Vol. CLI.] Part 900.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
HELD OCT. 12TH, 1909, AND FOLLOWING DAYS.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE,
TAKEN IN SHORTHAND BY
Shorthand Writer to the Court.
POINTS OF LAW AND PRACTICE
R. F. GRAHAM-CAMPBELL, ESQUIRE,
OF THE INNER TEMPLE.
[Published by Annual Subscription.]
GEO. WALPOLE, PORTUGAL STREET BUILDINGS, LINCOLN'S INN, W. C.
THE ARGUS PRINTING COMPANY, LIMITED,
10, TEMPLE AVENUE, AND TUDOR STREET,
LONDON, E. C.
On the King's Commission of
OYER AND TERMINER AND GAOL DELIVERY
The City of London,
AND GAOL DELIVERY FOR THE
COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX AND THE PARTS OF OTHER COUNTIES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,
Held on Tuesday, October 12th, 1909, and following days.
Before the Right Hon. Sir GEORGE WYATT TRUSCOTT Baronet, LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir WILLIAM PICKFORD,, one of the Justices of His Majesty's High Court; Sir JOSEPH SAVORY , Bart.; Sir ALFRED JAMES NEWTON , Bart.; Sir W. VAUGHAN MORGAN , Bart.; WALTER MURRAY GUTHRIE , Esq.; Sir CHAS. CHEERS WAKEFIELD, Aldermen of the said City; Sir FORREST FULTON , Knight, K. C., Recorder of the said City; Sir FK. ALBERT BOSANQUET, K. C., Common Serjeant of the said City; and His Honour Judge RENTOUL K. C., Commissioner, His Majesty's Justices of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery holden for the said City, and Judges of the Central Criminal Court.
RALPH SLAZENGER, Esq.
J. D.LANGTON, Esq.
W. J. B. TIPPETTS, Esq.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
TRUSCOTT, MAYOR. TWELFTH SESSION.
LONDON AND MIDDLESEX CASES.
BEFORE THE RECORDER. (Tuesday, October 12.)
KNIGHT Henry Ogilvie (45, postman) , pleaded guilty of stealing a postal packet containing one watch and 13 penny and one halfpenny postage stamps; and a postal packet containing one watch and one postal order, value 1s., the goods in each case of His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he being employed under the Post Office.
Prisoner, was stated to have not attempted to realise a large number of articles which he had stolen, and to be of weak mental condition. Sentence was postponed to next sessions.
GARITTA Vegilio (19, liftman) , pleaded guilty of stealing a Post Office Savings Bank deposit book, the goods of His Majesty's Post-master-general ; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain request for the payment of money, to wit, a Post Office Savings Bank notice of with drawal for £15, and a certain receipt for money, to wit, a receipt for the payment of the sum of £15, in each case with intent to defraud.
Sentence, Three months' hard labour.
STEVENS William (25, shop assistant) , pleaded guilty of having been entrusted with a piano, the goods of Edwin Wheatland and others, in order that he might retain the safe custody thereof, did fraudulently convert the same to his own use and benefit; obtaining by false pretences from Arthur Edward Lawford two photographs, the goods of Berney and Company, Limited, with intent to defraud.
Sentence, Six months' hard labour.
RAMPTON William George (37, labourer) , pleaded guilty of obtaining by false pretences from David Kite the several sums of £3 and £2, the moneys of the Southern Western Investment and Advance Company, Limited, and from William Henry Hockley the several sums of 3s. and 17s., his moneys, in each case with intent to defraud; unlawfully forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain paper writing purporting to be signed by the general manager of the London and South-Western Railway Company, and to be an appointment for him to attend at the offices of the said company to receive £100, with intent to defraud.
Prisoner also confessed to having been convicted at the South London Quarter Sessions on October 19, 1904, receiving three months' hard labour for breaking into an outhouse, after three previous convictions of felony.
Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.
WARD Percy William (26, traveller) , who pleaded guilty at the September Sessions (see p. 504) of forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, the endorsements on two orders for the payment of £1 1s. and 10s. 6d. respectively, in each case with intent to defraud (two indictments); embezzling two orders for the payment of £11s. and 10s. 6d. and the sums of £1 1s. and 10s. 6d. respectively, the property of The Motorists' Protection Association, Limited, his masters; and confessed to former convictions of felony, was brought up for judgment. Rev.—. Burleigh undertaking to find prisoner employment, and prisoner having been in custody since July 16, he was sentenced to one day's imprisonment.
LEUTY Frederick (61, chef) , who pleaded guilty at the September Sessions (see p. 650) of common assault upon Arthur Pearce, William Baker, and Richard Blackman, was sentenced to 35 days' imprisonment; entitling him to immediate discharge.
BALDWIN Leonard (24, salesman) , who was convicted at the September Sessions (see p. 651) of stealing a postal order for the payment of 1s. and the sum of £56 14s., the moneys of George Frederick Percey, his master, was brought up for judgment. Having been 12 weeks in custody, he was now released on recognisances in £50 of himself and his father, Frederick Baldwin, to come up for judgment if called upon.
RUSSELL Victor Stanley (17, hall porter) , who pleaded guilty at the September Sessions (see p. 585) of forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, two orders for the payment of £5 each, with intent to defraud (two indictments), was now released on the recognisances of himself and William White, his brother-in-law, in £15 each to come up for judgment if called upon.
WILSON Thomas Toshach (19, postman) , pleaded guilty of stealing a postal packet containing a certain valuable security, to wit, a postal order for the payment and of the value of 8s. 6d., the goods of His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he being employed under the Post Office.
Sentence, Three months' hard labour.
TURNER Edwin James (34, brass finisher) , burglary in the dwelling-house No. 374, Finchley Road, and stealing therein goods, value £30; unlawfully and maliciously damaging a quantity of furniture, pictures, etc., to the amount of £120; burglary in the dwelling-house No. 75, Avenue Road, St. John's Wood, and stealing therein 18 snuff boxes and other articles, the goods of Benjamin Jones, and feloniously receiving the same.
Prisoner pleaded guilty of the two charges of burglary; not guilty of the wilful damage, his plea being accepted by the prosecution.
Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Tuesday, October 12.)
ALLEN Edward (41, dealer) , who pleaded guilty at the September Sessions (see p. 570) that, being entrusted with certain property, to wit, one piano, the goods of Harry Caldecott and another, one piano, the goods of Shenstone and Company, Limited, and one bedstead and other articles, the goods of the Highbury Furnishing Company, Limited, in order that he might retain the said property in safe custody, he did unlawfully and fraudulently convert the said property, respectively, to his own use and benefit (three indictments), came up for judgment.
Sergeant LEACH, 6 Division, stated that prisoner had been convicted of keeping a brothel, and the addresses to which the furniture comprised in the indictments was sent were undoubtedly brothels.
Sentence, Six months' hard labour, to run from last Sessions. A restitution order was made in respect of some property of the High bury Furnishing Company which has been found at Walthamstow.
SMITH Herbert William (18, labourer) , pleaded guilty of unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin and having in his possession eight other pieces of counterfeit coin; unlawfully having in his possession eight pieces of counterfeit coin, with intent to utter the same.
Prisoner was released on his own recognisances in the sum of £10 to come up for judgment if called upon, being handed over to an officer of the Church Army, the officer to furnish a report on his conduct on the first day of November Sessions. Prisoner, it appeared, volunteered a statement to the police that he had been led into this by an older man, and the Common Serjeant expressed the opinion that he ought to have the opportunity of recovering his character without going to prison.
Garrett pleaded guilty
Mr. Pickersgill, M. P., prosecuted; Mr. C. W. Kent defended Myers.
Detective-sergeant ALBERT HANDLEY, J Division. About nine a.m.
on September 30 I was with Sergeant Edwards in the Hackney Road keeping observation, and saw prisoners coming along the road towards Shoreditch; when they were opposite 127, Hackney Road, which is a coffee shop, Myers apparently observed me, he touched Garrett, and they entered the coffee shop. I and Sergeant Edwards at once entered the shop. I told prisoners we were police officers, and had reason to believe they were in possession of counterfeit coin and should search them. I searched Garrett and Sergeant Edwards searched Myers. Myers turned to me and said, "Handley, I have none on me; you will find them on him," pointing to Garrett. Garrett then took from the inside pocket of his jacket a small pack-age wrapped in brown paper, and said, "Here you are, Handley. You will find 24 counterfeit 5s. pieces, all 'snide.' You were too late the other morning. You have got us straight this morning. I will tell you straight, we are not the makers. If we had passed these to-day we should only have got eight 'bob' for our corner. They were taken to Bethnal Green Police Station, and subsequently charged. On Myers was 1s. 6d. in good money and on Garrett 13s. 6d. All the counterfeit coins were wrapped separately in tissue paper. A counterfeit half-crown was also found on Garrett. All the crown pieces were apparently from the same mould.
Cross-examined. A good deal of counterfeit coin has been passed in this district lately, and the police, of course, have been on the very strict look out. No counterfeit coin was found on Myers, who is a man of good character. I arrested Garrett four days previously on suspicion of uttering. He was not then with Myers. I wrote down what Garrett said as soon as I got to the police-station. Garrett said, "You have got us straight," not "You have got me straight" Mr. Kent pointed out that in the depositions Garrett was taken down as saying, "You were too late the other morning. You have got me straight this morning."
Detective-sergeant EDWARDS, J Division, gave corroborative evidence.
WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , the officer of the Mint, gave evidence that the 24 crown pieces were all counterfeit and from the same mould and were fairly well made, but not so well made as those in the former case. Coiners were now making more crown pieces than formerly.
Verdict, Myers Not Guilty.
Sergeant HANDLEY stated that Garrett bore a good character in places where he had been working, but for the last nine months he had done no work, living entirely on his poor widowed mother, who was in receipt of parish relief, 7s. 6d. per week. Sentence, Four months' hard labour.
SMITH Eliza , pleaded guilty of marrying William Smith, her husband being alive. It appeared that someone discovered that the woman was married, and threatened to show her up, and this so preyed on her mind that she herself went to the police. Smith stated that he had lived with prisoner 18 months or two years before going through the form of marriage. Since then she had conducted herself respectably, and had worked very hard in a laundry.
Prisoner was released on her own recognisances in £10 to come up for judgment if called upon.
SMITH Thomas, otherwise John Wilson (35, labourer) , breaking and entering the shop of the Crown Emporium Company, Limited, and stealing therein four watches and two cases, their goods. Mr. Ford ham prosecuted.
detective-constable ALFRED KIRBY, City. On the 6th of this month I was on duty in plain clothes in Cheapside at 2 a.m., and saw prisoner acting suspiciously, looking into shops and doorways. I followed him down Cheapside. He crossed the road when opposite No. 105, and looked into the window of the Crown Emporium Company, a cheap jewellery shop. He then put his hand into his pocket and took out this half brick with which with two successive blows ho completely smashed the glass. Having done that he put his hands into the window and took from it two boxes. He immediately hurried off. I was about 20 yards from him when he broke the window, secreted in the doorway. I ran after him and stopped him. The two boxes produced were in his left hand and in his right hand he had a pedestal with two watches upon it. Two watches dropped from the boxes and were picked up on the footway. I then took him to the station. The watches hung in the window in a kind of case.
Detective-sergeant GEORGE GALE, City, proved previous convictions for minor offences. Sentence, 15 months' hard labour.
Detective-sergeant HUMPHREYS stated that prisoner married Rogers in May, 1903, and her husband immediately commenced to drive her out into the streets to get her own living, and when she refused he used to knock her about and otherwise ill-treat her. On May 12 of this year he was sentenced to three months' hard labour for living on her earnings, and while he was in prison she married Marlow.
The Common Serjeant thought it impossible to say under the circumstances that prisoner was deserving of punishment, and sentenced her to imprisonment for one day.
MORRIS Samuel (31, upholsterer) , having been entrusted with 12s. 6d., the moneys of Arthur Roe in order that he might purchase certain materials to do certain work for the said Arthur Roe, fraudulently converting the same to his own use and benefit.
Mr. Dummett prosecuted.
I gave him two little jobs, which he did very well. On August 4 he came again and asked for a job. We wanted a settee done inside our private room, and he went to get patterns at Dawson Brothers in the City Road. He got the patterns, came back to us, and said the price of the materials would be 12s. 6d. We offered him a cheque, which he said he would not take as he said he would not get the trade discount from Dawson's if he took a cheque, and eventually I gave him the money out of my own pocket. He took the money and never came back. I next saw him in "The Hole in the Wall" public house, Theobald's Road, mending a settee. I called a constable and charged him.
Prisoner denied that he was ever at the "Sportsman" in his life, but witness said he was sure he was the man.
LOUISA ROE , wife of last witness. I recognise prisoner, who came to our house in August last and my husband sent him into a room at the back of the bar. I had not myself seen him previously. When he came back and said the materials would be 12s. 6d. I rather objected to give him the money, but my husband said he had done work all right before. He objected to taking the cheque as he would lose his trade discount or something to that effect, so I tore up the cheque and my husband gave him the money. I have no doubt whatever that prisoner is the man.•
Police-constable HARRY TOY, 352 E. I was called to "The Hole in the Wall" public house by prosecutor on September 28. He said he wished to give prisoner into custody for stealing 12s. from him. Prisoner said, When?" and prosecutor replied, "Between two and three months ago." Prisoner said, "It cannot have been me. It must have been one of my brothers." I took him to the station. He made no reply to the charge.
Verdict, Guilty. Three previous convictions were proved. Sentence, Six months' hard labour.
BEFORE MR JUSTICE PICKFORD.
(Wednesday, October 13.)
Mr. Graham-Campbell prosecuted; Mr. J. D. Cassels defended.
Verdict, Not guilty.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Wednesday, October 13.)
CARMODY John (19, clerk) , pleaded guilty of obtaining by false pretences from John Edward Locke a postal order for £1; from Edward Hetrell Titheradge two several postal orders for £1 and £1 respectively, and from Honoria Kearney divers postal and Post Office orders to the value of £66, in each case with intent to defraud; obtaining by false pretences from Percy John Handley and the Irish Direct Supply, Limited, one overcoat, and from William Francis Fogarty and the said Irish Direct Supply, Limited, one dozen collars and other articles, in each case with intent to defraud; attempting to obtain by false pretences from James Ives £14 10s., and from Edward Tripp £7 10s., in each case with intent to defraud.
Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.
Mr. Boyd prosecuted; Mr. George Elliott, K. C., and Mr. Sworder appeared for the prisoner. Mr. Hugh Brodie appeared for Stockall, Marples and Co., Limited; Mr. Attenborough appeared for pawnbrokers.
Prisoner, who was a partner in the firm of J. J. Stockall and Sons, Limited, on the morning of Monday, November 28, 1904, was found tied up in their warehouse and declared that a robbery had been committed by two men who had called to see him by appointment the previous Saturday afternoon. The property being insured against burglary, a claim was made by the firm for £3,122, which the underwriters settled by a payment of £2,977. On September 3, 1909, prisoner confessed the fraud to his brother, who communicated the facts to the police, and prisoner was arrested on September 6. Prisoner had tied himself up and had abstracted and pawned 535 of the watches with various pawnbrokers.
Evidence was given that prisoner had led an exemplary life and it was stated by prisoner's doctor that he had suffered from neurotic attacks at the time of the commission of the crime. Prisoner was stated to have been moved by his own conscience to divulge the facts.
Sentence, Nine months' imprisonment, the second division.
Mr. Brodie applied for a restitution order on behalf of Stockall, Marples and Company, Limited.
Mr. Attenborough submitted that the prosecution being instituted by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Stockall, Marples and Company had no locus Stand; that the property being over £10 an order could not be made against the pawnbroker; under the articles of Association of Stockall, Marples and Company, Limited, prisoner had power to pledge. (Council referred to the Larceny Act sec 100; and the Prosecution of Offences Act, 1879, sec. 7.)
The Recorder declined to make any order for restitution, leaving the parties to their civil rights.
FRANKLIN Frederick (36, clerk) , pleaded guilty of obtaining by false pretences from Thomas Hugh Griffiths £20, the moneys of the London and South-Western Bank; feloniously forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for £20; and feloniously attempting to obtain £20 by means of a forged instrument, to wit, a banker's cheque, knowing the same to be forged, in each case with intent to defraud; and confessed to having been convicted of felony at this court on May 13, 1901.
