nor in the statement that the next step I took was the visit to the Jones's flat at midnight; I was not there at all; the woman has committed perjury; Stoddart has bought all these witnesses. Your suggestion that my scheme was, "Klinge has absconded, Jones has gone away, if I can get Stoddart to go away I will go through the farce of going to the police and making a statement as it were in the interests of justice, and I shall be pronounced by all the world innocent," is absolutely ridiculous; I never invited or tried to get Stoddart to fly.

(Thursday, February 11.)

FREDERICK ERNEST CATLING , recalled, further cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. I deny that having on October 12 failed to get Stoddart to fly the country I am now trying to get persons to come here and give false evidence as to the assault on my wife. I say that Gilbert has been bought by Stoddart to come here and lie. It is all got by Stoddart or his advisers. Gilbert was in his pay before she went to Derby. It was in the second statement to the police on October 27 that I made the statement about the yachting cap and Klinge going to Ramsgate. I did not know that Klinge had absconded before October 27. I did not know that Stoddart was going to keep Klinge out of the way. I do not know anything about Mr. Klinge's disappearance. I do not accept the suggestion that the reason I left out of the first statement to the police about the yachting cap and the part Klinge took in the D'Avyet competition was that if he had been there he might have denied it. It was not until Klinge told me about it that I told Inspector Collison. I think Jones has been used as a tool by Stoddart. It is not true that I have been using him as a catspaw right through. I have never been concerned with Jones in a criminal prosecution. I remember the prosecution of the "Pirate King" two or three years ago. I was not in any way interested in it. The charge made against Willett was that of disposing of pirated music. That pirated music was not printed from stereos manufactured on my premises. The whole of the work in that case was identified as having been done by the Direct Photo Engraving Company, of Farringdon Street. Jones was not the man who supplied the blocks. We were both subpœtnaed, but the subpoenas were withdrawn on the application of Mr. Alpe, who then appeared for me, and the work was afterwards identified as having been done by somebody else. I did not print these pirated stereos and put it on Jones, or put Jones forward as my catspaw; do not be so silly. I heard Singer swear that Robinson, the brother-in-law of Jones, asked him to allow his name to go forward as a bogus winner because I feared Stoddart might suspect me of swindling him; Singer would swear anything. Jones was one of the first signatories in the formation of Catling and Co., Limited. He also signed the articles of association of Mr. Stoddart's Cigarette Company. There is no managing director of Fred Catling and Co., Limited. I am sole "boss." Jones had

an honorarium of 100 £1 shares given him on the formation of the company, and was in receipt of a salary of £3 7s. 6d. a week. Mr. Alpe was the solicitor of the company, so that any information you have you have obtained from him. I know Jones bought a motor-car for which he paid £50 or £60. He paid £33 out of his own savings; I lent him the rest, and he returned me 10s. a week, and he has had the motor 4 1/2 years. He has never had two cars. As to Cowley, I formed no opinion as to whether he was an out-at-elbowed man or a well-to-do man. I heard him say in the box that everything he was walking about in except his boots belonged to Windust. Till I heard him say in the box he only got an occasional sovereign from Stoddart I understood he was in regular employment with Mr. Stoddart. I found him easily when I was making inquiries, because I knew he used to wait at the "Opera Tavern" for Stoddart, who was there six days out of seven, and practically lived there. I heard Cowley swear he went to Gravesend to arrange a bogus address in the name of Butterworth; I do not know that it was on June 10. I heard the witness May Andrews say he first came at the end of May before the Derby was run, but I heard that first from Mr. Alpe; she made that concession to him when he went down there. If I was sending in a bogus coupon to Middelburg in order to defraud my father-in-law the coupon would not necessarily have to get to Middelburg before the Derby was run. If we had all three combined I say it would be impossible to commit a fraud without Stoddart knowing of it; the suggestion is ridiculous. Stoddart asked me in quite a casual sort of way to post the registered letters in the Butterworth competition. Stoddart sometimes registered letters containing only £2 or £3. I often used to post letters for Stoddart. I realise that having had the third envelope in my possession for some time I could have opened it had I been so minded. Of the £90 I paid into my bank on June 19, £80 was given me by Mrs. Stoddart; the other £10 came from quite a different source. If the certified copy of Stoddart's banking account shows that no money to that amount was drawn out on that day, the account of course cannot lie. Stoddart paid me £50 on the 19th as my share of the profits and £30 for money expended. The £100 itself went to the Argus Printing Company. Stoddart told me he had paid it. If Stoddart never paid cash to the Argus Printing Company, but always paid by cheque, he must have told me another lie. I do not know where the money came from, but from the other swindles he had going on he must have had a pretty good lot of gold outside the bank. It is a deliberate lie to suggest that the £90 paid to my account on June 19 was the proceeds of a fraud committed by Jones and myself. Jones confessed the fraud to me in the presence of my wife before he disappeared. The statement of Mrs. Jones that I was outside her bedroom at 12 o'clock on the night of September 28 is a lie. I can prove I never left the house that night after I returned from the Brixton "Empress." Price lied when he said that in the first live minutes I saw him I persuaded him to do a wrong action in substituting a bogus winner. In August, when I used to be seeing him almost daily, he was constantly discussing