Prisoner was also indicted, under the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, as an habitual criminal; to this indictment he pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Travers Humphreys prosecuted.
ARTHUR SEFTON COHEN , of the department of the Director of Public Prosecutions. I produce consent to this indictment signed by Guy Stephenson, Assistant Director of Public Prosecutions. I am familiar with Mr. Stephenson's handwriting and identify his signature; he is duly authorised by the Act to give consent.
Seven days' notice had been served upon prisoner (under Section 10, sub-sec. 4 (b), but no copy has been retained.
The Recorder remarked that the procedure under this new statute must be strictly observed; proper proof of service of the notice not being forthcoming, he directed the Jury to return a verdict of Not guilty on this indictment.
Convictions proved: September 9, 1895, at this Court, 12 months' hard labour for forgery; October 23, 1897, Middlesex Sessions, Westminster, 15 months for larceny; May 13, 1901, at this Court, seven years' penal servitude for forgery. Prisoner was liberated on October 2, 1906, and had since been in employment for six months, had not been since convicted, and stated that he had been trying to get An honest living.
The Recorder said the present case, in which the prisoner had been three years out of prison, was not one contemplated by the new Act. Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.
LARA Herbert (20, labourer), THORPE Joseph (41, labourer), CRISPIN William (32, labourer), and STONE Leonard (40, dealer) ; all, on September 20, 1909, stealing one hand trolley, one barrel and three-quarters of a hunderweight in weight of solder, the goods of Henry Jacob, the master of Herbert Lara.
Mr. Ellis prosecuted; Mr. A. Mulligan appeared for Lara.
Lara pleaded guilty of stealing 1 cwt. of solder; not guilty of stealing the trolley or barrel. The four prisoners were tried on the whole indictment.
Police-constable WILLIAM WHITE, 764 City. On September 20, 1909, at about 4.30 p.m., I was on duty in uniform in Lower Thames Street, when I saw Crispin and Thorpe at the corner of Water Lane, Stone being on the other side of the road at the north-east corner of
the Custom House. Thinking they were acting suspiciously I kept observation from behind a van. I heard Crispin say to Thorpe, "You get the stuff and I will take it away." I then saw that Stone was watching my movements, walked on to the Wool Quay, returned to Water Lane and saw Thorpe and Crispin dragging a barrel up from the basement of No. 9, Water Lane, Lara assisting from behind. They put the barrel on a hand trolley and Crispin and Thorpe pushed it down Lower Thames Street to the bottom of Tower Hill, when they were joined by Stone, and all three pushed the trolley up Tower Hill. I, went in front of them and seized Crispin and Stone. Crispin said, "All right; we're copped." Stone broke away and ran off with Thorpe. I whistled for assistance and Police-Constable Eddington caught Thorpe. Another constable caught Stone; the three were taken to the Minories Police Station and placed in the dock. I brought the barrel containing the metal to the station and returned to 9, Water Lane, occupied by Henry Jacob, metal dealer, where I saw Lara. I said to him, "Have you sent any metal away?" He replied, "No, only an old barrel." I asked to see his employer; he took me into the office, where I saw Mr. Jacob, who, with Lara, came to the station. Jacob identified the metal as his property and charged the four prisoners with stealing it; they made no reply.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mulligan. Lara followed the barrel on to the pavement and returned to the basement; he did not load it on to the trolley. Lara was searched and 1/2 d. found upon him. To Thorpe. I had never seen Stone in Thorpe's company before. The prisoners were acting very suspiciously. I did not hear what Thorpe said to Lara. Crispin and Thorpe put the barrel on the trolley. I did not ask Thorpe what he had in the barrel. He had an opportunity of giving an explanation when charged.
To Stone. I did not hear Stone talking to Thorpe or Crispin. Stone followed me up Thames Street.
Detective-sergeant JAKES BROWN, City. On September 20, at 5.20 p.m., I was in charge at Minories Police Station when prosecutor and Lara came there. I said to prosecutor, "Is that your barrow and barrel?" He turned to Lara and said, "Is that ours?" Lara said, "That is our barrow and barrel. I gave the metal to the men to sell. I had no money. They were going to sell it and I was going to see them again the next morning at the Minories." The four prisoners were then charged by myself and White; they made no reply. In the cell passage I asked Lara if he would give me any names and addresses I could make inquiry of. He said, "What do you mean?" hesitated, and said, "Do you mean the other stuff?" I told him he could have a paper and pencil if he wished to make a statement. He had the paper, started making a statement, and then tore it up.
To the Jury. The charge which is on the charge sheet was read over to them: "Being concerned together in stealing and receiving the barrel of metal." They were given an opportunity of making a statement and could have replied to it.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mulligan. I have made inquiry into Lara's character—it is very good. He has been with Mr. Jacob for seven years as warehouse porter and packer, is honest, sober, and industrious. A halfpenny only was found on Lara. About six shillings was found on Thorpe.
To Thorpe. I saw Thorpe brought in. He did not ask to make a statement. He was doing all the speaking and swearing as well—we could not get a word from the others.
To Crispin. I have made inquiries respecting Crispin; he has been employed on and off at Custom House Quay as a labourer and odd man. He has a good character for honesty, but is given to intemperance.
To Stone. I did not-question Lara at all.
HARRY JACOB , 9, Water Lane, metal merchant. On September 20 I identified at the station, trolley, barrel, and metal as my property. I had given no authority to Lara to dispose of it. Lara has been several years in my service.
Cross-examined by Mr. Mulligan. On the morning of September 20 Lara asked for his week's wages—16s.—to be paid in advance and I gave instructions for him to have it—it would not be due until the following Friday. He said his father wanted it. Lara has been seven years with me and bears a good character. I do not wish to press the charge against him.
To Thorpe. I did not see Lara give Thorpe 16s. I gave orders for him to be paid before lunch.
Statement of Lara before the magistrate: "I wish to say nothing here."
Statement of Thorpe: "I never stole the stuff. I had it given to me and these two men, Crispin and Stone, were helping me with it. "Statement of Crispin: "I was standing at the bottom of Thames Street and this man, Thorpe, asked me to give him a lift up, in Lara's presence, with a barrel, but I could not tell what it contained. When we got it in the road he asked me would I take it up the hill and he would give me a drink for it. On the way going up the hill we met Stone, and Thorpe asked Stone to give us a shove up as well, and when we got to Tower Hill this constable took me out of the handles of the truck."
Statement of Stone written in Brixton Prison: "I beg to state that I am not guilty of the charge brought against me; neither have I received nor had anything to do with the stolen property whatsoever. On Monday, 20th, I was in Bethnal Green Road at 4.10 p.m., went on a 'bus to Liverpool Street, walked to the Monument, went through Thames Street, crossed over the road towards the Tower end and up the Hill, where I saw Thorpe and Crispin pulling a truck with a barrel on it. They were arguing about shoving up, and Thorpe asked me to give them a shove up the hill. I no sooner touched the barrel to shove up than I was in the hands of the police. That was the first I had seen of these men during the day, and one I had never seen until he came to the
station with his governor. The other men know that I am innocent and what I have said is perfectly true, and I hope you will believe it."
HERBERT LARA (prisoner, on oath). I live with my father, who is an artist, at 2, Sunnyside Road, Edmonton, am 21 years of age, and have been employed by prosecutor for seven years as assistant packer at 16s. a week. About six months ago my father gave me some old metal tubes to sell. I had some conversation with the man I sold them to, and, in consequence, added some of my employer's metal, sold it with the tubes from 9, Water Lane, and kept the money I received. On September 20, at 2.30 p.m., Thorpe, whom I did not know, called to me down the trapdoor and asked me if I had got any old stuff. I said, "No." He then asked me to come up from the basement, which I did, and he said he knew something about the other metal I had sold and said, "Unless you square me I shall tell your governor. "I said I could not do anything as I had nothing. He said, "You must." I went upstairs to my employer, asked to have my week's wages advanced to me, saying that I wanted to give it to my father, and gave it to Thorpe, who went away. Shortly afterwards he returned and said that was not enough—he must have some more. I said I could not give him any more as I had not got any. He said, "There is plenty of stuff. Cannot you give us something to raise some money on?" I said I could not and told him to go away. As he still threatened to tell my governor about the metal, I told him to come back in about half an hour's time and I would see if I could give him something. A little before 4.30 p.m. he returned. I put the metal in a barrel, lent him a trolley and he took it away. He was to bring back the trolley and the barrel. When searched at the station I had only 1/2 d. upon me—I had given Thorpe the 16s.—my wages.
Cross-examined by Thorpe. Thorpe asked if I had any old stuff. I said, "No." He then called me up, said he know something about me and would tell my governor. I got my wages and gave him the 16s. and he went away. That was about 3.15 p.m. I had never seen him before. He returned and asked me for some more money. I told him I had none and that if he would come back in half an hour I would give him some stuff; he returned and I gave him 3l. 4 cwt. of solder. He asked me to lend him the trolley—I did not offer it. I told the first constable I had given him nothing.
Cross-examined by Crispin. Thorpe called Crispin from the corner of Water Lane and asked him to help up the stairs with the barrel. Thorpe then said, "Will you give me a shove up the hill and I will give you a drink?" I never saw Stone until he was at the station in custody.
Mr. Mulligan submitted that there was no evidence against Lara. The Recorder said there was sufficient to go to the Jury.
have been out of employment the last four months. On September 20 I was going through Thames Street. I saw Lara and halloed to him. in the cellar, "Have you got any old iron you do not want?" He said, "Yes, come back in about half-an-hour's time and I will look you up some." I had no barrow, and went round Thames Street and Billingsgate Market to see if I could borrow one, but could not do so; returned to 9, Water Lane and called down to Lara, "I cannot take that stuff to-day, I have got no barrow." He said, "How far are you going to take it?" I said, "How much have you got?" He said, "A decent bit." I said, "I will take it to the nearest place—Mint Street. "He then offered me his trolley. I called to Crispin, and he helped me up with it. Of course, Lara asked me nothing for the old iron, or I should have turned it out and bid him a price for it. He did not ask anything for it. If he had asked anything much I should have chucked it down the cellar. Solder in a raw state is impossible for a man like me to get rid of. I was going to take it to a man in Mint Street who would have given me a shilling or two for it, I thought it was old iron only, and nothing else—only what I asked for. When we got to the station the constable goes to this place and he sees the prisoner there, and he asks him if any stuff has gone out. The very first thing he turns round and says, "No, nothing has gone, only an empty barrel"; then he fetches the governor into the station. This prisoner did not say he gave it away. I asked if I could speak, but they could not let me. We were all put in the dock and charged and put in the cells. While we were in the cells the constable comes down there to inquire into it. He (Lara) turned round and said that I bought the stuff, and that I was to meet him somewhere. In the other evidence he told the constable he did not give anything away. Now he says he gave me the stuff for myself—that is what he says now at the last after coming up this morning. We had to come up to the Mansion House. Of course, the charge is all joined together; but the police did not want to give any evidence against us and said, "We want a remand." We go away for a remand, and next week up comes the prisoner and says he gave me 16s. I ask you if you think that a man would be likely to come up and ask him for money like that. I never saw the man before in my life, and he is going to give me 16s. and to give me the stuff. That is his statement to clear him self, and he puts it on the likes of me. I am perfectly innocent. If he said he had no stuff to give away, I should have gone away.
WILLIAM CRISPIN (prisoner, not on oath). I was standing at the corner of Thames Street. Between four and five o'clock I was standing outside the beer shop and Stone came and asked me if I would come and give him a lift up. I helped him up with this barrel, and put it on the pavement and walked away. When I got a little way off he called me back and. asked me would I give a shove up to the top and he would give me a drink. I am as innocent of the charge as any man in this Court.
Verdict: Thorpe Guilty of stealing 3l. 4 cwt. of solder; Lara and Thorpe Not guilty of stealing the trolley; Crispin and Stone Not guilty.
Thorpe confessed to having been convicted at Clerkenwell on April 2, 1901, receiving 15 months' hard labour for larceny and receiving. Other convictions proved: August 16, 1902,. North London Sessions, 18 months for wounding; January 23, 1906, North London Sessions, warehouse breaking, 12 months; 1906, released on recognisances for wounding.
Sentence, Thorpe 18 months' hard labour; Lara six months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT. (Wednesday, October 13.)
CHANDLER Edward Frederick (24, porter), and LAWRENCE Charles Oliver (15, railway messenger) ; Chandler committing an act of gross indecency with Charles Oliver Lawrence, a male person; Lawrence committing an act of gross indecency with Edward Frederick Chandler, a male person.
Verdict, Not guilty.
Mr. Huntly Jenkins, prosecuting, said the real marriage took place in 1903 and the second in March, 1906. Prisoner had been badly treated by both men. Her husband deserted her, and Huntingdon kicked her on the day of the ceremony because she kissed a man named Elliott, who was best man.
Prisoner was handed over to the care of Mr. Scott-France, the court missionary, he having undertaken to find a home for her with Miss Salter.
KREBES Otto (22, waiter), and EGERT Ernest (21, waiter) , both pleaded guilty of burglary in the dwelling-house of Emily Bowen, in Woburn Place, and stealing therein some coats, a quantity of linen and other articles, her goods; Egert confessed to a previous conviction.
Sentences: Krebes, 12 months' hard labour; Egert, 15 months'; both recommended for expulsion.
KEMBLE James (33, clerk), and BAXTER James (23, ostler) ; both burglary in the dwelling-house of David James Brooks and stealing therein one coffee pot and other articles, his goods; both burglary in the dwelling-house of Sir Hiram Maxim and stealing therein one string of beads and other articles, his goods; Kemble stealing one pair of boots, the goods of John William Forrester; Baxter stealing one fountain pen, the goods of John William Forrester.
Kemble pleaded guilty to all the charges.
Mr. Horace Samuel and Mr. Hibberd prosecuted.
DAVID JAMES BROOKS , 104, King's Avenue, Clapham Park. On Sunday, September 12, I went to bed at half-past 10. My son came in about 10 minutes to 11, and I heard the doors fastened up. I was called at 6.40 in the morning and came downstairs. When I went into the dining-room I found all the silver gone and the plated articles strewn all over the floor. None of the silver articles have been recovered, but I identify a coat, umbrella, and pair of gloves, which were in the hall when I went to bed and were gone next morning. The coat and other things were brought to me on Tuesday morning by the police. The value of the property stolen was just over £50. Nobody in the house smokes cigarettes. (Cigarette ends were found in the dining-room.)
ELLEN STOCKER , Mr. Brooks's parlourmaid. One evening in the beginning of September I saw the two prisoners walking slowly by the gate of the carriage drive, as if they were waiting for someone. In the following week I saw them coming towards the gate about 20 yards from the house. On the morning of September 13 when I came down I found everything in confusion and the windows were wide open. I recognise the umbrella as Mr. Bernard Brooks's. On the night of September 12 it was inside the hall by the glass window. The pockethandkerchief produced is mine. I left it in the dresser drawer in the kitchen. The police brought it to the house.
HENRY TURNER , photographer, 61, Newington Butts. On the evening of Sunday, September 12, prisoners came to have their photographs taken and left about a quarter past 11. I saw prisoner Baxter next morning just after 11 o'clock, when he came for his photo. At eight o'clock at night he came in with the other prisoner (Kemble) when he came for his photos. About a fortnight afterwards I identified them at the police court.
To a Juror. I take photos by limelight.
To Prisoner. When you came with Kemble in the evening you were accompanied by a young woman.
(Thursday, October 14.)
Police-sergeant ERNEST SHALE, 105 W. On September 13 I was on duty in Lyham Road, Brixton Hill, about 12.30 a.m., and saw the two prisoners coming along from the direction of King's Avenue, which is distant about a quarter of a mile. Baxter was wearing an overcoat, but I cannot say it was the one produced. I identified the two men at Balham Police Station next morning. The photographer's J shop of the witness Turner in Newington Butts is, I should think, about three miles from where I met the men. It is common knowledge that trams run from Newington to Streatham and also to Clapham and Tooting.
EMILY BISHOP . I live with prisoner Kemble at 39, Darwin Street. Baxter used to come three or four times a week to see him. I cannot say whether he came on September 12. I was with Kemble and Baxter when they were arrested.
Detective-constable JAMES BERINGER. I was with Detective Baker when prisoners were arrested on September 13. They entered the photographer's shop about 8.30, and after leaving went to the "Fountain" public-house. Detective Baker said to prisoners, "We are police officers, and shall arrest you for being concerned together in committing a burglary at 104, King's Avenue, Balham, and stealing property of the value of £50, and you will be taken to Balham Station for further inquiries." I then said to Baxter, "Do you understand what has been said by Detective Baker?" He said, "Yes, I will tell you all about the job later on. I have just met him in the 'Hampton Court Palace.' I will go quietly." On the way to the station he said, "I do not know anything about the job. I met him at the 'Plough' that night."
Detective-constable GEORGE BAKER gave corroborative evidence as to the arrest.
The Common Serjeant asked the jury if they wished to call upon Baxter for his defence. The only evidence against him was that he was some sort of acquaintance of Kemble's, and was with him shortly before and shortly after the offence was committed.
The Jury at once returned a verdict of Not Guilty on the first indictment, the evidence being insufficient to convict.
JOHN WILLIAM FORRESTER , Kelvinside, Russell Hill, Purley. On the night of September 3 I went to bed about 10 o'clock, and am prepared to say that with the exception of the kitchen the house was safely locked up. When I came down in the morning I found the house had been broken into and I missed a lot of things, including four silver serviette rings, a pair of boots, a new bicycle, and a separate bicycle lamp. I identify the boots produced as mine. I value the stolen goods at £15.
To Baxter. I saw the boots next at the South-Western Police Court on the feet of prisoner Kemble.
DAVID MATHER , assistant to Davison and Son, pawnbrokers, 81, Walworth Road. The fountain pen was pawned on September 6 by prisoner Baxter. He gave the address, 87, York Street. 2s. 6d. was advanced upon it.
To Prisoner. You did not give the address, 33, Trafalgar Street.
Detective CHARLES MOORE. I was called to Kelvinside on September 4. I examined the outside of the premises. There were two distinct footprints round by the house and the bicycle shed. I did not arrest Baxter, but was present when he was charged. He made no reply to the charge. He was already in custody when this charge, was made against him.
To Baxter. I had never seen you to my recollection till I saw you at the police court.
Prisoner JAMES KEMBLE (called by Prisoner Baxter). I have pleaded guilty to breaking into Mr. Forrester's house and stealing among other things the fountain pen. It happened like this that Baxter came to pawn it. One morning I was in the "Hampton Court Palace," Crampton Street, Newington Butts, when Baxter came in and asked me if I could let him have a shilling as he wanted to back a certain horse. I told him I had not sufficient to lend it to him but I had a fountain pen, and if he could pawn that I would willingly let him have a shilling. He took it and pawned it for 2s. 6d. and brought me back the ticket, which was found on me by the police. I then gave him the shilling which he has since repaid. He and I were public-house acquaintances and used to have a game of draughts now and again, and I used to consult him with regard to betting transactions.
Cross-examined. I have been twice previously convicted of burglary.
Verdict, Not guilty.
Counsel said he did not propose to proceed against Baxter on the charge in which Sir Hiram Maxim was concerned, and a formal verdict of Not guilty was returned.
Detective-sergeant JOHN GILLAN, V Division, stated that he was present at this Court in May, 1907, when Kemble was convicted of burglary and sentenced to 12 months' hard labour under the name of George Beaney. The burglary was at Wimbledon, and the occupier came out and shot prisoner in the arm. The sentence was comparatively light owing to prisoner having been severely punished by being shot. In 1906 he was sentenced at Croydon Borough Session to two terms of six months' for burglary. In May, 1908, he was sentenced, to six months' hard labour at Croydon Petty Sessions under the Prevention of Crimes Act. On that occasion he was found on a gentleman's lawn at two a.m. He was a man of good education and good family, and had had chances in life of which he had not availed himself, but was a persistent burglar.
Detective-constable GEORGE BAKER spoke to finding the proceeds of other burglaries in the house where prisoner was living. Sentence: Kemble, Six years' penal servitude.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Wednesday, October 13.)
Prisoner was released on his own recognisances in £10 to come up for judgment if called upon.
Prisoner was released on her own recognisances in £5 to come up for judgment if called upon.
ROBERTSON Percy, otherwise Williamson (38, druggist) , pleaded guilty of obtaining by false pretences from Rene Doury £1 4s., from Emily Gibbins 16s. 6d., from Alice James £1, and from Minnie Rogers 16s. 3d., in each case with intent to defraud.
Mr. H. Cohen, who appeared to prosecute, said that prisoner represented himself as traveller for Messrs. Frankau and Co., tobacconists and applied for orders offering special inducements if something was paid on account there and then. When he got the money he disappeared, the goods were not delivered, and Messrs. Frankau repudiated all knowledge of him.
Detective-sergeant THOMAS KING. There are two previous convictions against prisoner. He referred me to several people, but wherever I went he got a very bad character. There were 23 or 24 cases reported to the police. When I arrested him at West Ham and read the warrant he said, "That is quite right; I am glad it has come to an end; it would have gone from bad to worse. I have a wife and children; one of them is a cripple. I am a druggist. I was very hard up and had to get money from somewhere. I got a price list of Frankau s, found it easy to get money in this way, and went on. I suppose you have many more cases against me. "When I charged him he said, "Quite right." Apparently the firm had a catalogue and some other papers they gave to prisoner. He paid 3d. for the catalogue. He went round representing himself to be their traveller. He always asked for the first order to be paid down, as they would get a month's credit for the next order, and also pretended he could supply at much cheaper prices than the firm could afford.
Sentence, Three months' hard labour.
ASKE Louise (38), and HAWORTH Richard (50. agent) ; unlawfully conspiring together and with outers unknown, by false pretences to obtain divers sums of money and valuable securities from such liege subjects of the King as might be induced to accept cheques from the said Louise Aske, and to cheat and defraud them thereof, and obtaining by false pretences from Alfred Bedding £8 18s. and from Edward Emmerton £3 18s., in each case with intent to defraud.
Mr. Muir and Mr. Leycester prosecuted; Mr. H. J. Turrell defended Louise Aske; Mr. Forrest Fulton defended Ha worth.
ALFRED BEDDING , 91, Abbeyville Road, Clapham. I am the owner of 87, Abbeyville Road. At Christmas, 1905, I let that house to Robert Percy Aske, female prisoner's husband, at £50 a year. At Midsummer, 1907, £32 10s. was owing for rent. It has not been paid. I distrained for it about Christmas, 1907. There was also a distraint in August, 1908. A cheque was paid about March, 1908, on account, and I received £7, less £1 12s. The brokers were then
with drawn. I arranged that with Mrs. Aske. She was to pay the whole of the costs of the distraint. On May 4 she came to my house. She asked me if I would cash a cheque for her for £10 10s. That is the cheque now handed to me. I said I did not care about cashing cheques for strangers. She said Mr. Ha worth, who had drawn the cheque, was an old friend of Mr. Aske's and was a solicitor. She also asked me if I would hold the cheque over for a week. I did not care about it and she assured me that Mr. Haworth was all right and the money would be there if I held the cheque over for a week. She had already endorsed the cheque before she brought it. On her assurance I gave her the money, less the £1 12s., the costs of distraint. I held the cheque for a week and then paid it into my bankers. It was returned within 24 hours marked, "Refer to drawer." I saw Mrs. Aske about it. She said she could not understand it; she was absolutely sure the money would have been there. I then told her I would pay it in again. I paid it in again within a day or two, with the same result. I again saw her, told her I had paid it in a second time and it was returned; she said she could not understand it, she felt sure the money ought to have been there. I then asked her if she could give me an address that I might write to Mr. Haworth and she gave me an address at Putney, also his office address, Great James Street. I wrote to the Putney address, I believe. I had seen Mrs. Aske quite three or four times before I wrote him. She never gave me any more explanation than that she could not understand it. After that I went to see Haworth at Great James Street. I think in was in July. He told me my letter had been forwarded to him from Putney. I told him I had come to see him with reference to this cheque. He said he was not in a position to pay, that he was dependent on a brother who practically kept him. I told him who I was, and asked what he proposed doing. He said if I would hold my hand or wait a week or two he would try and send the money on. I said, "If you cannot send all, send part, just to prove you mean to pay, and the other as soon as you can." I then wished him good-day. He said he would try and send me some money over. I met him in the passage outside the office at 37, Great James Street. I did not go in the office. I saw Mrs. Aske afterwards, I do not think it was the same day, and told her what I had said to Mr. Haworth and what he had promised to try and do. I do not think she said anything particular at that time. I never heard anything more from Mr. Haworth. He never sent me any money. Mrs. Aske said right through that if Haworth did "hot pay she would. She has not done so. They moved from my house at the end of November, 1908, owing a year's rent. She wrote several letters after that, She gave the broker the address they were moving to and he gave it to me. I went there two or three times. I did not see her or her husband. In one letter she wrote, "I am writing you without consulting Mr. Bridges"—that is their solicitor—"who, you know, has this matter in hand," etc. It is not true that she told me she did not not know what business Haworth was in, or that she had never seen him. Haworth did not take the matter on his own shoulders and
promise to pay me in a fortnight. I have never received the rent that was owing or any of the money I advanced on the cheque.
Cross-examined by Mr. Turrell. The addresses of Haworth that Mrs. Aske gave me were correct ones. I have known her since 1905. Down to 1906 the rent was paid. After the cheque was dishonoured I continued on friendly terms with her. So late as September, 1908, I believed her to be an honest woman. I did not notice the cheque was post-dated when she handed it to me. She did not tell me it was post-dated. She asked me if I would hold it over a week. I noticed it was post-dated when I went to pay it in. I cannot say that she told me she had this cheque given to her by a friend of her husband. If she says she did I could not deny it. If I had noticed the cheque was post-dated I should have concluded at once that there was not money in the bank to meet it. There would have been no occasion to ask me to hold it over if I knew it was post-dated. I said, "There was no conversation with Mrs. Aske about this being a post-dated cheque. I expected there were funds to meet the cheque. I had great faith in Mrs. Aske. "That is true. I knew she was hard up. At the police court I said, "I do not complain of any representations made by her to me as untrue. "That was correct at that time in reference to the cheque. I believed her to be honest. That was why I cashed the cheque.
Cross-examined by Mr. Forrest Fulton. I knew on May 4 there was not sufficient in the bank to meet it. I did not have any communication with Haworth until June 23, when I wrote him. I am certain I presented the cheque twice. The first interview I had with Haworth was the middle of July. He did not say if I would hold over a question of payment for a week or two he might be able to assist me, and I did not tell him I would let him know if Mrs. Aske paid up in a fortnight. I could not say if I told him I would communicate with him further; I do not think I did; I left it to him.
Miss SELINA ROSE NIXON, Clapham Park School, Elms Road, Clapham. Mrs. Aske's son attended my school and in May, 1908, £1 11s. 6d. was owing to me for fees. I know the servant who brought him to school. I do not know her name. The cheque handed to me now for £7 10s. was brought by the servant on June 10. It was sent from Mrs. Aske. It is made payable to Mr. Aske, drawn by Haworth, endorsed "R. D. Aske." I accepted it in payment of the fees and gave the change by a cheque for £5 18e. 6d., payable to Mrs. Aske. This has been paid into my bank. The servant asked me if I would let Mrs. Aske have the change. I paid Haworth's cheque into my bank and it came back marked "R. D." On the same day I saw Mrs. Aske at my house. I had sent her a message. She apologised for the cheque, said she was sorry, and that the matter would soon be put right; her husband was expecting money. I did not see her after that. The boy only attended until the end of the term. (Witness identified Coppin as the maid who brought the boy to school.) I received a number of letters from Mrs. Aske. One of June 16 says, "I told my husband about this objectionable
matter over the cheque, and he has just gone up to Bedford Square to see this man. He is awfully sorry and most vexed that he should have sent it to you, etc. After receiving a number of letters I put the matter into my solicitor's hands. A summons was issued and a judgment obtained for £10 2s. and costs against Percy Aske. I have not recovered any part thereof. I did not communicate with Haworth at all.
Cross-examined by Mr. Turrell. The reason I drew the cheque in favour of Mrs. Aske was in consequence of her subsequent demand.
Cross-examined by Mr. Forrest Fulton. The only person I got judgment against was Mr. Percy Aske.
CATHERINE JANE COPPIN . I am nurse to Mrs. Aske. I have been in her service six years, but I have known her 20 years. I was in her service at Abbeyville Road. I went with them when they removed to 16, Hillborough Road, Dulwich, where they were staying up to the time they were arrested. They never lived at Hillside, Merton. I know Mr. Haworth. He called twice at Abbeyville Road. I think it was in the summer of last year. I remember going with a cheque to Miss Nixon's. Mr. Aske brought it into 87, Abbeyville Road, and asked Mrs. Aske if she would let me go and change it. Mrs. Aske sent me first with it to the laundry, but they had not sufficient to change it. I took it home again. Mr. Aske was worrying and fidgetting Mrs. Aske, so I took it to Miss Nixon's for him. I took it in a note. I think I had a message with the note. What it was I do not know. I left the cheque and called the next day, when I took the little boy to school. Miss Nixon gave me an open cheque. I gave it to mistress. She endorsed it. Mr. Aske was there then. I took it to the South-Western Bank and cashed it. I do not remember who told me to get it cashed; I think it was Mrs. or Mr. Aske. They were both in the room. I got the cash for the cheque and gave it to Mr. Aske. He was waiting a little way down in the street with Mr. Ambler.
Cross-examined by Mr. Turrell. It was not a crossed cheque. It was Mr. Aske who wanted the cheque cashed. I saw Mr. Aske when I brought Miss Nixon's cheque. He got Mrs. Aske to endorse it, then I went and changed it and gave the money to Mr. Aske.
EDWARD EMMERTON , chemist, 27, High Road, Balham. I know Mrs. Aske as a customer. At first she paid cash and afterwards was a credit customer. At the end of 1907 she owed me £14 12s. 2d. I applied for payment in January, 1908. I got nothing. In the meantime she continued to be a customer and paid cash. I remember Mrs. Aske coming with a cheque drawn by Haworth, dated August 11, 1908, for £4 18s. She asked me to cash it, stating that her regular man that cashed cheques was out. I looked at it and told her I did not like cashing strange cheques. I hesitated some time and asked her if it was a good cheque. She was quite certain it was. Then, after a few minutes, I told her I had always found her honest and straightforward and on that account I would cash it. Mrs. Aske suggested my taking £1 off the account she owed me. I took £4 18s. from my pocket, gave her £3 18s., and passed £1 into the till to the
credit of her account. I paid the cheque into my bank on August 12. It came back in about three days marked, "R. D." I saw Mrs. Aske about half an hour afterwards, told her the cheque had been returned, and asked her for the money. She expressed surprise at the cheque coming back and was sorry to have put me to the trouble, but she was seeing her solicitor that afternoon and would call and see me in the evening. She did not call; she sent a letter saying she had called on Mr. Haworth that afternoon, but had not seen him. I paid the cheque in some months later. I had several letters from Mrs. Aske relating to it. I do not know whether they ever lived at Hillside, Merton Park. I went to that address and saw a woman, who I presume lived there. I asked for Mrs. Aske. She told me she was not there, but that her husband would be seeing Mr. Aske in the City the next day and I could send any message. That was the only place I called at. I never knew from Mrs. Aske who or what Haworth was. I finally presented the cheque on March 14.
Cross-examined by Mr. Turrell. It is some time ago that I cashed this cheque, and it is rather difficult to remember the exact words that were used. I had known Mrs. Aske a considerable time, and knew she had difficulty in paying her way. I had had to stop her credit. Notwithstanding that, I still believed her to be perfectly honest and a woman I could rely on from my knowledge of her, and not altogether from what she said. I think she suggested paying £1 off the account. She gave me the £1 after I cashed the cheque.
Cross-examined by Mr. Forrest Fulton. The first time I saw Haworth was in August this year, when the police court proceedings were instituted. I never had any communication with him until that time.
LLOYD KIRBY TURNER , solicitor, Queen Victoria Street. I acted on behalf of Miss Nixon in the County Court proceedings against Mr. Aske, when judgment was given for the plaintiff, and an order made for £2 a month. No payment was made under that order. I issued execution on November 5 against R. P. Aske. The goods were claimed by Mrs. Aske. I admitted the claim the same day or the next and with drew the execution. I received a letter, Exhibit 28, from Mrs. Aske. It is undated. The postmark is March 3, 1909. It is addressed from Hillside, Manor Road, Merton Park.