the chances of the competition. There was never any discussion as to addresses unless it was the addresses he had bought from Mackenzie. I never asked him if I could trust him. Either he invented the story or somebody else for him. I do not suggest that Stoddart got Price to invent the case against him. I do not think that Stoddart had anything to do with Price. I did not say to Price, "We are both on the 'square' and I will trust you, and I think you had better leave Masonry out of it." If I had been working with Jones to defraud Stoddart I should not have warned Stoddart about Price on my return to London. The telegram recalling Price to London was in consequence of what I told Stoddart. Stoddart seemed angry rather than shocked when I told him. I thought Stoddart would not allow the affair to go through, and that is the reason why I told him. Of course, if he had been arranging with me for Price to do this, he would not have been angry, but pleased; but another way of looking at the matter is that he did not want Price to do it because he had been doing the same thing himself and he did not want too many bogus coupons. We know that Price did get a bogus winner. Stanhope or Hudson, but it is a lie to say that I kept my part of the bargain by also providing as a bogus winner Mr. Dawson, Rose Cottage, Victoria Road, Barking. I did not know at the time that that address was provided by Robinson, the brother-in-law of Jones. I have never seen the coupon of this competition; Mr. Stoddart printed the coupon, and I think he is the only person who can supply the missing link. The document produced in my handwriting is the original" copy" for the printers containing the names of" Stanhope" and" Dawson." Price told us when he came back there were six winners, but he did not bring the names. It is absolutely untrue to suggest that Jones could only have provided that bogus winner ("Dawson") at my request. I do not suggest now, with my knowledge of this case, that Jones was not very extensively engaged in fraudulent transactions in connection with this business, but what I am going by is that he never had a penny to bless himself with and did not live extravagantly. I knew when I was in Middelburg that the" Stanhope "coupon at least was fraudulent, but I thought it was destroyed. When I prepared the document stating that" six competitors are lucky enough to predict the ten correct results, and, subject to the scrutiny, will divide the £100, "I had not got the list of names from Price. All Price's statements about the registered letter from Hudson is an invention to incriminate me. Price has been absolutely ruined, I take it. I stated yesterday that Stoddart is a very clever man, a genius, but I should not say that of Price, just the opposite. I deny that the registered letter from Hudson was produced at Middelburg in the presence of Klinge and myself. I appreciate the significance of the fact that we three men were over in Middelburg at the time that Stoddart was in London. The" Stanhope "coupon must have been made out after I left Middelburg. I did not know that a fraudulent new coupon was to be written out after I had left. I understand the" Stanhope" coupon was destroyed. I do not know whether I brought

over to England the letter in which Price expressed satisfaction with the way the business was being conducted. How could I know what was in a particular letter, when I brought over perhaps 50 or 60 in order to save postage? I never put up a penny toward? this transaction and I was not to derive any profit, as far as I know. I knew the only man who was spending any money was Stoddart, and he was not much out of pocket; he "pinched" all he could get. As to whether in saying that I am trying to have a slap at my father-in-law, I do not love him; I have good reasons for hating him. As I have already said, when I joined Stoddart in November, 1907. I was quite new to the coupon business, but I had been to Holland when I was courting his daughter. The business was then run by George Stoddart. They had a big Derby sweepstake cm. I had a letter asking me to come over as Stoddart and George Stoddart were both taking to drink and could not do any work. I went to assist them in bringing that thing through, and when it was over they were both helplessly drunk on the floor. I do not know that when I joined Stoddart in 1907 he was losing money hand over hand. He thought he was being robbed and that if the persons carrying on the business were watched and he got the money contributed it would pay. I think if you look at the bankbook you will and he borrowed £5,000. He only started the paper to" slang" Windust, and they nearly ruined each other. In the first six weeks my share of the profits was £476 10s. The competitions were a success, not because I introduced bogus prize winners but because I stopped the" slanging match" between Windust and Stoddart. Stoddart ruins every man he touches. You cannot leave out the central criminal. D'Avyet was before I started in Middelburg. Klinge had to do with that. I know a Mr. and Mrs. Lawson. Lawson has a yacht and he is a very close friend of mine. The name of the yacht may have been the Veronique, but he has had several. We were not in Ramsgate harbour on the Veronique at the time of the D'Avyet competition. Lawson had nothing to do with D'Avyet; you take it from me that was arranged by Klinge and Stoddart. Klinge told me he went down there by Stoddart's instructions. It is true that the date of the D'Avyet coupon, October 5, is the date when I arrived in Middelburg, but I have never seen the D'Avyet coupon. It is absolutely a lie to say that Klinge and I with somebody else, who was to personate D'Avyet, arranged the transaction, and that when we knew that Stooddart had queried the coupon we none of us had the courage to discover ourselves to him. I cannot explain why nobody ever collected the registered letter from Mrs. Frost, at Ramsgate. The list of prize winners was always communicated to the printers by Stoddart, excepting in Christmas week, when it was sent direct to the printer. Klinge did not wire to me announcing the prize-winners. The telegram produced is addressed, "Catling, Argus Printing Company," but that is the only one, I think, and it is stamped on Christmas Day. When I entered into this competition business I had plenty of money at my disposal. I can provide proof of that if you desire it. Being well off for money does not always say that the money is in the bank;