JOHN CLARK CROCKER , clerk, London Trading Bank. Haworth was a customer of our bank. I produce a correct copy of his account for the period January 1, 1907, to July 24, 1909. The account existed before January, 1907. On that date there was a debit balance of 6s. 2d., and from then until April 6, 1906, the account was not operated on at all. On that date there was £4 16s. paid in and £4 15s. 6d. paid out, the overdraft being reduced from 6s. 2d. to 5s. 8d. On May 5 there was a payment in of £2 5s. and £2 4s. drawn out. On May 19 £3 3s. was paid in and the same amount drawn out. On May 20 £2 paid in and the same amount drawn out. Those were the only four transactions from January 1, 1907, to end of June, 1908, excepting the £4 16s. 6d. cheque during April. From
May 20 to August 17 there was no operation at all. On August 17 there was a payment in of £6 10s. which was drawn out the same day. The object of keeping an account like that open is, it being an old account we like to see all overdrafts paid off and it is useful for the customer. I produce a list of cheques upon that account which. have been returned. There were 32 cheques in all. Some may be cheques which have been re-presented. Exhibits 3, 4, and 5 are three cheques signed by Haworth. The body of them is not in his writing; only the signature. I do not think the figures are in his writing.
Cross-examined by Mr. Forrest Fulton. I cannot say it had been a substantial account, but it was more active years ago before I was in the bank. I believe the secretary of the bank has seen Haworth about the cheques not taken up. I think Haworth must have subsequently paid out a number of those cheques as they have been recovered from the holders. We should return them to the banks who presented them for payment. We should expect them to notify the person who pays it in if a cheque had been dishonoured, and he would notify the drawer. We should only notify the drawer in special circumstances.
Mrs. MINNIE BAXTER. I was housekeeper at 37, Great James Street, W. C., where Haworth had an office up to May last. Nobody else occupied it. He attended pretty well every day, sometimes he stayed a good time, sometimes not very long. At the end of his tenancy he did not collect the rents; Messrs. Trehearn and Higgins, solicitors, did. I have seen Mrs. Aske once; the summer before last I think it was. She came to inquire for Mr. Haworth. I do not know if she saw him. When he left he gave me an address at Putney where to send his letters, and afterwards an address at Hammersmith.
Cross-examined by Mr. Forrest Fulton. The leaseholder of 37, Great James Street is a Mr. Haworth; I could not say whether he is the prisoner. I know as a fact prisoner Haworth is agent for the leaseholders.
Detective-sergeant RICHARD MERCEY. On May 14 I received a warrant for the arrest of Mrs. Aske. We have been trying to find her since then. I caused inquiries to be made at Hillside, Merton. We could not find her there. I arrested her on July 27, at 17, Hillborough Road, Dulwich. I read the warrant to her. She said, "That is strange; I did not know Mr. Haworth; this cheque was given to me by another man who said Mr. Haworth was his landlord. Mr. Bedding has been to see Mr. Haworth on many occasions to get the money. I can put this matter right in about five minutes. I must instruct my solicitor. "I conveyed her to Balham Police Station. On the way we met her husband. She told him she was in custody. She said in my presence to him, "I am not going to screen the others, I am going to tell all I know." Later on she said, "I would like you to find Haworth; he is the man you want." When charged she made no reply. The warrant for Haworth's arrest was granted at the same time. I knew of his addresses at Great James Street and
Putney, but could not find him at either. I was not present at his arrest. I searched Hillborough Road and found there the county court summons in Nixon v. R. P. Aske.
Detective-sergeant GEORGE BAKER. I arrested Haworth on August 3, in Vigo Street. I said to him, "Good morning, Mr. Haworth." He said, "I do not know you." I said, "I am a police officer and you answer the description of a man I hold a warrant for." I read the warrant to him. He said, "I have a complete answer to the charge. I know Mrs. Aske. I told Mr. Bedding I would pay him. I do not deny I am the man you want." When charged he made no reply.
ALFRED BEDDING , recalled. I know Louise Aske's writing. The endorsement on the cheque (Exhibit 3) is her writing, and her name on the front looks like her writing. The endorsement on Haworth's cheque is in. her writing, I do not think the body of it is. The endorsement on Miss Nixon's cheque is in Mr. Aske's writing; no part is in Mrs. Aske's. Exhibit 7 is in her writing. The endorsement on cheque Exhibit 8 is in Mrs. Aske's writing. To the best of my belief the letters (Exhibit 9) are all in her writing. The signature of Exhibit 12 is in her writing. The letters to Mr. Emmerton are all in her writing. The letter to Mr. Kirby Turner is in her writing, but the signature is Mr. Aske's.
Cross-examined by Mr. Turrell, The guarantee given by Mrs. Aske was given after all these occurrences took place. If Mrs. Aske says the body of the cheque is not in her writing I would not swear it is. I do not think she is more likely to be right about it than I am. I cannot say if the "pounds" is in her writing. I suggest there is more of her writing in the cheque than the signature. I should still say that even if Haworth agrees with her.
LOUISE ASKE (prisoner, on oath). No part of the cheques produced, except the signatures, in my writing. We left Abbeyville Road in November and went to 16, Hillborough Road. We left an address behind—Hillside, Manor Road, Merton. Mr. Markhart lived there. The real reason for leaving that address was that I had been tormented by a woman at Abbeyville Road and there were police-court proceedings. It' was not to evade inquiries regarding these cheques. The cheque drawn in favour of Mr. Bedding I re-ceived from Mr. Myers on the day I gave it to Mr. Bedding, May 4. At that time I did not know Haworth. I do not think I knew of his existence until the conversation with Mr. Myers about the cheque for £10 10s. He asked me in the morning if T could get the cheque cashed for him. I said, "Certainly. Whose cheque is it?" He said it was Mr. Haworth's, his landlord, at 37, Great James Street, and that he was a solicitor. I took the cheque to Mr. Bedding, who gave me cash for it, deducting £1 12s., the bailiff's fees. I came back; Mrs. Myers was in the dining room sitting by the mantelshelf. I said, "There is your husband's change, and she
put it on the mantelshelf. Mr. Myers owed me some money and he arranged that I should take the £1 12s. from the cheque. I never had any part of the £8 18s. As far as I know, Mr. Myers got the money. Mr. Bedding drew my attention to the fact that the cheque was post-dated when he took it from me. I had not noticed it before. He said he did not usually like a post-dated cheque, but he did not object to taking it from me. I do not think he asked me anything about Mr. Haworth. He told me the cheque had been dishonoured a few days afterwards when he called upon me. I told him the gentleman who gave me the cheque was staying in our house and that it was his landlord's cheque. Then I told him Haworth was a solicitor. I believe I gave him his address. I did not see Haworth about this cheque. Mr. Bedding called again. I think it was after he had seen Mr. Haworth. Be told me Haworth had undertaken to give him the money in a fortnight. My husband wanted the change for the cheque and asked me if I would allow the maid to change the cheque. I knew at that time that Haworth's other cheque had been dishonoured. I believe Haworth called to see Mrs. Myers between the time the first cheque was given and my receiving Nixon's cheque. When my husband asked that the maid should be allowed to take the cheque to one of our tradespeople, I suggested our laundry account wanted paying. He insisted she should take it immediately to the laundry people. When I saw it was Haworth's cheque I objected to it being taken. He insisted. The laundry people had not sufficient change. Then my husband wished it to be sent elsewhere. My little boy's school fees were owing, and he insisted I should send it to Miss Nixon to be changed. To the best of my belief, my husband called the maid into the dining room and said he wanted her to take this cheque to Miss Nixon, She did not bring the cheque back that day; I think it was next morning. My husband was present. I endorsed the cheque and he asked me to allow the maid to get it changed. She did so. I never saw the money. I remember Mr. Emmerton's cheque. It is drawn in my favour. I had been endeavouring to see Mr. Haworth with regard to Miss Nixon's cheque. I called at his office and waited the whole of an afternoon to see him. In the course of my interview with him I was very angry and vexed. I told him I thought it looked very bad indeed. Somehow I stated I had £5 of my own at home, and he suggested that it would in some way benefit his banking account if he gave me a cheque for £4 18s., and I sent him my £5. I was to send it by post. I believe he said my husband had borrowed 2s. from him or something of that kind. When I took the cheque to Mr. Emmerton he asked me if it was a good cheque. I assured him it was. I gave my £5 to my husband to get postal orders to post to Mr. Haworth with a letter I had written. Mr. Haworth did not get it. Haworth told me he was a solicitor and that he was Mr. Myers's landlord. I believed him. There was a quantity of papers in the office.
Cross-examined by Mr. Forrest Fulton. My husband confessed he had pocketed my £5. I wrote a letter at Mr. Myers's dictation
undertaking to pay £5. That £5 was not to enable me to meet the cheque for £4 18s. The cheque was not given to me to pay an account. It was not given at my husband's suggestion. He was not present. The landlord was not pressing me for rent at the time the first cheque was given in May. The distraint had been withdrawn at that date. The maid went to the bank with Miss Nixon's cheque. She went out of the house before my husband. I imagine he followed. He had all the money.
Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. Mr. Myers gave me the cheque in our drawing-room. I cannot say I have 'seen him write. I received a letter-card from him. I have not got that. The £10 10s. cheque was filled up when Mr. Myers gave it to me. I did not know Haworth then except by name. Why it was made out in my favour was this. When Mr. Myers asked me if I could cash a cheque for him, he said, "I may as well get it made out in your name." I said it would make no difference. He asked me about getting it cashed before it was made out. I had no experience of cheques being returned before that, I am certain. Mr. Bedding was not reluctant to cash it. He said he did not as a rule like a post-dated cheque. He did not say he did not like cashing cheques of people he did not know. He did not ask who Haworth was at that interview; I think he asked me how I obtained the cheque. I told him Haworth was a solicitor. Myers had told me that. I did not tell him Haworth was an old personal friend of my "husband's at any time. Myers owed me over £2 at that time. He had borrowed various amounts at different times. How could I take that money out of his £8 18s. I told him I owed the landlord £1 12s. and would pay him with the cheque. I have no document to show that Myers owed me money. Miss Nixon's cheque I got from my husband. He told me it was a cheque of Haworth's. I have not seen it before this present time. Haworth called to see Mr. Myers at our house before I got this cheque and after I had given the cheque to Mr. Bedding. I spoke to Haworth about the Bedding cheque. He asked me if it was true that Mr. Myers had had the whole of the money. I told him yes. That was about all that took place at the interview. He knew the oheque had been dishonoured. I cannot recall exactly what I said to him, but I was very upset that such a cheque should be given to me. He offered no explanation. I think he told me he had promised Mr. Bedding he would take up his cheque. I did not know for a long time afterwards that he had not done so. I did not know it on June 10. The only part I took was to allow my husband to send my maid with it. He insisted on that. She came back with Miss Nixon's cheque which was payable to me, I endorsed it, and passed it along the table to my husband. He told my maid to take it to the bank. The other cheque of Haworth's was given to me at his office when I went to see him about Miss Nixon's cheque not having been met. He told me he was not able to meet it. At that time I did not really know the Bedding cheque had not been met. I asked him if he had heard from Mr. Myers about that cheque. He told me no, that he would pay it as soon as he could get money.
Exhibit No. 7 is my letter: "You are fully aware that the cheque you hold of Mr. Haworth's was given to me by a friend of my husband, and that I did not even know what business he was in. "That friend was Mr. Myers—no, this is Mr. Haworth of whom I am speaking. This is how I reconcile the statement. Between the time I told Mr. Bedding that Haworth was a solicitor Mr. Bedding and I had conversations to the effect that the was a solicitor. I suppose at the time Myers gave me the cheque I did not know; possibly he explained to me afterwards Mr. Myers's business. The explanation I have to offer for writing Mr. Bedding from Hillside, Merton Park, is the one I previously gave, that I had been so annoyed by a woman at Abbeyville Road. The correspondence following the dishonouring of Miss Nixon's cheque was all written by me at my husband's suggestion, and under his instructions signed by me. I had three interviews with Mr. Haworth before I saw him at the police court. I did not see him on July 21. My husband may not have been away yachting. He may have asked' me to say he was. After all the lies written at my husband's dictation the only cheque of Haworth's I cashed was with Mr. Emmerton. I assured him it was a good cheque, naturally, when I provided funds for it. I said to my husband when I was arrested, "I am not going to screen the others; I am going to tell all I know." The others were Haworth and Myers. I felt that in some way they had managed to arrange this cheque between them. To the best of my belief Detective Mercey did not read the warrant. He told me it was about Mr. Bedding's cheque. I made the reply which he gave in evidence.
(Thursday, October 14.)
RICHARD HAWORTH (prisoner, on oath). In May, 1908, I was agent for certain offices at 37, Great James Street. The lessee was Mr. Myers. He told me he was lodging with Mr. and Mrs. Aske, that he owed them money, and that they were being pressed for rent. He said he wanted to oblige them, and if I would give him a post-dated cheque the landlord would hold over. He said he would guarantee it. I did not understand the cheque was going to be cashed at all, but was to be deposited with the landlord to prevent him distraining. Mr. or Mrs. Aske was to pay the money when the cheque became due, and if they did not Myers guaranteed that he would. Before it became due Myers told me, I think his words were, "it had been provided for"—that it was not going to be presented, but they had received the money and had paid the landlord. I asked for the cheque and, I think, some days after he said he had applied for it and they had destroyed it, as they had no further use for it. After May 4 I became acquainted with Mr. Aske. Early in June he came to 37, Great James Street and asked me to oblige him with a cheque that he could get cashed and that he would provide the money before it would be presented at my bank. He said he was going to a race meeting. I gave him the cheque for £10 10s. He did not pay me the money. He said he had been unable to get the cheque cashed.
Within the next two or three days I asked for the cheque. He said it had been destroyed, I did not know that the cheque had been presented at the bank until the day I was arrested. On June 23 Mr. Bedding wrote me saying he was the holder of the cheque. A week afterwards he called and asked me what I was going to do. I did not understand from the letter that the cheque had been presented. Our conversation was on the basis that I was liable for the money. I told him I would find the money if I could. On August 11 I gave Mr. Aske a cheque for £4 18s. at his request. I never saw Mrs. Aske. He said he wanted it for some purpose of his own until money arrived that he was expecting from his another, and he would provide for it before it could go in in two days' time. He said he wanted it made out to Mrs. Aske. I said, "Well, you had better get me a letter of guarantee from her." He went away, and in the afternoon when I gave him the cheque he brought the guarantee from her. I rather think I wrote it out myself on a half-sheet of paper. I cannot find it. I never had a penny of the money. I had a conversation with Mr. Aske, and he led me to understand that the cheque had not been cashed and that his wife had thrown it on the fire. I had no notification from anyone that the cheque had been dishonoured. The name of the payee in one of the three cheques is not in Mrs. Aske's writing. They are all in my writing. In the cheque of August 11 the date is not in my writing, but the "1908" is. The June 10 cheque is all in any writing. I did not share in the money obtained. I received from Myers 10s. commission when I gave him the Bedding cheque, and I looked to Mrs. Myers to protect me over that cheque.
Cross-examined by Mr. Turrell. I never saw Mrs. Aske at 37, Great James Street. I heard she had called. I gave the Nixon cheque to Mr. Aske. I never saw Mrs. Aske except (between June 23 and 26, after Mr. Bedding came to seee me. Mrs. Aske did not say in the box that she saw me with regard to that cheque being dishonoured. I heard she had called and saw her before (the Emmerton cheque was given. It is untrue that I handed her the August 11 cheque. I gave it to Mr. Aske. It was drawn in Mrs. Aske's favour because he said she was going to cash it. I was to have £4 18s. in exchange. I did not know then that the Nixon cheque had been dishonoured. Before I drew the Emmerton cheque I had seen them both. It is absolutely untrue that she told me she had £5 and that was all she had in the world, or that I asked her to give me the £5. I never said anything because I never saw her. I knew when I gave her the Emerton cheque that the Bedding cheque had not been met On receiving Mr. (Bedding's letter I went down and saw Mrs. Aske for the first time between June 23 and 26, and she said she would pay. I had seen Mr. Bedding and arranged to pay that cheque if Mrs. Aske did not. She was to come to me. I never had notice; never had a line. They told me it was paid.
Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I last practised as a solicitor in 1901. I have not taken out a certificate since then. When I gave the Emmerton cheque to Mr. Aske I think it was dated. The
date appears to be in Mr. Myers's writing. I gave Aske the cheque at 37, Great James Street. I do not know exactly what he wanted it for; it was something temporary, I know. It was the £10 10s. cheque he told me the purpose for which he wanted it. He would have given me the reason for wanting the other cheque, but it is not in my recollection. I gave it him in the afternoon and he got me Mrs. Aske's guarantee. Mr., Myers came to write "August 11" on my cheque because Aske very seldom came to my office unless with Mr. Myers. I suppose he did it because I omitted it. I was not aware of it until now. There is absolutely no foundation for Mrs. Aske's story about the £5 she had at home. I never saw her at the office. Myers promised or paid me 10s. for the loan of the post-dated cheque cashed by Bedding. It was upon an account where I had no money. He said he wanted to oblige Aske, whose landlord was threatening to distrain. The cheque was to be put before the landlord as a guarantee for the rent. I was liable on it. My liability was worth 20s. in the £. I wrote the letter saying I was absolutely without means and dependent on my relations for support because I had nothing—I was not liable in my mind, only liable civilly and I did not want to be sued. It was really to gain time. That statement was not true in its entirety. The cheque was not given to enable Aske to deceive his landlord into believing that it was worth its face value. It was given as a guarantee and was post-dated. I swear I had no letter or notice from the bank that the cheque had been dishonoured. In December, 1906, I was living at 73, Chelverton Road. I think I received notice there of an acceptance which had been dishonoured. I called at the bank occasionally during 1906. The manager never told me about the £10 10s. cheque. In April, 1909, I gave a cheque on my bank for £14 which was dishonoured. I sent that cheque to my brother and it was presented in error. I could not tell you how many cheques I have drawn when I had no money at the bank to meet them, but I have always taken them up the same day or the next. I did not know that these three cheques had been presented.
Verdict, Guilty, the female prisoner being recommended for leniency.
ASKE Robert Percy, ASKE Louise, and AMBLER Percy (41, secretary) , pleaded guilty of unlawfully conspiring together and with others unknown, by false pretences to obtain divers sums of money and valuable securities from such liege subjects of the King as might be induced to accept cheques from the said Louise Aske, and to cheat and defraud them thereof, and obtaining by false pretences from Henry Palin Eastwood £10 7s. 3d., from Richard Fountain Mead £10, and from Albert John Bishop Bartlett £5 2s. 6 1/2 d., in each case with intent to defraud.
Detective-sergeant MERCEY. Robert Percy Aske was sentenced at Chelmsford Sessions on January 7, 1901, to three months' hard labour for obtaining money by worthless cheques; on April 15, 1901, at Cambridge Quarter Sessions, four months' hard labour on
each of three charges, sentences to run concurrently, for obtaining credit by fraud. Ambler is a man of the highest character.
The Judge. With regard to the two prisoners Aske, I do not know what the male prisoner would feel if I were disposed to give him the sentence for the two.
R. P. Aske. I should be most pleased if you would do that.
Judge Rentoul. I thought in the interests of the children here, and that sort of thing, probably that would be the wiser and better thing to do.
In sentencing B. P. Aske to 15 months' imprisonment, with hard labour, Judge Rentoul stated that three or four months of that would have gone to the wife naturally. Ambler was sentenced to Four months' imprisonment in the second division; Louise Aske was released on her own recognisances in £10, to come up for judgment if called upon. Haworth, Nine months' hard labour.
BEFORE ME. JUSTICE PICKFORD. (Thursday, October 14.)
A previous conviction for an indecent assault on a girl aged 11 was proved.
Sentence, Three years' penal servitude.
Mr. J. P. Grain prosecuted; Mr. G. Tully-Christie defended.
Mrs. HANNAH TOVEY, wife of John Tovey. I live at Lower Richmond Road, Putney. On Sunday, August 29, about 11.30 p.m., while I was in bed, I heard a noise outside in the street; I roused my husband, and we looked out of the window. The first thing I saw was the prisoner and another man running after a young woman; prisoner then went on towards his home. At the corner of his street he was joined by Carroll and another man. Prisoner took off his coat and told Carroll he would fight him. They got into the middle of the road and started fighting; Carroll did not want to fight and did not take off his coat until he had been knocked down several times; then he said, "I will have a couple of rounds with you"; they went on, and every time Carroll was knocked down; he said, "I won't fight you to-night"; prisoner said, "You shall fight; I'll kill you to-night"; Carroll said, "I don't want to fight; I'm an old man to you; I will give in; I'm done "; prisoner said, "Shake hands"; Carroll would not shake hands; several times after that prisoner knocked him down. At last he struck him a blow and Carroll did not get up; prisoner said, "That's a dough-ball for him," Carroll never spoke after that.
Cross-examined. I distinctly saw and heard all I have described. The fight was all one side; Carroll never seemed to be able to hit prisoner. Once when they were struggling on the ground I did hear prisoner say to Carroll, "You have kicked me," but I saw no kicking. There were several young men looking on at the fight.
Cross-examined. I had known Carroll for 40 years; I had often seen him fighting and drunk lots of times.
DAVID STEWART , 225, Lower Richmond Road. In the early morning of August 30, hearing a noise outside I looked from my bedroom window and saw prisoner and Carroll fighting in the middle of the road. Carroll appeared to be too intoxicated to fight; he went down once or twice; then he said he would give in best, he did not want to fight any more; prisoner offered to shake hands; Carroll refused and called him a filthy name; prisoner said, "If you won't shake hands you shall fight again." Carroll said he would have a couple more rounds; they went on fighting; at last Carroll fell down on the back of his head; he sort of groaned and half turned over; I did not see any more.
DAVID JAMES ROBERTS . At the time in question I was standing talking with prisoner and another man (Pullen) when Carroll crossed the road and came up to prisoner in a fighting attitude; he was the worse for drink; he said to prisoner, "What are you going to do about it now?" He struck at prisoner, but prisoner evaded the blow. Prisoner said, "What, do you want to fight me then, Patsy?" Carroll said, "Yes." Both went into the road and stripped to fight; after some blows they both fell to the ground; in getting up Carroll said he would kick prisoner in the privates; in trying to do so he kicked him in the knee. The fighting went on; at last Carroll went down, made one or two movements to get up, but did not, and we left him on the road.
Cross-examined. It was after the second blow that Carroll refused to shake hands, and said he would fight again; he said that prisoner had either got to kill him or he would kill prisoner. (To the Court.) It was Carroll who wanted to get on with the fight; he is a man well known in Putney, that if he started a fight he wanted to finish it; also that if he thought the other man was getting the best of him he would sham. I have known Carroll all my life and I have never known any good of him.—PULLEN gave an account confirming that of the last witness. The jury here stopped the case, and returned a verdict of Not guilty.
Mr. W. B. Campbell prosecuted; Mr. J. D. Cassels defended.
daughter, Ivy. On September 7 I went to bed as usual with my daughter. Just after midnight I saw the door slowly open, and my husband came in, shading a lighted candle. I roused my daughter, who was asleep, saying, "Ivy, Ivy, there's your. father." She screamed and jumped out of bed and got the key out of the door; I jumped out of bed at the other side. Prisoner pulled a knife from his pocket and came at me with it uplifted over his head; I caught hold of his arms and held him off, but I got stabbed in the head and was cut on the forehead and on the arm. My daughter came to my assistance and held him while I got out of the room. I rushed downstairs calling for help. I went into the first room I came to; it had been occupied, but the gentleman who had been sleeping there was downstairs. It was Mr. Nicholson's room.
Cross-examined. I was very frightened and excited at the incident. I shouted "Help" or "Murder"; I did not hear Ivy calling the name of Mr. Nicholson; after I had been stabbed I called, "Nicholson." Ivy was holding prisoner when I received the stab. When I ran out I was not afraid to leave Ivy with him; I did not think he would hurt her; I thought it was me he wished to kill. I did not hear him say when he saw the blood on my forehead, "For God's sake, send for a doctor and the police." I remember seeing a row between prisoner and Nicholson; it is not right that Nicholson "thrashed" him; he struck Nicholson with a bunch of keys, and Nicholson hit him back; I should not call it a sound thrashing; my husband deserved what he got. My husband used to use very bad language to me and my daughter, and Nicholson complained to him about it; I do not say that Nicholson took my part against my husband; what he did was only the manly thing to do. I know that Nicholson is a powerful man; he used to be an all-round athlete; my husband was not. I was never exceptionally friendly with Nicholson, but we were very good friends. I received letters from him, friendly letters; I do not know that I showed them all to my husband; one my husband found on my dressing table; I had not shown him that because it is never necessary to make rows.
Re-examined. I have never had a love letter from Nicholson; my husband had no cause whatever for jealousy.
IVY BARBER , daughter of last witness. On September 7 my mother and I went to bed (in the same bed) about half-past 11. At half-past 12 I was awakened by my mother shaking me and saying, "Ivy, there's your father." I saw father standing by the door, going to look it. I jumped out of bed screaming, went to the door, struggled with father and got the key from him. I opened the door and shouted for help; I did not call for Mr. Nicholson or any person by name. I saw my father draw from his pocket the knife produced; he went for my mother to strike her with the knife; she caught his arm and warded off the blow; I went to her help; in the struggle I got two cuts; eventually mother got away; I held father until I got the knife from him. Later I returned to the room with Police-constable Finch and saw him pick up there a razor and a candle; the razor had not been in the room before my father came in that night, nor had
the candle. I remember the day father left our house in May; he shook his fist in mother's face and said, "If you dare to turn me out I will murder you, as sure as I stand here."
Cross-examined. When I was awakened by my mother I saw the candle on the washstand, alight. I actually saw father draw the knife from his pocket and attack mother. I simply screamed and shrieked for help, I did not call for Mr. Nicholson; Nicholson was in the house then. Father did not ask me to keep quiet when he first entered the room.
To the Court. It was not accidentally in the struggle that mother got cut; father was striking at her with the knife all the time.
SAMUEL HUMBER . I am a commercial traveller, and was a lodger with the Barbers. Some time after prisoner had left the house he came and asked me to lend him my latchkey of the front door; he said he had left some property there, which his wife would not give him; I did not lend him my key; later he told me he had got a key made. On September 7, just after midnight, I saw him in the "Railway Hotel," Putney.
Police-constable ALFRED FINCH, 907 V. At 12.30 a.m., on September 8, I went to 74, Chelverton Road. Mrs. Barber, who had her head bandaged, said to me, "My husband has tried to kill me by striking me about the head and the right arm with a knife"; prisoner was then sitting on the stairs, within hearing; he said nothing. A lodger gave me the knife produced. I told prisoner I should take him into custody for attempted murder; he made no reply.
Cross-examined. Mrs. Barber was not excited; quite calm.
Inspector WILLIAM BERNARD, V Division. At nine a.m., on September 8, at Putney Police Station, I told prisoner he would be charged with attempting to murder his wife by stabbing her on the head with the knife, which I showed to him. He said, "I did not go there intending to murder her."
Cross-examined. I have inquired of the references given by prisoner, and they describe him as a respectable man.
JOHN KEENAN , surgeon, Putney, said he was called to 74, Chelverton Road about 1.30 a.m. on September 8 and examined prosecutrix. She had a wound extending from a point an inch and a half on the forehead to the eyebrow, not a deep wound, not down to the bone; it might have been caused by the knife produced. There was a small wound on the other side of the forehead, a stab wound, and minor cuts on the arms and fingers.
Cross-examined. None of the wounds were serious; they were all consistent with their having been inflicted in a struggle.
Re-examined. I do not mean that they were accidentally inflicted. Prisoner's statement before the magistrate was read. (Not now reproduced, as it is embodied in his evidence here.)
COLLANDER CHARLES BARBER (prisoner, on oath). When I visited (he house on September 7 I had no intention whatever of murdering my wife or harming her in the slightest. I married her in 1887. I have been a shopkeeper, a traveller, and a canvasser. In 1907 I had business troubles and entered into an arrangement with my creditors. I then took 74, Chelverton Road;" it was in my wife's name because I was afraid my previous landlord could follow the furnitare; I paid the first quarter's rent; any wife had no separate estate. Up to this we had always led an amiable and happy married life. We took this house as a boarding house; I took considerable part in managing it. One of the boarders was a Mr. Nicholson; he and I bad several words together; on one occasion there was a violent row; the blacked both my eyes and cut my face about; he is a much bigger man than I am. I had many quarrels with my wife about Nicholson; he took her part against me. On May 13 I received a notice from my wife's solicitors to quit the house; I deny that I then threatened my wife. I went out for a walk in the morning and on returning found the door locked against me. I wrote my wife several letters asking her to make up the quarrel, but without result I have a sister in Australia, and if I could not get reconciled to my wife I intended to go out there, Passing the pawnbroker's shop in Putney and noticing the knife that has been produced, I thought it would be very useful to me in Australia and I purchased it. I have never sharpened it or touched it since I bought it. The reason I had it with me when I went to the house on September 7 was that I was afraid of Nicholson, and in case he should assault me again I took it in self-defence. I went to the house to get a cash-box of mine containing papers that my wife had continuously refused to give up to me; I also wanted to beg and plead her to let me remain there until I could make arrangements to go to Australia. I chose the late hour because I thought it most likely that Nicholson would be out of the way and would not interfere with me. I opened the door and went into the room; I had a lighted candle with me; I put this down and turned round to the bed to speak to my wife. She was kneeling up in the bed; she said to her daughter, "Ivy, here is your father in the room. "They both started screaming for Mr. Nicholson. I said, "Hush, don't make that noise; I want to speak to your mother, Ivy. "They still persisted in shrieking and, to drown the noise, I shut the door. Ivy jumped out of bed on to me; she tried to pull the door open and I tried to keep it shut; she must have pushed me away, because the door came open and she got out on to the passage, still shrieking. I expected Nicholson to come upstairs, and I drew out this knife. I had no intention whatever of using it on my wife; both she and my daughter struggled with me; I deny that I stabbed at my wife; the cuts she got were by pure accident. Directly I saw the blood on her I said to Ivy, "Send for the doctor." I admit that I had a razor in my pocket. I thought my wife would have taken pity and let me stay there, so I brought the
razor to shave myself with; I made no attempt to use the razor that night.
Cross-examined. Ivy is telling an absolute untruth when she says that on toy getting notice to leave the house I threatened to murder my wife. My wife's treatment distressed me very much; it worried and excited me and made me feel I was going out of my mind, but I do not know that it made me angry. I did not know that Ivy would be sleeping in the same room with my wife; I expected to find my wife alone. Do not ask me whether I expected to find Nicholson with her. If I tell the truth, I should not have been surprised. I took the knife to use against Nicholson if occasion should arise. I admit that I said nothing when the policeman took me into custody; I was done to the world; I could not say a word. When he told me the charge would be one of attempted murder I said, "Yes." I meant that I knew what my wife was going to charge me with.
Verdict, Not guilty of attempted murder; Guilty of unlawful wounding.
Sentence, 15 months' hard labour.
BURGESS Jean Hamilton (39) , pleaded guilty of feloniously sending, knowing the contents thereof, certain letters to Sir Alfred Mellor Watkin, Bart., demanding with menaces the sum of £89; threatening to publish or proposing to abstain from publishing a certain libel upon him with intent to extort money.
Mr. Frampton prosecuted; Mr. Huntly Jenkins appeared for prisoner.
Mr. Huntly Jenkins said that prisoner, through him, desired to say that there was not a little of truth in the letters she had written, and that she had no claim, direct or indirect, upon Sir Alfred Watkin. She now expressed publicly her profound regret for what she had done.
Sentence, Three months' imprisonment, second division.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Thursday, October 14.)
WESTWOOD Thomas (46, carman). CASHMAN William (44, warehouseman), GROVES Henry (50, warehouseman), TABER George (67, horsekeeper), and HILLER Edward (35, contractor) ; Westwood, Cashman, and Groves, on August 28, 1909, stealing 25 sacks of oats, the goods of Benjamin Smith and others, their masters; Westwood, Cashman, and Taber, on August 21, 1909, stealing five sacks of oats, the goods of Benjamin Smith and others, their masters; Hiller, receiving five sacks of oats and 25 sacks of oats, in each case well knowing them to have been stolen.