it was invested. I had perhaps £20 or £30 in the bank, that is all, I had been spending money for Stoddart, and on October 26 asked him for £50 on account of my share of the profits of the competition. It is a lie to say I was in great straits for money. I had taken a partner, a Mr. Fisher, and paid him out. He was not a partner but a co-director. He bought shares of the value of £1,000. Mr. Alpe was solicitor to the company, and had the preparation of the balancesheet. Fisher said he did not like the business, and I paid him £500 to go out. We each drew £5 a week out of the business, and £250 I returned as I guaranteed the book debts. We used to have a contract with "Lloyd's," but lost that when they did the work themselves. It is a lie to say the business was doing nothing. Fisher made the company and put in new plant. That is where the loss was. It is absolutely a lie to say that I suggested to Stoddart in that state of things he might put me in the way of making money in his coupon competitions. With reference to the Browning competition, I think the figures on the exchange slip are Miss Gardiner's handwriting. I heard her swear that it was her handwriting, but she would swear anything for Stoddart, absolutely body and soul. It is transparently clear that the thing is a" fake." Stoddart never gave me the cheque to pay the Browning prize money. I realise that if I was paying the money to Browning I should not want £5 in gold. I gave the eight £5 notes to Stoddart, who paid them to Wade. I heard Miss Gardiner say a cheque was sent to Wade to Middelburg, and that Wade having no banking account sent it back to Middelburg, whence it was returned to Stoddart, and that Stoddart gave Miss Gardiner the notes in question to pay the amount of the cheque. All that is a lie. Where is the cheque that was sent? Can you produce it? I tell the jury in all sincerity that she is a liar, bought and paid for. I never gave Miss Gardiner any bank notes. If you put it to me that I was" Browning" you put to me what is absolutely false. (Witness was subsequently requested to examine the exchange slip under the magnifying' glass.)

CHARLES JAMES FARLEY , cashier, Ludgate Hill branch of London City and Midland Bank, stated that the practice of the bank was for the ledger clerks to stamp cheques and exchange slips with an indiarubber stamp. (Witness was requested to examine the slip under a magnifying glass, and expressed the opinion that the slip had been stamped after the alteration had been made.)

FREDERICK ERNEST CATLING , recalled, further cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. All the football matches competed for were played on Saturday, with the exception of the first competition in the 1908 series. Coupons must be received in Middelburg on Saturday or at latest Sunday morning. The object of my going to Middelburg was not to check the coupons or to check Klinge. I could not have dealt with them without making a confidant of Klinge. Klinge was the only one who could get the letters from the post, and after they were opened, the coupons were put in a heap in the corner of the room by the clerks who had opened them. On the Saturday and Sunday I should be walking up and down the room seeing they did not steal

the money. The clerks could have done so in conjunction with Klinge. There was a system in vogue of each, clerk stamping the coupon. I dare say it was for the purpose of checking the clerks. I was suspicious of Klinge and Defries, because Stoddart had told me they were the two men who were robbing him. I went over to watch, to get the money and to bring it back. I did not know that bogus coupons were coming in, and I am not sure of it now. I suggest they were concocted in London and had never been through the post. I never made out a list of prize winners. I was never over there when the prizes were awarded or known. The Butterworth coupon was a "Racing Record" coupon. It was written in Stoddart's office by Jones at Stoddart's dictation. It is a lie to suggest that I dictated it. I delivered to Collison the receipts for the three registered letters. Miss Gardiner's statement that sometimes she and Stoddart used to post the premier prizes and that sometimes I and Jones would take charge of it when the operation would be carried out at Catling and Co. 's offices is a lie from start to finish. She is bought and sold to Stoddart. Klinge gave me the documents which he got from Stoddart's office, and which I gave to Collison. He had a whole bundle of things to destroy. These receipts were slipped inside another document which I handed to Collison. I can give no explanation of the note for £50 endorsed Catling and Co., Limited, being cashed at my bankers; and know nothing about it, it did not come from me. It is a lie to say that Jones was sent by me to cash it, and I do not think it sounds reasonable, seeing that I gave the receipts to the police. I received the four £5 notes from Stoddart. I was worrying him to get the money; I could only get it piecemeal; I have not got the whole of it yet, and I do not suppose I ever shall; I got it in small sums. The £100 on April 23 may have been paid by Stoddart to me; if so it went through the post office to purchase stamps and postal orders. I did not poet the Singer letter in Competition 32. I did not have charge of the Butterworth prizes. Stoddart asked me to post three letters and I posted them. In No. 32 competition there were two bogus prize winners, Morris, Brunswick Square, and Singer, a nominee of Jones. The date of the publication of the winners was January 25, printed February 4. I went to Middelburg on Friday and came back on Sunday. If Singer was not returned as an original winner I should not know. I do not recollect Singer's name other than seeing it in the coupon and finding it as a research afterwards; he was published in a later issue. Originally there were 11 winners without Singer. It came as a research after my reappearance at Middelburg the following week. It is a lie to say that I arranged it. It must have been done before I got to Middelburg. It is not necessary to pay 5s. for a scrutiny. If Jones was working for Stoddart these two did it. Stoddart was not clearly defrauded—he was clearly defrauding. I had none of Singer's prize money, although the banknotes have been traced to my bank. I do not say Jones was doing it on his own. It was Stoddart's artfulness that they were not cashed at his bank. If he had persuaded me to leave the country it would have been all me. Since the case started