Westwood, Cashman, Groves, and Taber pleaded guilty .
Mr. Leycester prosecuted; Mr. Horace Samuel appeared for Westwood; Mr. Burnie and Mr. Joyce Thomas appeared for Groves.
Mr. Purcell defended Hiller.
Hiller was tried for receiving 25 sacks on August 28.
EDWARD WILLIAM ALLOWAY , manager to Benjamin Smith and Co., Rutland Wharf, Upper Thames Street, corn factors. Westwood has been carman in our service from August 10, 1909; Cashman has been warehouseman for 20 years; Groves warehouseman 12 years; Taber has been horsekeeper for 17 years. We have had no dealings whatever with Hiller. We deal largely in oats, corn, etc., which are kept in the warehouse where Cashman and Groves are employed. Westwood's duty with three other carmen was to deliver corn. On August 28, at 10 p.m., the police at my house informed me of the arrest of the prisoners. I knew that the police had been instructed to watch the premises. I went to Bridewell Police Station and charged Cashman, Westwood, and Groves, who were in custody, with stealing 25 sacks of oats which were at the station in our van; my firm's name was thereon and also on both sides of the sacks. We keep a large quantity of the kind of oats that were at the station. Our premises are closed on Saturdays at two p.m.; prisoners had no authority to be on the premises. On August 30 I saw Taber in custody, and charged him with stealing five sacks of oats on August 21. On September 23 the warrant was obtained against Hiller. The prisoners were afterwards brought up at the Mansion House.
Detective-sergeant FREDERICK WISE, City Police. On August 28 I was watching prosecutor's premises. At 6.10 p.m. I saw Westwood leave with prosecutor's one-horse van loaded with sacks. I communicated with Inspector Hind, and followed the van to an archway, No. 408, Long Street, where it stopped.
Detective-inspector HERBERT HIND, City Police. On August 28 "I received information, and instructed officers to watch prosecutor's premises. I received a communication, and a little after six p.m. I saw Westwood driving the van into High Street, Shoreditch, and followed him to a railway arch, No. 406, Long Street, a stable and storage for vans. I there saw Cashaman and Groves with two of Hillers servants taking the sacks out of the van to the rear of the premises. Westwood remained on the van and helped unload. I spoke to Westwood, Cashman, and Groves, and eight sacks which had been unloaded were replaced on the van, which I detained there. The rear of the archway was a place for the storage of fodder. I waited there with the van and the three prisoners from 6.40 until nine p.m., when Hiller came in. I said to him, "Are you the proprietor?" He said, "Yes." I said, "What is your name?" He said, "Edward Hiller." I said, "Have you the sole charge here?" He said, "Yes." I said, "How do you account for this load of cats being in your stable?" I had first of all told him I was a police inspector, and said, "I want you to be careful what you say." With regard to the oats being in his stable, he replied, "I know nothing about it; I did not order it. It appears to me to be a trap." I
said, "Do you know either of these three men?" pointing to Groves, Cashman, and Westwood. He said, "No, I have never seen them before." I said, "Have you ever had any dealings with Benjamin Smith and Sons, of Upper Thames Street?" He said, "No, never." I had found paper produced on Groves which I showed him with the address upon it, "Hiller, 408. Long Street, Union Street, Hackney, W.," and on the back it has "Hiller, 406, Long Street." I said, "Look at the writing on this paper which I have found on one of the prisoners"; he said, "The writing is not mine; I have never seen the paper before." When he gave me his name I had asked him to write it in the notebook, which he did, "Edward Hiller, 238, Green Street, Bethnal Green." I said, "Do you think the writing on the paper is anything like your handwriting in my book?" He said, "It is something like mine but I did not write it." I did not arrest Hiller. The van and the three other prisoners were taken to Bridewell Police Station. In my opinion the paper is written by Hiller. The dot over the "i" is in both a small dash and there are other similarities to the writing on the paper. I also found dock release signed by Hiller; that and the entries in diary produced are similar in the handwriting to that of the paper. West-wood, Cashman, and Groves were charged on August 28. On August 29 and 30 Westwood made statements to me. On August 30 Cashman, Groves, and Westwood were brought up at the Mansion House and remanded. I arrested Taber on that day. On September 2 Cashman made a statement to me and a warrant was issued for Hiller's arrest the next day. On the afternoon of September 3 I saw Hiller at Long Street. I said, "You know me"; he said, "Yes." I then read to him a copy of the statement made by Cashman. He said, "It is a lie. I never paid a man 25s. for corn." I then read the warrant to him, and he said, "Who is Cashman?" I said, "One of the prisoners, employees of Benjamin Smith, who you saw in your stable on Saturday last." He was then taken to Bridewell Police Station, where he was formally charged and made no reply. I know Gosset Street, Bethnal Green. It is reached by going down Bethnal Green Road through Shoreditch, turning to the left, then to the right, and to the right again; or if you go further down the street you turn to the left and to the left again.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purcell. On August 28 I detained Cashman, Groves, and Westwood, together with the other two men who were employed at the archway for two hours and 20 minutes. Other men came and went; there were seven or eight horses there—I believe the property of Hiller. I got the paper from Groves before asking Hiller to write his name in my book—that was to compare the handwriting. I formed the opinion that they were the same. I did not consider that I had sufficient ground to arrest Hiller. I applied for a warrant after Cashman's statement. I told Hiller I was going to take his diary, and he said, "I have no objection."
in stealing five sacks of oats on August 21, and 25 sacks on August 28. On August 21, in the evening, I went with Westwood, in my master's van, with some sacks of oats down Bethnal Green Road, turned to the left and to the left again down a gateway into a yard where there was a loft. I saw Hiller there and said to him, "Here are five sacks of corn. "Two men who were there carried five sacks of oats into the loft. Hiller paid me 25s. I gave him no invoice; he did not ask for one or give me a receipt. The oats are worth 10s. a sack, I believe. Hiller gave me a paper (produced) and said he was going to move—that was the address. I gave it to Groves. On August 28, stout 6 p.m., I went with Groves to the prosecutor's warehouse, and met Westwood. We loaded 25 sacks of my employers' oats into the van, and I went with Westwood to 408, Long Street, where I was arrested. I had only seen Hiller on those two occasions.
THOMAS WESTWOOD (prisoner). On August 21 I was carman in prosecutor's service, and at 5 p.m. I stole five sacks of oats from the warehouse; (they were placed in the stable. I took them up Bethnal Green Road, to a turning to the left and turned to the left again. I do not know the name of the place because I had never been there before. Cashman was in the stable; he went with me. I did not see Hiller. Two men took the oats off my van up a gateway. Cashman gave me 10s. The following Saturday afternoon I took 25 sacks of oats from Rutland Wharf to 408, Long Street. Cashman gave me the address and, with Groves, went with me. We were arrested and detained. I had never seen Hiller until he came into 408, Long Street on August 28 at 9 p.m. I was not told what I was going to get out of the 25 sacks.
JOHN BALDWIN , carman to Underwood and Sons, hay and straw merchants. I have been to Hiller's stable at Gossett Street several times. On August 21 I delivered 36 trusses of hay there. It is a house with a gateway underneath, which leads to a yard with a loft for storing forage. Hiller told me he had taken some railway arches in Long Street. About a fortnight ago I delivered some chaff there. You get to Gossett Street by turning to the left down to the bottom of Turin Street, then to the right.
Mr. Purcell submitted that there was no case against Hiller, the accomplices being uncorroborated (R. v. Everest, I Cohen's Criminal Reports); the goods were not proved to have been in the possession of Hiller.
The Recorder held that there was evidence that Hiller was in possession of the archway, and therefore in the possession of the goods; also that the accomplice was corroborated.
EDWARD HILLER (prisoner, on oath). I am carman and contractor, carrying on business at 408, Archway, Long Street, Union Street, Hackney Road. I have only been in business a month—the business was carried on by my father until August 1, 1909, when he became bankrupt. I used previously to manage the business at Gossett Street. I moved on August 23 to 408, Long Street. It is not true that Cashman delivered five sacks of oats at Gossett Street on
August 21, or that I paid him 25s., or any sum. I saw him on August 28 at 408, Long Street. I never gave him the paper produced. It is not in my handwriting, though it is very much like it. I first saw it on August 28, when Inspector Hind showed it me. The coloured pencil writing in the diary is different to that on the paper, one being a bright blue and the other a dull blue. Entries in the diary are generally made by me, but sometimes by others. I never saw Westwood or Groves before August 28; I do not know how they came to be at 408, Long Street, or how they came to know I had moved. I employ six or seven men and keep eight horses and 12 vans. I have exclusive possession of 408, Long Street. I have about 20 regular customers, who employ me as carman, and most of whom I informed I was leaving; I have had no dealings with prosecutors. I have bought oats from Beddon and Sons and Dennis. We used to have them by the load, but since the bankruptcy I have bought in small quantities for cash. I never gave anyone 25s. for five sacks of oats—that would be an inadequate price. I pay about 19s. a qr., or 9s. 6d. a sack.
Cross-examined. Hind's evidence is correct, except that when he entered the stable he asked me whether I knew the four men. I said, No, I had never seen them before. Then he asked them whether they knew me and they said, No, they had never seen me before—he has left that out. I was not asked how they came to bring the oats to my stable. On August 28 I had bought oats; I was buying them from day to day; 25 sacks would last me about a fortnight. There were nobody's horses but mine in the stable. I do not keep a record showing the oats purchased. If oats were offered to me at 5s. a sack I should think there was something dishonest about it. I have never heard the name of Benjamin Smith and Sons. I do not know the carman employed previous to Westwood. I swear positively I had had no communication with him or with Cashman or Westwood before August 28. I have no idea how they knew my address or why they should put the sacks of oats in my loft. I told Hind it looked like a trap. I do not suggest that the police have done anything unfair. I did not employ a clerk—only a lad to mind the premises.
Re-examined. On August 28 I ordered some oats from Pottier, which were delivered while the police were at the stable. I am no scholar and do not write very well.
JAMES DUFFELL , 10A, Coat Street, Hackney Road, timber merchant; BENJAMIN COOPER, 20, Wellington Road, Bethnal Green, blacksmith; and THOMAS WEIGHT, 24, Collard's Row, Bethnal Green, coachmaker, gave evidence to character of Hiller.
Westwood was stated to be of good character and was recommended to mercy by the prosecutors, as he had only been in their employment for a fortnight, and was believed to have been drawn in by the others. Taber was also recommended to mercy on account of his age.
Sentence: Cashman and Groves, Nine months' hard labour; Taber, Six months' hard labour; Hiller, Nine months' hard labour; West-wood was released on his own recognisances in £40, to come up for judgment if called upon.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Thursday, October 14.)
Sentence, Three months' hard labour.
MARKS Shepherd (30, tailor) ; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque and order for the payment of £264, with intent to defraud, and forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a request for the delivery of goods, and an order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque and order for the payment of £175, in each case with intent to defraud.
Mr. Muir prosecuted; Mr. Burnie and Mr. Joyce Thomas defended.
JOHN LAW , paying cashier, London Joint Stock Bank, Princes Street. On September 13, the cheque (produced) for £264 was presented to me for payment, between 10 and 11 o'clock in the forenoon, by the prisoner. It purports to be drawn by Messrs. Corby, Palmer and Stewart. I noticed that he approached me in a hesitating manner and, when he handed the cheque over the grille, not underneath, his hand trembled. I asked him how he would take it. He said he would take it in gold and notes—£64 in gold and £200 in notes. I examined the cheque, and the drawing of the cheque did not satisfy m. I passed it on to a colleague (Mr. Hawke) and asked him his opinion. I then collected the notes that were required, "tens" and "twenties." In the meantime my colleague went into the ledger room and brought out several cheques drawn by Corby, Palmer and Stewart, and I formed the opinion that it was not a genuine cheque. The cheque was then taken into the managers' room by the chief cashier. During this time prisoner was waiting at my desk, I believe. I was away perhaps ten minutes or a quarter of an hour. Prisoner was still at the counter when I came back, and the managers came from their room and interviewed him.
Cross-examined. My desk is not the desk nearest to the door. It is the fourth desk down, about 30 ft. from the door. At this time I had not heard about the cheque for £175, which prisoner is also charged with forging.
my partner, John Edward Corby, sign cheques. The cheque (produced) for £264 bears a signature very much resembling mine, but it is not a genuine signature. It also bears the impress of a rubber stamp with the initials "C. P.S." All our cheques are stamped in the counting house in that way. We have also a rubber stamp for the purpose of impressing the dates. I do not know any person of the name of "M. Egard," the name of the payee on the cheque produced. I do not know the handwriting of the body of the cheque. Exhibit No. 2 is a memorandum purporting to be signed by my firm with an imitation of my handwriting, asking for a cheque book. The signature is like mine, and the form is dated with a rubber stamp and is also stamped "C. P.S." The name "W. Lambett" is written on the back of the form in pencil. I do not know any person named "W. Lambett." There is a person in our employ named Lambert. "W. Lambett" is not in the handwriting of Lambert. The memorandum form produced is not one of our forms. The wording is the same, but the method of printing or engraving is quite different. Exhibit 4 is a cheque for £175, purporting to be drawn by me. It is dated September 10, 1909, payable to "B. Miller," and endorsed "B. Miller"; it is dated with a rubber stamp, and is also stamped with the initials "C. P.S." I do not know the handwriting of the body of the cheque. I do not know anybody called "Miller. "I did not sign the cheque. The signature is like mine. All the forged signatures exactly correspond. It is not my experience that I ever write my signature in exactly the same place. (Three genuine cheques were handed to the jury for comparison of the signatures and the rubber stamps.)
JEWELL HAWKE , paying cashier, head office, London Joint Stock Bank. On September 13 I was at the paying counter next to Mr. Law. He handed me a cheque which I compared with others, went to our ledger room and brought out some old cheques that had been already paid. I then spoke to our messenger at the door requesting him to watch prisoner and not to let him slip. I went back to prisoner and said, "Do you come from Corby, Palmer and Stewart's?" He said, "No." Then I said, "Who is the payee?" He said, "A stockbroker, M. Egard." I said, "Who are you?" He replied, "I am his clerk." My attention was taken off for a moment or two, and when I looked up prisoner was walking slowly towards the door. When he had got within a yard from the porter he suddenly pulled up and stopped, and then came back again to the desk, where he had been standing. I have been paying cashier about six years, and during that time have had experience in comparing handwritings. In my opinion all the documents that have been produced are in the handwriting of the person who wrote "W. Lambett"; they all show similarity of character.
Cross-examined. Prisoner, on the other side of the counter, must have seen that something was going on.
BEN DAY , assistant manager at the London Joint Stock Bank head office. On September 13 the cheque produced for £264 was handed to me by one of the cashiers. I communicated to Corby, Palmer, and Stewart that it was a forgery. I spoke to prisoner from inside the bank counter. I said to him, "How will you take this?" He said, "£100 in fives, £100 in tens, and the rest in gold. "After he had said that I walked round the counter and when I got near him I said, "This is a duffer, you know." He said, "What?" I said, "A forgery, you know; you cannot leave the bank." Then I inquired of him where he got it from, and he said, "A friend down the street." I asked him where that was, and he replied, "The Unicorn." I asked him whether that was a beer shop. He said, "No, a public-house." I asked him what his friend was, and he said, "A commission agent." I said, "What do you mean? A betting man?" He said, "One who attends race meetings." I said, "What are you?" I understood him to say that he attended race meetings also. I sent for a detective and kept prisoner waiting till he came.
PETER MCGILLIVRAY BLACK , paying cashier at the London Joint Stock Bank head office. The memorandum asking for a cheque book was presented to me on September 9 between 10 and 11 o'clock in the morning, I believe, by prisoner. I was in the bank on September 13 when the cheque for £264 was presented to Mr. Law and saw the man who presented it. I formed the opinion that prisoner was the man who asked for the cheque book when I saw him at the police court. I presume I got the cheque book and gave it to him after taking the particulars and getting him to sign his name on the back of the memorandum as acknowledging receiving the cheque book. The book contained 200 cheques, Nos DG—015001 to 015200. Exhibits Nos. 1 and 4 are from the book I gave to the man I believe to be prisoner, being respectively numbers 3 and 4 in the book.