I have been to the "Empress" Music Hall two or three times and have spoken to Grimes. I had nothing to do with what he said at the police court. When it was proposed that I should leave the country, we understood it was a charge of conspiracy only, and that one man could not be charged alone. I think honestly I do hate Stoddart. I did not tell Jessie Stoddart he was the bitterest enemy I had got—I was at home at the time she states I met her in Fleet Street and told her that. Windust wrote to me saying," The day that Joe stands in the dock we will have a bottle of the best." I have known Windust 27 years, and when I got that letter I was as much surprised as you pretend to be, and I took that letter to Mr. Alpe and said, "I am not friendly with Stoddart, but I do not want to see him come to any harm if I can help it. Forewarned is forearmed." It was given to Mr. Alpe as a secret document, not to be produced in a court like this. I think Windust was moved by a spirit of revenge, and I have always said so. His quarrel with Stoddart went back long before 1906. I do not know why he should have written me like that; he has written many letters to me while this slanging match was going on. I was offered the work for the book, but I refused it. I do net think Windust thought I should show the letter to Stoddart. He knew Stoddart and I never agreed; all our matrimonial life has been antagonistic to him. It is Windust who is going to putt him in the dock, not me. It does not show much hatred when I take the letter to Stoddart's solicitor. I have made no statement to my solicitor since Stoddart was cross-examined except to answer the lies he has told. I telegraphed to Jones on October 1 in Liverpool," Return at once; wire train; will meet you." Mrs. Jones has sworn a lie in saying that I stood at his bed and sent him off—he was at the office the next morning. I can bring all his fellow workmen to prove it. Collison did not take my statement down in front of me; the statement I signed was the only one read over to me. I told him that Stoddart had said I must not have a summons served on me. I would not exactly swear I told him. It may have escaped my memory at the time. It is a lie to say the statement is put in to rub in the case against Stoddart. Stoddart told me that he had paid the change of the £100 note to the Argus Company. When I told Collison that Jones did not know for what purpose this coupon was made out, I did not believe at the time that Jones did know; I did think he was an innocent dupe of Stoddart's. I do not agree now that Jones must have known the purpose for which the coupon was to be used. On the night I received the summons I met Jones outside his house and told him Stoddart wanted to see him the next morning. I went in Stoddart's motorcar, driven by his own chauffeur, and he afterwards took me to my home. After Jones did not come back I went round to see his wife and asked where he was. His wife told me she was in great difficulties and I gave her some money to pay the landlord. Cowley gave me a piece of paper in an envelope. After October 12 I saw the police nearly every day. I had done nothing wrong; why should I keep anything back? I was ready to assist the ends of justice. I

did not do it in favour of my father-in-law—he is the wrong one. If I had been in conspiracy with him, of course, it would have been a wicked and mean tiling to have done. I am quite willing that my statements to the police should go to the Jury. (The statements were read.) I attended a consultation with Mr. Ernest Wild and Mr. Cooper and the solicitors. Mr. Wild said he thought it was best to have one defence. After the first hearing I made up my mind to have nothing to do with Stoddart's defence. I was not going to commit perjury. I intended to sever my defence before the second hearing, but I was over-persuaded. I am sorry I did not do it. Mr. Alpe was my solicitor before he was Stoddart's. I introduced Stoddart to Mr. Alpe. On October 12 I received a letter from Klinge, which my solicitor has. (Same produced and read.) Klinge came over to see me. He had not got any money and his friend came over with him. I found the money and paid their expenses. The letter was delivered to mo on Sunday by express. He told me he did not want Stoddart to know he had been over until he got back. He said his life would not be worth a day's purchase if Stoddart knew it. His visit was not personal to me. I met him on a public platform. I saw him secretly so far as Stoddart's knowledge went. If he had not said, "Do not tell anybody—not even Stoddart," I should probably have told Stoddart. When he speaks of getting some money from him I cannot tell you what was in his mind. I did not ask him anything about it. It was no question of money to me. That is absolutely all I tell the Jury about it. Everything went from my mind when he told me he would not commit perjury. His confession took the form of what he told the police. Miss Gardiner's evidence is untrue, that when I went into partnership with Stoddart I took over nearly the whole of the working of the business. It is true that my clerk would help me in anything I had to do in the business. Jones was not my clerk—he was my manager and is a practical engraver. A man named Lennock was my clerk. Jones received £3 7s. 6d. a week.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I had charge of the preparation of the" copy" for the printers of the body of the paper; that does not relate to the winners; there is space left for that. I should receive the copy from Stoddart for the other part. In competition No. 31 I did not see a coupon from Rowlandson or Picknell. In book produced, under date January 2, I find" Stoddart coupons—making ready." That would be setting the type, making a matrix for the stereo, and so on. Then the next column is" machining." The whole of the work appears to be done on January 2. I should send in the corrections of the proof. The process of taking the matrix would be three or four minutes; the casting of the stereo five or six minutes, so that the whole thing would be ready for machining in about 10 minutes. Exhibit 149 is a cheque in Stoddart's handwriting—I believe both the signature and the body; I swear to the signature. The endorsement is either Jones's or Miss Gardiner's, in my opinion. Two bank notes produced are endorsed" Barnes, 15, Essex Road," in Jones's writing. I went over to Middelburg, arriving Saturday morning. The coupons were required to be posted

in London on the Friday and must be received there on Saturday. Sometimes a few of the letters were opened before I arrived, because we were receiving a lot of letters for J. and H. Drew and the bets would have to be entered. The chief object of my going over was to see the letters opened and that the cash was secured. There would be 12,000 to 15,000 letters received on each competition. No examination of the predictions was attempted. The sole object of opening them when I was there on Saturday and Sunday was to secure the money. An account was made showing the amount of money received through the post signed by Klinge. It was never signed by me. I would leave on Sunday night, or if there was a very big post on Monday night, arriving in London the following morning with the money. The coupons were arranged alphabetically; if a claim came in the coupons were searched, and if it was found to be correct the claimant was recorded as the winner. They had till Wednesday to send in their claims. The winners were sometimes wired to Stoddart—in the ordinary way they came by letter—they invariably arrived by Friday. They could not arrive as early as Wednesday. I have known them to be telegraphed on Wednesday.

(Friday, February 12.)

FREDERICK ERNEST CATLING , recalled, further cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I wish to correct a statement I made to Mr. Abinger. October 5 was my first visit to Middelburg, and I did not go again until Friday, November 1, 1907. September 28 was the date of the publication of the D'Avyet coupon. The sheet was posted on October 4, to arrive in Middelburg not later than Saturday, October 5. Claims for premier prizes must be posted not later than the 7th, and reach Middelburg not later than Wednesday, the 9th. I went to Holland for the express purpose of finding out whether Stoddart was being robbed and to see if I could make the business pay. I returned on Monday, reaching Herne Hill Station at 8.48 a.m. I said nothing to Stoddart on the point of his being robbed—we did not refer to it. I think Klinge came to England that week; he was over five or six times about that time; he might hare been over twice in a week. He was in daily correspondence with Stoddart. He copied his letters in book produced. On page 447, dated December 28, 1907, there if a letter of mine addressed to Terry. On page 339 there is a letter from Klinge to Stoddart of October 7, 1907. There is no other letter from Klinge to Stoddart till October 14. Between these dates Klinge was most likely in England. The 9th was the date for receiving claims in the D'Avyet competition. At folio 344 there is a letter from Klinge to Stoddart of October 17, 1907. The letter from D'Avyet from Paris on the same date is in Klinge's handwriting; he has attempted to make it a little bit rounder, but I will swear to it anywhere. Anyone who knew Klinge's writing would recognise it. Exhibit 31, the envelope with D'Avyet's address on, is in Klinge's handwriting—the pencil writing on it is not. Exhibit 32, the registered envelope addressed to D'Avyet, has a postmark London, December

22, and two postmarks Ramsgate, December 23. It is in Miss Gardiner's writing. The authority to the post office is Klinge's handwriting a little more disguised. At folio 347 there is a letter from Klinge to Stoddart dated October 22. The next letter from Klinge to Stoddart is dated October 28, showing that Klinge may have been in England between these dates. I recollect lending Klinge 10s. It was the day he went to Ramsgate to fetch the letter. I recollected because he told me, "You remember the 10s. you lent me—that was the day I went down to Ramsgate." He was over five or six times about that time, but I cannot fix the day. It was at the time he said Mr. Stoddart was out—could I lend him 10s.? I never saw Klinge in a yachting cap. Stoddart repaid me the 10s. a few days afterwards. I was always advancing money on Stoddart's behalf which I got back as petty cash. Stoddart never asked my opinion as to whether Klinge or Defries was robbing him, and I never expressed any. When the business started paying he did not seem to worry any more about it; he did not refer to the subject again. The first payment on account of profit was £60 out of a cheque for £73 on November 25. That would be for competitions 22, 23, and 24. As soon as the money was received we should know how much the profit would be. There would be the expenses and the prizes to deduct. No 22 competition would include Foster and McNulty. Foster was never paid through me. In the ease of McNulty the bank notes are endorsed in the handwriting of Jones. Stoddart made all the divisions of profit and kept the book. We were making £110 a week in profits after every possible expense which could be charged to the business and after every competitor bad been paid. McNulty and Foster were treated as winners who were going to receive their prizes so far as I was concerned. Somebody made a profit in these two competitions of over £400 with which I had nothing to do. I gave Inspector Collison Exhibit 34 "Football Record," October 12—D'Avyet. I got it from Klinge; I believe he got it from Stoddart's office. He had a heap of papers which he bad got away to destroy. There is the winning coupon in the name of Funnell. Stoddart kept all the winning coupons in his office. I could not say when Klinge gave it to me—I think it was after the prosecution had started and after be went to the City solicitors. The files of the" Football Record" were kept hanging on the wall; the winning coupons were always kept in the bottom drawer on the left hand side of Stoddart's desk. The file of the" Racing Record" was kept hanging in Stoddart's room and that of "Football Record" was kept in Miss Gardiner's office. I do not know what became of these files. They were there up to the date of the summons. I remember the Rowlandson contest only generally. We never had a disastrous week. In Christmas week there were a smaller number of letters, but that was expected. The expenses would be about £120 a week. In No. 23 competition the gross results were £594; No 24, £701; No. 26, £729. No. 25 was missed, and it was included in No. 27, which is £529 plus £100. No. 28 £620, No. 29 £426. That was in Christmas week. We cut all our expenses down; it was not a disastrous week; we

should not lose more than £50 or £60 that week. In the Rowlandson contest coupons were published December 21; the last day for posting coupons December 27; last day for posting claims December 30; last day for receiving claims in Holland January 1. At folio 446 there is a letter from Klinge to Stoddart dated December 27.

Mr. Abinger objected that the witness could not be asked to give evidence as to a document not in his handwriting.

The Recorder held that if the book was the regular letter book used in the office, with which the witness was acquainted, he could give evidence on it.

Mr. Abinger objected that that was not proved.

The Recorder stated that he would recall Stoddart.

Joseph Stoddart, recalled. I know nothing about the books kept in Holland. Letter book produced contains what purport to be letters to me, but whether I received them or not I could not say. It contains a series of letters all, or most of them, addressed to me by Klinge. Apparently that is one of the books in which he copied letters addressed to me. Held that the evidence was admissible.