JAMES BRITTON SERGEL , paying cashier, London Joint Stock Bank, head office. On September 10 a cheque for £175 was presented to me for payment. I do not know who presented it. I cannot swear to prisoner being the man. I queried the drawing, and referred it to the senior in my division. He had had more experience than I had with regard to this particular signature. He told me it was all right, and I paid it. I think it was the fineness of the signature that struck me at first; but, anyhow, I did query it. I gave him 20 £5 notes and £75 gold.
WILLIAM CHARLES VALENTINE , cashier, head office, London Joint Stock Bank. I have had 30 or 36 years' experience. I have examined exhibits 7, 8, 8A and 9, and in my opinion they were all written by the person that wrote the signature "W. Lambett." There is a similarity in the handwriting; I would not say a striking similarity.
Detective-inspector WILLIAM NEWELL, City. On September 13, about 11 o'clock in the morning, I saw prisoner detained at the London Joint Stock Bank, Princes Street. Holding the cheque for £264 in
my hand I said to him, "I understand that you have presented this cheque for payment. It is forged and you will be charged with forging and uttering it, well knowing it to have been forged. "He said, "I did not know it was forged. I got it from a man to whom I had been introduced by another man, who said he had got it and some money from a 'can' at Alexandra Park races on Saturday. It is sweet." By the expression "sweet" I took it that he meant the cheque was easy to cash. He said the other man asked him to get £64 gold. A "can" means a person who is easily duped, in other words a "mug." He was taken to the Old Jewry and detained, and there he made a further statement, which I reduced to type. At the Mansion House Police Court, on September 20, prisoner asked to see me. I had to get permission from the clerk of the court before I could go below. When he was brought into the room he said, "Mr. Newell, I wish to turn King's evidence. "I then told him that I must caution him, and anything he said might be used in evidence against him, and it was a matter entirely for himself whether he told me anything or not. He said he wished to do so and commenced telling me the same story that he had told me at the Old Jewry. I then said to him, "If you are going to tell me the same story that you told me before, I have it typewritten in my pocket. "I said, "I will read it to you, and if you agree with it, you can sign it, or, if you wish to make any alterations, you can do so. "I read the statement to him and he said, "It is quite true." I said, "Do you wish to make any alteration or add anything to it?" He said, "No." I obtained pen and ink and said, "You had better write at the bottom, 'I make this statement quite voluntarily and of my own free will.'" He) then wrote that down and signed his name. (The statement was read, the effect of it being to show that on September 10, when the cheque for £175 was cashed, prisoner was in the North of England. "I have been let into this. Last Wednesday (September 8) I was at Doncaster races. I went on to Manchester and stayed with Mrs. Whitehead, 72, Copeland Street, on Thursday and Friday (September 9 and 10) and then went on to Leeds, where I stayed with my sister, Mrs. Harris, 26, Victoria Place, Leeds. On Sunday (September 12), about 3.45 p.m., I received a telegram, which was handed in at London at 3.20 p.m., signed 'Alf.' The purport of the telegram was 'Come to London immediately. Important. Thinking the telegram was from Abe Kamms, whom I have known for about three years, having met him at race meetings, and that he wanted me to go to Yarmouth races with him, I left Leeds by the 5.25 p.m. train for London. Upon arriving in London, I went to a gaming house in Greenfield Street, Commercial Road, to see if I could find Kamms, but he was not there. I then inquired at the butcher's shop, Commercial Road, but he was not there. I afterwards saw him at the corner of New Road, Commercial Road. Kamms said he had some business to-morrow, and asked me to meet him outside the 'Unicorn' public-house, Shoreditch, the following morning. I met him as requested, when he introduced me to two foreigners, the first aged 43 or 45, height 5 ft. 3 in. or 4 in., hair and
moustache black, fresh complexion, stout build, dressed in dark clothes, black overcoat, dark tie; the second, aged 32 or 33, height 5 ft. 5 in. or 6 in., hair and moustache fair, fresh complexion, stout build, and carried a silver-mounted umbrella. I do not know their names, and have never seen them before. We all went to the 'Wooden Shoes' public-house, Bishopsgate Street, where the two foreigners had brandy and Kamms and myself had whiskeys. The dark man then gave me the cheque in an envelope, and asked me to go with him to the bank. He told me to ask for £64 gold, ten £10 notes and 20 £5 notes. I and the dark man went to the bank. He waited outside. We were to meet the other two on the steps of the General Post Office half an hour after we left.")
Verdict: Guilty. Prisoner confessed to a conviction at Bradford Quarter Sessions on June 29, 1903.
Sergeant HENRY REDMAN, West Riding Constabulary, proved the conviction, and stated that he knew prisoner as attending race meetings.
Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Thursday, October 14.)
OWEN Charles (21, tailor) , who pleaded guilty at the September Sessions (see page 579) of shop breaking, larceny, and receiving stolen goods, was brought up for judgment. He was released on his own recognisances in £10 to come up for judgment if called upon.
FLITTON Frederick William (32, accountant) ; on February 4, 1908, stealing £28 1s. 6d., the moneys of William Henry Russell, his master; on December 5, 1906, embezzling and stealing an order for the payment of £12 3s., and that sum in money, of the property and moneys of William Henry Russell, his master; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, an endorsement on order for the payment of £6 5s., with intent to defraud; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, an endorsement on order for the payment of £7 17s. 3d., with intent to defraud; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, an endorsement on order for the payment of £4 17s. 3d., with intent to defraud.
Mr. Huntly Jenkins and Mr. Roome prosecuted; Mr. George Elliott, K. C., and Mr. Slater defended.
WILLIAM HENRY RUSSELL , Devonshire Nurseries, Haverstock Hill. Prisoner has been in my employment about four years. He had general charge of the cash and books. At first he kept the ledger only and afterwards became confidential clerk. He had supervision of all the books. Miss Nye is the cashier. When cheques or cash are paid in it is her duty to give receipts and then hand the cash and cheques to Flitton to pay into the bank. She then enters them in a rough cash book. If Flitton received a cheque from a customer
it would be his duty to take it to Miss Nye or give a receipt for it and then pay it into the bank after it was endorsed. He was supposed to tell Miss Nye so that she could enter it in her rough book. At the end of the day the cash-book would be made up from the rough cash-book by Flitton. The banking account was at Lloyds, Hampstead branch. I had also a small account at the London and South Western, Hampstead branch. Flitton had no authority to pay cheques into his own bank. When I was away, so as not to delay paying into the bank, he was allowed to endorse cheques in my name provided it was paid into my bank. After prisoner had been with me some time we had a conversation about the auditors. I was paying about £42 a year to them. Flitton said that expense could be saved as he could get the balance-sheet out in a very few hours, and that he really did all the work. A little time afterwards I acted upon his suggestion. As near as I can recollect we finished with the auditors at Christmas, 1906. That was the last independent audit. From then to the end of 1908 prisoner had absolute control of all the books. Early this year I called in a chartered accountant, Mr. Merritt. I have a customer named Mrs. Austin. In December, 1908, she owed £12 3s. Mr. Merritt showed me a line fitted in at the top of a page in the cash-book "Mrs. Austin by cash £12 3s." I have customers named Kearley and Eves. I spoke to prisoner about a cheque of Mr. Eves' for £7 17s. 3d. I told him Eves had written that he had paid his account. I said we could find no entry. He said, "It is funny; I will look at it when I come in; possibly I put it on a slip when I paid it into the bank and it would not show in the paying-in book; I will make inquiries when I go to the bank." In consequence of what Mr. Eves told me, I went to the police. The cheques for £4 17s. 3d., £6 5s. and £7 17s. 3d. are endorsed by Flitton. He had no authority to pay those into his own bank. Mrs. Austin's receipt for £12 3s. is signed by Flitton. As a result of investigation by the auditor I wrote prisoner and he replied. There is no truth in the suggestions in his letter. I never bought a machine from Mr. Henshaw. It was never on my premises to my knowledge He never paid the Hampstead Borough Council one penny for me. As far as we can trace, every penny has been paid by ourselves. The cheque for £2 0s. 2d. handed to me was drawn and signed by me. It was payable to order. "Bearer" has been written on and "J. B." put at the side. That has not been done by me. It looks like Flitton's initials. Cheques returned from the bank at that time would be received by Flitton. He usually got the pass-book from the bank; if I got it I should hand it to him. I paid Flitton £2 a week at first, and afterwards £2 10s.
(Friday, October 15.)
Covent Garden Market, cheques other than those I signed. He lent my brother £11 5s. That was a matter between themselves. He has never expended one shilling on my behalf. If he bought anything for me it would be paid in the usual way. I never authorised him to pay anything for me except with my own money.
Cross-examined. I know your case is that Flitton has on various occasions advanced money for my business. I absolutely deny it. For two or three years I have been engaged in building speculations as well as being a nurseryman. They have been very successful, as the books will prove, otherwise I should not have been able to carry On, what I have been robbed. Prisoner has not during the last few years been more engaged with the building speculations than the nursery business. He never had anything to do with the building except in the office at the nursery. If he went to the building he went on his own account. He had no right at the building. All he had to see to was the paying of the accounts. I might have sent him down on a trivial thing. He was not there at least half his time. During the last two years I have been in financial difficulties. My banking account at Lloyds has not been overdrawn all that time. It was not overdrawn £1,700 about the end of last year. There was a balance in my favour then of £870. It is not the fact that over and over again the bank would not advance me money. They always met my wages cheque, but sometimes they objected to any other cheques being drawn. It was not a matter of importance sometimes for me to be able to have even a small amount of money to make up my market accounts. I have no recollection of post-dating small cheques. I have post-dated cheques. (Several cheques were put to the witness, who admitted that he had post-dated some small cheques.) Prisoner has never advanced money to Hibbert and Skelding on my account to my knowledge. He went to sales for me and bought stuff for his own account or for another buyer. The £23 13s. 4d. cheque is nothing to do with me; if it is it should appear in my books. When I was building I bought things in advance; possibly he was also. He built two houses. There was never a joint purchase of materials. I had transactions in accommodation bills with a Mr. Miroy, of Wood Street, E. C. It is an absolute lie that Flitton on one occasion had to provide me with money to take up a bill. The loan account in the ledger is entirely prisoner's manipulation. He has made a mistake in manipulating it too much. I am supposed to borrow or lend 30s., and yet it is paid back on Christmas Day, when the shop is closed. I believe he was away then at Weston-super-Mare; he said he was going. He possibly put 30s. into my business, knowing he was taking my cheques at the time, to complicate matters. I had not the slightest to do with buying Henshaw's hay cutting machine, except that he and Flitton asked if I had any objection to Flitton buying it to make a profit out of it, and I said "No; I shall be glad if you can make £10 out of it." I knew nothing of the cheque for £2 0s. 2d. given to the Hampstead Borough Council until the charge came on at the police court. I do not think Flitton asked me to sign a cheque for the electric light. If he had done so I should have signed it. At that
time the Hampstead Borough Council owed me about £150, and if I made out the £2 0s. 2d. cheque they would have paid me. I did not refuse to sign it. It was not changed from "order" to "bearer' because it was not to be paid to them. The initials "R." are not mine. Flitton drew the cheque for me to sign on November 6. I did not refuse to sign it on that date. I did not know that in order to get the £150 from the Borough Council he gave a cheque of his own. If I wrote a cheque for £2 0s. 2d. what is the object of paying it into my own bank? Flitton never advanced one penny for wages or the market. I know nothing about the cheques numbered 12 to 17. I could not say if the bodies of the cheques are made out by one of my employes. I do not know the handwriting; it does not look like Flitton's. There is no attempt to disguise his writing in the cheques the subject of the charge. Flitton was always trying to inflame me against the auditors. He was always showing me they were making mistakes, that we were paying a lot of money, and it was no good. I was a little incensed with them and they with me. I do not think both auditors retained my ledgers because I would not pay them their account. There was some bother with them and I believe it was under Flitton's instructions I should not send them the cheque until they returned the books. I believe you will find letters to that effect written by Flitton. I did not reply to Flitton's letter of May 19; I thought it wiser to send it to my solicitor to deal with. It was not at my request that Flitton lent my brother £11 5s. My brother was staying with me over Christmas; he was ill, and wanted to send a cheque for his Christmas rent. At that time I could have written a cheque for £1,000, so what was the object of my borrowing £11 5s.? When Flitton left me he owed me £40. He came up to offer £20 and, knowing how things were going, I thought it would be better for him to pay the money to my own. brother and get it that way if I could. Flitton did not advance me £7 16s. 6d. for market purchases on October 31, 1908, or £3 12s. 6d. on November 6, or £12 5s. in December. I have never had any dealings with Westwood; he is a publican that Flitton owes £40 to. I do not know him. He has served me with a writ lately. I know a paperhanger named Gilbert He did some work for me at the end of last year and for Flitton, too. The cheque shown to me is not paid for my account. The £11 5s. cheque to my brother ought to be entered in my books; we have never settled up with my brother. The accountants asked me what they should do about it, and I said while these proceedings were on they had better let it alone. My brother is a debtor to me for that. Towards the end of last year my banking account was drawn right up to the hilt. When the wages account exceeded what I was allowed. to draw from the bank I would send a cheque to Lees to cash. Flitton had the making up of the wages book and I cannot see why he should not have drawn the cheques for the correct amount. I have never been refused wages if my account was ever so much overdrawn.
the cheques until they were handed to Mr. Flitton to be banked. At the end of the day the book is totalled up. It was not Flitton's duty to make any entries in that book. He was supposed to check the additions when he received the cheques or after paying them into the bank. Sometimes he did not. He kept all the books with the exception of the rough cash book and petty cash book. When he received cheques from customers he ought to have told me. Mrs. Austin's cheque for £12 3s. is not entered. There is an entry on December 22 for £4 17s. 3d. It is not in my writing. It ought to have been if I had received the money. When I totalled that column that entry was not there. It has been put in afterwards. It is in Flitton's handwriting. Eves' £7 17s. 3d. is not entered. I did not receive the money. Holman's £6 5s. is not entered.
Cross-examined. I am a distant relative of Mr. Russell. All cheques ought to pass through my hands, then they would be given to Mr. Flitton. I do not know if they went through anybody else's hands. The letters in the morning would go to Mr. Russell's private house as a rule, and he would bring down to the office any cheques that were sent in them. He generally gave them to Mr. Flitton, who gave them to me. I always entered the cheques I had. I did not over and over again forget to make entries. There are several entries in the rough cash book made by Flitton. If I did not see the cheques I could not enter them. In cases like Kearley's he would say I had not made the entry; but I had not seen the cheque. I have not compared the rough cash book with the cash book that Flitton used to make up day by day. I do not remember handing Flitton Mrs. Austin's cheque. I do not remember anything about it at all. I do not remember him handing me the cheque with an account showing what he had advanced in respect of Mr. Russell's business. The balance was not made up by a payment to me of £1 12s. 10d. I have no recollection of his taking cheques from me on account of advances he had made. I did not know he had advanced any money.
G. W.KEARLEY, 9, Haverstock Hill. The cheque exhibit 5 was drawn by me in payment of a debt to Mr. Russell.
LIONEL CHARLES STEVENS , 153, Rathcoole Gardens, Hornsey, clerk to Mr. Russell. I received Mr. Kearley's cheque at his shop. I handed it to Flitton on my return to the office. When the monthly accounts were made out I noticed it had not been credited. I pointed this out to Flitton. He said, "Oh, is not that in; Polly must have missed it. "Polly is Miss Nye. He said he would see that it was entered. I spoke to him again about it; he said he would see to it. The endorsement is in his writing, I should say. The" £4 17s. 3d." in the rough cash book is in Flitton's writing, and is bracketed with the total. The other figures are Miss Nye's. This is the only cheque that has not been entered in the ledger. I would pay in cheques I
collected to whoever happened to be about at the time; in preference I would have paid them to Flitton. I always held myself responsible for my collecting to Flitton, and I rendered to him an account of what I had collected. In some instances I gave the money to Miss Nye, but the greater part to Flitton. I do not know, and have not been informed, that the £4 17s. 3d. was entered in the rough cash book on December 22. I should say the second occasion on which I spoke to Flitton about it would be after December 24 because we should not send out the accounts till the end of the month.