Frederick Ernest Catling, recalled, further cross-examined by Mr. Muir. The letter of December 27 is "Post is tremendously down—only one-third by usual mail, namely, 1,386, including to-night's, as against 3,366 last week. I am afraid we will not get more than about 4,000 letters in all." That is always expected and looked for in Christmas week. On folio 447 there is a letter dated December 28 written by me to Terry, so that I was in Holland on that date. On folio 449 there is a letter from Klinge to Stoddart. It was the practice to send in a list of new competitors in each competition so as to revise the postages. Klinge sent over the names of the successful winners and the name of every new competitor. On December 31 there is a letter from Klinge to Stoddart stating there were no deductions from 27 contests, and enclosing the winning coupon, A. E. Picknell; so that on December 31 Klinge had ascertained that Picknell was the winner and was sending his coupon to London according to the usual practice. That letter would reach London at 11.30 a.m. the next day. On folio 452 there is a telegram, "Add to winners of ten F. W. Dent, 46, Seaton Street, Chelsea. No scrutiny." Dent's name is inserted in the copy. On January I there is another letter from Klinge confirming that telegram. At folio 459 on January 7 there is another letter from Klinge to Stoddart. On January 8 Klinge writes," No scrutinies for No. 29. If any more claims in the morning I will wire you." I handed Collison receipts for three registered letters posted in Chancery Lane on May 12, 1908. these were in that coupon that Klinge gave me apparently by accident. I told Collison," These were with it; I do not know what they are; if they are any use to you you may have them." They were for Barnes. Collins, and Parse. If complete they show that only three out of the six winning persons in that competition got registered letters—an exceedingly useful piece of information for the prosecution—I can see it now, but I did not know it at the time. I had no knowledge at all that they related to this "Racing Record" contest, in which there were at least three bogus winners. I simply

gave them to Collison haphazard and he took them. I never suspected anything. I tried to get Collison a complete file of "Racing Record." I heard that Barnes's notes were changed at the Bank of England and that some of them were traced into my banking account. I had no knowledge of it, or I should not have given the receipts to Collison. Stoddart gave me these four £5 notes when I was worrying him for money. The four £5 notes contain a stamp of Zip von Teilingen, Middelburg. (To the Recorder.) Jones was evidently in this—but my confidence in him was all right for 26 years out of the 27. (To Mr. Muir.) Jones did not go to Holland to my knowledge, nor did Stoddart, in June, 1906. I did not go in June, 1908. I never went over during the racing season. Klinge may have been in London about that time. With regard to "Racing Record" Butterworth competition, May 29 would be the date on which the coupon would be published. The last day for sending coupons in would be June 2; the letter must bear the postmark of that date. That is Tuesday, the day before the Derby. The day for posting claims would be June 4, which should reach Middelburg June 6. On June 12 the winners were announced, and on June 16 I posted the three registered letters to Funnell, Diarelli, and Butterworth. On Monday, June 6, I saw Cowley and gave him a piece of paper with two names on to make inquiries. He did not report to me. I saw him again before Tuesday, 16th—on 10th or 11th. He asked me if Stoddart was about; Miss Gardiner said he was not in and he said, "I wanted to give him this," handing me an envelope, I think addressed to Stoddart and sealed. I got the key of Stoddart's private room from Miss Gardiner and put it on his desk unopened. I did not see Cowley again before I potted the letters unless I paid his fine between. (Mr. Abinger. The conviction was June 12.) On June 16 I posted the three registered letters in Post Office Court, just opposite Abchurch Lane, not very far from the Bank of England, at about 2 p.m. If Nash says it was between 2.30 and three it may have been so. I was alone, I left Jones at the office. Klinge was not with me; he was not in England; he signed for registered letters in Middelburg on that date. I was absolutely alone. If the Butterworth banknote was cashed at the Bank of England at three p.m. I know nothing about it. It has Jones's handwriting on the back of it. Jones was at my office when I left. I absolutely swear I was alone.

HUDSON, recalled. I have examined the cashier's hook with regard to the cashing of the Butterworth banknote for £100. It was cashed on June 16, 1906, at three p.m.

Frederick Ernest Catling, recalled, further cross-examined by Mr. Muir. On June 17, late in the afternoon, Cowley handed me registered letter addressed to Butterworth, which I had posted the day before to Gravesend. I had no doubt then that there had been a fraud—I knew it. On June 19 £90 in gold was paid into my bank, together with £50 in notes. I got £80 of the gold from Stoddart immediately before it was paid in; £50 was given me on account of profit and £30 for money I had expended for him. The £50 was

not my share of profit, but was a payment on account; I was worrying him to get something out of him. I then knew that he had made £100 of fraudulent profit out of the Cowley-Butterworth coupon two days before—it was not my half—I had nothing whatever to do with "Racing Record." It was my share of profit on "Football Record," the same as he gave me £200 in gold at a later date. It is absolutely untrue to say it was my half of the £100.

JOHN McROBERT , of the Argus Printing Company, was recalled as to the details of the printing done for Stoddart in connection with "Football Record" in the first week of January, 1908. The printing having been done on Thursday and Friday, January 2 and January 3, witness was of opinion that the copy must have been delivered, set up, the proofs corrected, and the stereos made sometime on Wednesday, January 1.

FREDERICK ERNEST CATLING , recalled, further cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I have been told that Jones was cashing a good many of the notes which have been traced as the proceeds of these frauds through the banking account of my firm. I knew nothing about the frauds he was engaged in if he was engaged in any. It was a risky thing to do if neither Stoddart or myself knew anything about it, as bank notes can of course be traced. Jones told me he cashed the (Butterworth) £100 note, wrote on the back of it, and took the £100 in gold to Mr. Stoddart, to the best of my recollection, at the house where I was then living in Brixton. When I got to the house in the evening Mr. Jones was with my wife and the statement was made in her presence. Jones said he had written on the back of the note in Stoddart's office at his dictation. On September 24, the day the summons was served, before I got the summons Stoddart asked me to take a message to Jones asking him to see him at the office next morning. As to the necessity for sending such a message you must ask Stoddart, not me. I went in Stoddart's motor-car for the purpose of delivering the message. Jones ordinarily goes to my office in the morning, but he goes to see customers, and is not always back the first thing, and might be elsewhere in the morning. I knew nothing about Jones's connection with the Cowley matter until he told me personally. Stoddart gave me no hint or suggestion as to why he wanted to see Jones. On Tuesday, September 29, Jones was in my office to my knowledge till past 11 o'clock. By that time I had not met Klinge and had no knowledge that Klinge was coming to England. Stoddart told an untruth in saying that I went to meet him at Herne Hill Station. When I saw Klinge that morning in Stoddart's office presumably Jones had gone to Liverpool. Jones would have been a valuable witness for me, and that is why I wired for his return. Stoddart according to me was guilty and Jones was the innocent victim of Stoddart. Jones' signing the back of the Bank of England note was a very innocent thing to do if he had not done anything wrong. He had no reason to leave England except that he was upset and wanted to go away. Stoddart said, "Give him a £5 note and let him get away until he has recovered." I first heard it was going to be suggested that Klinge posted the three letters, including the Butterworth

letter, and Cowley cashed the note, at the first hearing at the Mansion House. I knew that the Cowley charge was laid against me and Stoddart. I am perfectly innocent, and according to my story Stoddart is guilty, yet at first I joined defences with him. I never saw Mr. Abinger in chambers in my life, and he did not appear for me by my authority or by my wish. I never saw Mr. Wild in consultation. I did not know on September 29 that when Klinge came over he got a cheque of £20 from Stoddart; I knew later on. I know that he changed the £20 note he got at the Ludgate Hill bank at the Bank of England. I did not know Klinge was to be a witness for the defence, but I know he was taken to Alpe and Ward's. I understood he was verifying my statement, and that he had made a statement to them regarding the Price incident. I did not bring Klinge over to England on September 29, and did not know he was coming.

Re-examined. Until Mr. Barnett appeared for me I had personally taken no part in the defence by attending conferences or anything of that kind, nor by instructing solicitors nor attending consultations with counsel. Until I attended the first hearing at the Mansion House I had no idea of the line of defence that was going to be taken by Stoddart and his counsel, and I was not consulted by them as to what line should be adopted. It was when I heard on the first day of the hearing the suggestion that Cowley and Klinge were conspirators that I decided to sever my defence. It was not right that Cowley should be called a thief-right off the reel when I knew who it was. I adhere to my statement that at no time have I been party to any fraud, or received the proceeds of any fraud. I was not at Middelburg on October 26, 27, or 28. My first visit was on October 5, and I did not go again until November 1. The receipts that I gave Inspector Collison were in the coupon I received from Klinge; it might have been by accident or by design. He gave me at the same time an armful of other documents. When I arranged with Stoddart to go over to Holland, he told me he suspected he was being robbed and asked me to keep an eye particularly on Klinge and Defries. In the course of my periodical visits I did not come definitely to the conclusion that they were robbing Stoddart, but I had my suspicions. It was impossible to make any definite statement to Stoddart on the subject. The only ground for suspicion in my mind was that the value of the letters increased per letter from 8 1/2 d. to 1s. 3d. I made no attempt to ascertain whether Mr. Stoddart was being defrauded by the introduction of bogus winners; I could not; I was not over long enough. Leaving London, on the Friday night; and arriving in Middelburg on the Saturday morning, I left on the Sunday night. My only object being to obtain such moneys as were sent and bring them back. I had no means of checking whether fraud was tasking place, as it might have been done either before I got there or after I got there. I was absolutely alone when I posted the three letters on June 16 and received the receipts from the post office. I gave the receipts to Stoddart by whom they were produced in the same way that he can produce other documents as and when required. I have no idea where Stoddart got the £50 he paid me

on June 19. The £30 was given me at the same time. Cowley never tried to get any money out of me on account of the £100. He never tried to blackmail me personally, or suggest that as I had done something wrong I ought to pay him something. The Cowley fraud was connected with racing with which I have never had anything to do. I have never backed a horse in my life. You may take it, therefore, that the profits in respect of which I received the £50 were in relation to "Football Record." There was no share of profits coming to me in connection with racing. If he had made a million I should have had no share in it. On the evening of Monday, September 28, on which it is alleged I went late at night to see Mrs. Jones, I went to the "Empress" Music Hall with Mrs. Catling, and after the performance was over we went straight home and I did not go out again. Next morning, when I got to my office about half-past ten, Jones was there. There is not the slightest truth in the suggestion that late on Monday night, September 28, or early in the morning of Tuesday I was at Mrs. Jones's flat as described by her, unless I walked in my sleep.

MABEL CATLING , wife of prisoner Catling. On September 25 my husband and I arrived at Forest Lodge about six o'clock in the evening. We found Grimes there with my mother. My husband and Grimes were alone in the drawing-room until my father came. I went home in my father's car and returned about three-quarters of an hour afterwards. As I returned I heard my husband and Mr. Grimes coming down the road. After some conversation Grimes left us and I and my husband returned to my father's house. When my father came down in his dressing-gown I said that £2,000 had to be paid, and would he pay it? He said, "No." I said, "Very well, if it means my husband's liberty, we most find it ourselves." Dad went away. Then my husband and I went to the "Empress" and had an interview with Grimes. After my husband and I got home we had some conversation about this matter. On the following Monday, September 28, Jones called to see my husband. I had previously, in the afternoon, had an interview with father and mother at their house. In the course of conversation about the case dad showed me two pieces of paper; one was a coupon and the other a claim in respect of the coupon, and he asked me if I recognised the handwriting. I said, "No, I did not recognise it, but I thought I did." When I afterwards saw Jones I said, "Are you mixed up in this affair?" Mr. Abinger objected that this was not evidence.

Mr. Elliott said this was a charge to which Jones was a party with Catling and Stoddart. Witness: My husband came in while Jones was there.

Mr. Elliott submitted that anything said in the presence of Catling would be evidence against Catling.

The Recorder: The statement of an accomplice is evidence against his coconspirators as long as the conspiracy is going on, bat the confession by some conspirator after it is all over is only evidence against himself.

Mr. Abinger: My friend is getting in a statement against Stoddart under this guise.

The Recorder said he could only admit the statement as evidence against Catling and would tell the jury that it was not evidence against Stoddart. It could only have been introduced for the purpose of prejudicing Stoddart, and he did not think it would do Mr. Elliott's client any good.

Mr. Elliott: I must take the risk of that.

The Recorder: I do not in the least know what this evidence is for. I do not think that anybody would attach the least importance to what Jones said. Jones is obviously, from all the evidence in this case, up to his neck in this conspiracy.

Examination continued. When my husband came in I told Jones to repeat to him what he had said to me. Jones repeated that he had signed the back of this £100 note and also written out the claim, and that he had cashed the note. My husband said to him, "Whatever did you do it for? What made you do it?" Jones said he was asked to do it. After that interview Jones left with us. My husband and I went to the" Empress" to see Grimes. We arrived about eight o'clock and stayed till a quarter past 11, when we went to bed. I remember being at home with my husband on October 7 when Mr. Lawson and my father came to the house. My father had heard that my husband intended to separate the defences. He pointed out to my husband that it was suicidal to do that and talked about the law and said that they must rise or fail together in a case of conspiracy. After a little while Catling said, "You will be pleased to near that we have decided to keep on with the defence." We told him we had already agreed to do so before he came. Mr. Lawson was present during the whole of this time. A telegram was written out, not on a telegraph form, but on an ordinary piece of paper. After the telegram had been written out; before my father left, my husband said to Stoddart he had heard mat he had had £2,000 out of the profits of the competition and asked him, "Would you correct the statement you have made with regard to the profit?" I also had heard that my father had made £2,000 out of it, and my mother had heard it. When my father was asked he said it was between £800 and £900; that was all. Later in the afternoon I saw them all again and subsequently went to Stoddart's house. My father was not there when I arrived. When he did come in I told him that Klinge was in England and had made a statement, but my father said he did not believe me. I said, "If you do not believe me, you may go down and see for yourself." My father said he did not believe Klinge was in England. We went down in a motor-car. There was an accident, and we knocked a gentleman over and it might have been serious. A clergyman interfered with my chauffeur and my father remonstrated with the clergyman. There was a little altercation and I tried to prevent my father doing anything. My father pushed me away and my arm got twisted. He did it quite accidentally. I went into my father's house and was for a time very faint and unwell. That is the origin of the story about the alleged assault upon me. When I went home I found my father and Mr. and Mrs. Lawson at my house. My father was very angry and said a number of unkind things about my husband and Mr. Lawson intervened. I heard a sound of scuffling in the hall. As to what the girl Gilbert said about the letter, I was very upset to find that my father had not got bail, so I wrote a letter, but I never gave it to Gilbert to

post, and it is not true I ever put it in an envelope for the purpose of having it posted. I put it in my writing-case, which has gone.

Cross-examined by Mr. Abinger. The summons was served about 10 o'clock and my husband got it at midnight. The amount required for Price's prize money was. I think, £1,600. The balance of the £2,000 was not to go to my husband. Grimes said he had been to Windust, but he did not say the money was to be paid to Windust. The condition of the £2,000 being paid was that my husband's name was to be dropped out of the case and the whole matter would end. I do not know who said it; that is what we, all understood.

Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. The coupon and claims produced (Exhibits 5 and 6) are the coupon and claims which my father showed me. I do not recognise the handwriting; I think at is Jones's. I told my father I did not recognise it because I thought that Jones, being my husband's manager, he might be mixed up in it. I did not want to say anything about it.

(Tuesday, February 16.)

Charles Lawson, surveyor, 5, Angel Park Gardens, Brixton. I have known Catling about eight years, and during that time his reputation as an honest man has been beyond reproach. I had a yacht called the Veronique in October, 1907, but did not visit Ramsgate in her. I was not in Ramsgate at all that month. I know absolutely nothing about the D'Avyet competition, and never heard of it until I saw it in print. At the time counsel speaks of the yacht was laid up on the Hard in Hampshire and I was in Swaziland. I remember being in Catling's house in October of last year before the second hearing at the Mansion House, but I cannot say the date. Catling had sent over to my house to say he wanted to see me, and asking whether I would go to him or he should come to me, and knowing his trouble I thought it a greater compliment to go to him. Whilst I was there Stoddart and his wife came in. Stoddart hesitated a moment or two, and then said, "Does Mr. Lawson know all about our affair?" Catling said, "Yes," and Stoddart continued, "I have come to see you, Fred, about this defence. I understand that you have instructed a solicitor to act for you independently, and you have been to Barnett." Catling said he had. Stoddart said, "You are very unwise in this because you are upsetting what defence I have, and I am particularly any part in the case. Abinger has the defence in hand and I do not mind your going to Barnett and asking Barnett what you like, and I do not mind Barnett being in court, but I do object to him taking any part in the case. Abinger has the defence in hand and I do not want him interfered with. The case is mine and you have no right to interfere. Catling reproached him with not having taken him into his counsel, and said he had no idea what the line of defence really was. Stoddart said, "If you had wanted to find out there is no doubt you could have found out. I have been seeing you and been constantly in your office, but as a matter of fact it is nothing whatever to do with you; it is my affair not yours." I then said to Stoddart

that prior to his coming over Catling and I had talked the matter over thoroughly, and Catling had consented, at the request