ALEC JOHN MOSELY , 2, Argyle Mansions, Cricklewood, clerk, London and South Western Bank, Cricklewood Branch. I produce four paying-in slips used for paying in amounts to prisoner's account; also three cheques which have been paid through the bank. The endorsements purport to be in the handwriting of J. Russell. They might be in Flitton's. They form part of the paying-in slips, three of which are in Flitton's writing and one in that of the cashier. He had small credit balances in November and December; on December 24 there was an overdraft of 12s. 9d.; on January 1 a credit balance of £23 14s. 7d., and on January 9 £6 7s. 3d.
Cross-examined. The account is still open. There is no balance there at all.
GEORGE ERNEST STRINGER , 44, Wilsons Road, Hornsey, senior clerk to Mr. Merritt, accountant. I see there is an entry in the cash book at folio 89 on the top line of Mrs. Austin £12 3s. It was not there when I first examined the book. There is no date against it.
Cross-examined. I first examined the book about March this year. I could not say if this book has been under defendant's control subsequent to my seeing it. As far as I know, at the time I was called in and examined this book it had never been under defendant's control.
HENRY CHARLES MERRITT , chartered accountant, 41, Finsbury Square. In February last Mr. Russell instructed me to audit his books. My clerk attended first of all, and then I attended to clear up his queries. At folio 39 in the ledger there is an entry of £12 3s., dated September 30, to Mrs. Austin's credit. There is a similar entry on the top line of that date in the cash book at page 89; it comes between November 14 and November 16. That amount is not included in the cost. In the ledger the entry is made on September 30. At page 92 of the ledger, Eves' account, there is a debit balance of £7 17s. 3d. and a note "Paid, not to render"; at page 594, Holman's account, £6 5s. debit balance, and the note there again "Paid"; both are in pencil. At page 327 in the petty ledger, Kearley's account, there is a pencil note "Paid. Received L. C. Stevens"; the date of this is December 18, 1908, and the receipt number is given. Those pencil marks were not made on our instructions; they were there when we took this matter over. At page 268 of the ledger, Kearley's account, there is a pencil note "February 4 by cash £28 1s. 6d." There is no corresponding entry in the cash or rough cash books. That amount appears in the payingin slip, and forms part of the item £43 16s. 9d. In the cash book
at page 271 is a details column £43 16s. 9d. That was the amount that was paid into the bank. The cash book should contain an item of £28 1s. 6d. in the details column; it does not appear there. I had defendent over to my office and asked him with regard to the queries. I asked him if he minded my taking a note of what he told me; he said he had no objection. I had a great number of queries, and I picked out these principal ones. I went through them with him, and then he said it was a matter of account. Then I asked him for an account, and asked how long it would tike, he said he should think a couple of hours. He was to let me have it that night. As I did not get it I. either wrote or telephoned him that I was wanting it. I telephoned and wrote twice or thrice. The last time I phoned he said he would send it the following Thursday. As he did not do so I told him I should write Mr. Russell to forward further instructions, which I did. I have not received his account to this day.
Cross-examined. Flitton did not say he wanted me to let him have an account of any amounts that I could not trace. He did not say if they concerned him he would let me have his account in a couple of days. I asked for two accounts which had relation to Jupp, who had embezzled. I had a list of the principal queries, and asked him about a certain one. He said, "That matter refers to Jupp." Mrs. Austin's cheque for £12 3s. was paid by her on December 7, 1908. Under that 'date there is no entry in the book of its having been received. It is entered between November 14 and 16. It is entered in the ledger on September 30. I do not know that it is Flitton's writing; it is only what I had been told. My clerk pointed out to me that there was an item booked to Austin of £12 3s., which was supposed to be on folio 89 of the cash book. I turned up that folio and the first item that caught my eye was the £12 3s. I said, "How is this?" He said, calling back the book, there was no such item on that page; then when I looked at the cast it was not in the cast. My clerk told me it was not there when he made his first audit. The rough cash book shows on one side the amounts received and on the other the amounts expended by Miss Nye. There is no instance of Flitton's name occurring there, or of any advance from or payment to Flitton. Of course, I have not done every item myself.
ARTHUR HENSHAW , 13, Eton Terrace, Eton Road, Hampstead. In November, 1908, I had a chaff cutting machine. I believe Flitton. heard me trying to sell it to Mr. Russell. Russell refused to buy it. Flitton asked me all about the machine. I told him it was made by Crossleys, that it was a good machine and worth £30. Flitton said if Russell would not buy it he would give me £15 for it. I sold it for that. He said he knew where to sell it for £25, and if he got £25 I should have another £5. I think Russell had left when Flitton talked about buying it. The machine was to be delivered at Russell's to Mr. Flitton; then Flitton would arrange where it was to go Flitton paid for it. He gave me a cheque for £5 on account. A fortnight after that I asked him for another £5 on account. He said he
would post it to me that night. The cheque did not arrive. I saw him next morning at Russell's. He swore he had posted the cheque the night previous. I went to the post-office at Earl's Court to make inquiries; no such letter had been seen. I telephoned to Flitton. He said he had sent it. I saw him next day at Russell's shop, and I believe he wrote out a cheque and sent Russell's boy to the bank to cash it. He gave me £5 in cash, and he made the third payment in cash. Russell did not pay me a cent.
Cross-examined. My wife has been in Mr. Russell's employment about 20 years. I used to go there to meet my wife. That is how I got to know Flitton. Things were not going very well with me at the time of this transaction. I was not threatened with bankruptcy proceedings. A creditor was pressing me for £60; I offered £30, which he would not accept. I do not know that things were looking a little bit dicky; I thought the business would pull round. I wanted to sell the machine because it was absolutely useless to me, as I had lost two of my biggest customers. I believe Russell was present when Flitton gave me the first cheque. He was not present when Flitton sent the boy to cash the cheque. I know nothing about Russell's affairs at the bank. I do not know why the machine was sent to Russell's. Flitton did not tell me who was buying it from him.
CHARLES EDWARD WHITE , buyer for Mr. Russell at Covent Garden Market. I used to go to market every day except Sundays. Flitton used to give me money for market purchases, sometimes a cheque; sometimes he told Miss Nye to give me cash. With two exceptions all the cheques I got from Flitton were signed by him; the exceptions were October 1 and December 30, 1908. On December 30 I went for £5 cash for the market and he said, "I owe Miss Nye £5; this will do in payment of it," and he gave me a cheque with which I got the goods. I made a note at the time of the number of the cheque in this book, which I used to jot the cash down nightly; it is B 30194. I have not had the cheques 30195 and 30196 or the one for £4 dated November 11. I believe I have entered in my book every cheque I had. On November 11 I had cash £2 10s. I got that from Mr. Russell; it might have been Miss Nye. If I received a cheque on the 11th it would be dated 10th. I did not have that. On the 12th I received a cheque from Mr. Russell. It would be dated for the 11th. It was No. 40—0 DA 54752, £4. I am quite sure I did not have a cheque from Flitton on that day. He gave me a cheque for £5 on January 8 for market on January 9. I did not use it. I took it to Mr. Russell and Mr. Russell said it was no use to him and told me to take it back to the shop, and he gave me £5 out of his own pocket. The shop was closed that night and I kept it, and after I returned from market I gave it to Miss Nye. It had got Flitton's name on it. I did not have the cheque for £10 dated January 1. I have never seen it. I had £3 cash. I did not have the cheque for £20 of January 6. I should not have a cheque for £20; I should have it split up. Since Christmas I have had in cash for market about £10. Cross-examined. I would not go every evening to Flitton for the money for market purposes next day. I could not say how often I went
to him—when he was there, or probably I should go to Miss Nye. I would get money from somebody every evening. In Flitton and Miss Nye's absence I would go to Mr. Russell; that was very seldom. I do not think Flitton has ever told me he could not give me a cheque because things were not as they ought to be at the bank. I do not Know what Mr. Russell meant when he said the cheque I took to him was no good, except what I have said. Flitton said he owed Miss Nye £5 and he gave me that in place of me having £5 in cash. Beyond that I did not like the. idea of. having that cheque to go to market with, so I went to Mr. Russell. There was no trouble with cheques at the market. I did not like it because it was drawn by Flitton. It was a feeling I had at the time. I had put one there on December 31 and I did not feel confident in myself to take another. I often went to Miss Nye by Flit ton's direction, and she would give me cash for market purposes next day. I do not know that those were occasions on which he told me he could not give me a cheque. When I had gone and asked for £5 he would sometimes say, "You do not want £5; you can do with £4 "; then I would go to Miss Nye and get £4 instead of having a cheque. When I have gone to Miss Nye it has been to get as much cash as she practically had then. I never sent a boy to get Lees, of England Lane, Acton, to cash cheques. I always changed them in market.
ONSLOW WILLIAM SMITH , Joseph Hibberd and Sons, auctioneers. I produce a book showing purchases made by different people at a sale on August 31. Flitton bought an Empire typewriter for £3. There were purchases also in the names of Cotton and Russell, £20 13s. 4d. and £9 14s. respectively. There is an entry in our paying-in book in the name of Flitton, £23 13s. 4d. That represents the purchases in the names of Flitton and Cotton. There is also a payment in by Russell, £9 14s.
(Saturday, October 16.)
FREDERICK WILLIAM FLITTON (prisoner, on oath), 106, Melrose Avenue, Cricklewood. In 1904 I entered Mr. Russell's service as accountant. Previous to that I was for four years secretary to the Surrey Seed Company, Redhill. During my first six months in Mr. Russell's service my duties were to clear up queries, dissect accounts, attend to correspondence, and assist him in the financial part of his business. At no time was I cashier, ledger clerk, or anything of that kind. At the end of six months I kept the private sundries ledger and assisted with the buying, also to get accounts in and endorse cheques for the purpose of paying them into Lloyds Bank. Authority was given to the bank to honour my endorsements, it being understood that I paid the money into the bank. The usual course of business was for cheques and cash coming in to be handed to Miss Nye for her to enter in a rough cash book and send receipts. Miss Nye would hand me the cheques to pay into the bank. In the first
two years all the cash received was used for petty expenses. In my absence other clerks would pay cheques into the bank and endorse them. I had to look after the providing of the money to pay bills, wages, market expenses, and so on, and to see that accounts came in to meet the various liabilities. I have repeatedly had to advance my own money, to the knowledge of Mr. Russell and Miss Nye. Miss Nye would repay me. During the first 12 months the books were audited by Wale and Co.; they were superseded by Witty and Co., who completed the audit for 1906 in June or July, 1907. They were not employed after that. A dispute arose between Wale and Co. and Mr. Russell with regard to fees, and they kept his private ledger until he did pay. In regard to Witty and Co., Mr. Russell did not think the work they were doing was worth what he was paying for it. There was no audit in 1907 or 1908. Mr. Merritt was called in to audit after February 12, 1909. I had left then. After I left I saw Mr. Russell, and he told me he was calling these accounts in because Lloyds Bank insisted upon a balance-sheet and profit and loss account being prepared for the last year. After I left I made no entries whatever in plaintiff's books. I was never in his place after that. It was physically impossible for me to have had access to the books. With regard to Mr. Eves' cheque, £7 17s. 3d., I had already advanced for the plaintiff's business £10 in two £5 cheques dated December 22 and 24, 1908. I had advanced moneys previously, but they had been settled. Miss Nye handed me this cheque for £7 17s. 3d. and £2 2s. 9d. in cash, making up the £10. In the case of Mrs. Austin's cheque, £12 3s., I had advanced £2 0s. 2d. to the Hampstead Borough Council. Plaintiff was doing some work for them, and they had informed him that a cheque for about £150 had been drawn in his favour. It was my duty to go to the council to get this cheque and pay same into Mr. Russell's bank after endorsing it. I was told by the chief accountant that he would not part with this cheque until an account which Mr. Russell owed for electric light, etc., had been settled. I came back to the office. Mr. Russell had gone for the day, so I was unable to get a cheque from him. I then went and saw the town clerk and reported to him what the chief accountant had said. He told me he was afraid he could not interfere in the matter, that the only thing was to pay the £2. I then saw the accountant, who again refused to part with the cheque unless the £2 was paid. I then said, "I will give you a cheque on my own account if you will accept that. "He did so, and gave me the cheque drawn in favour of Mr. Russell. My cheque has been produced; it is made payable to the Hampstead Borough Council. Item "Market £4, "was money I advanced for market purposes. At that particular time money was not in the office, and plaintiff could not draw a cheque on his account. Mr. Russell told me that Henshaw had got a chaff-cutting machine and gas-engine which he was buying from him to be fitted up at his Bedford nursery. He said Henshaw was in grave financial difficulties and wanted to sell these things. The machine was duly delivered at Bedford nursery. Russell asked me if I would give Renshaw a cheque for £5 on account of my own bank
as he could not draw a cheque on his own account, which I knew perfectly well. I gave Henshaw the cheque, and at a later date two other cheques of £5 each. The statement that Mr. Russell would not buy it, nor the horse, and that I arranged to buy it because I knew a man who wanted it, and if I could get £25 I would give him a further £5, is absolutely false. I had no man in my mind, and had no use for the machine. I had never seen the machine; I should not buy a machine without seeing it. The machine was not sent to Hampstead by my instructions. I have not attempted to sell it or offered it to anybody. With regard to Kearley's cheque, I had advanced £5 to White for market purposes by a cheque. To settle that Miss Nye gave me Kearley's cheque and cash 2s. 9d. Holman's cheque £6 5s. was dealt with in this way. On January 6 I had advanced £10 to White. A day or two before that Miss Nye had lent me £2 for some purpose. Miss Nye gave me Holman's cheque and a further £1 15s., making up the £10. Miss Nye on many occasions omitted to make entries in the rough cash-book. Every month after the accounts went out customers would come in and complain of their accounts having been sent in again after they had paid them. I had a perfect right to make entries in the rough cash-book if I found they had been omitted. There are eight items in the cash-book which did not appear in the rough cash-book. When I discovered that I made the entries. That is at page 86. On December 5, page 94, there are five items in the cash-book not in the rough cashbook, and on December 19, page 99, four items. There are many more instances of the same kind. A statement was made yesterday that no one had any right to make entries in the rough cash-book other than Miss Nye. Here are other entries by other clerks, page after page. I can only see Turnbull and Thurle's writing for the moment, That book is not considered a book of account; it was simply kept for rough purposes so that entries could be transferred into the general cash-book. I repeatedly communicated with Miss Nye about these omissions. There are entries by Stevens, also. In the sundries ledger there is an item, December 25, 1906, "To cash £1 10s. 0d.," cash repaid, and on the opposite side, "November 17, cash advanced, £1 10s. 0d. The first entry is not in my writing; it is the writing of the auditor, Mr. Witty. The second is not in my writing, nor my posting; it would be the accountant's clerk. For book-keeping purposes the books were balanced up to December 25, and the repayment of the loan was entered under that date. In the cash-book at page 94 there is an entry December 14, £6 4s. 3d., a cheque drawn on December 7. On the same date a cheque for £19 8s. 3d. drawn on the 8th in favour of Newton. I believe that was returned dishonoured. There is also a cheque drawn on January 5 postdated 18th which was returned. Russell was unable to draw a cheque on his bank at that time; The therefore postdated them. Russell seldom went to his bank; there were periods of three or four months at a time when he would not go near it. The financial matters with the bank were practically all conducted by myself, and I frequently had to beg of him to advance the full amount of the wages cheque. The
entry on page 49 was made a week or two before I left Russell's employ, and before Merritt had anything to do with the books. I discovered that the cheque had not been entered in Miss Nye's rough cash-book, and I entered it in the first available space. Somewhere about December 5 there was a line drawn at the bottom. I received the cheque after the book had been entered down to there. It was impossible to enter it in the next column because that had been ruled off. The entries I made in the cash-book are amounts which I discovered Miss Nye had omitted to enter in her rough cash book; they are 10s., £14 9s. 6d., £2 5s., and £2 1s. Neither of them relate to the Austin, Kearley, Eves, or Holman cheques. I discovered that those items had been paid in various ways, either by the paying-in book, or by having them brought to my notice by another clerk who knew the account had been paid, or a customer coming in and complaining. Mr. Russell carried on building operations. I had to devote the greater portion of my time to them in superintending and buying materials. All the materials, with the exception of the bricks were bought by me. I had to go all over the country attending sales. I attended nine days running at one sale at Paddington. My wife had a private income. Our joint income was £300 to £400. Jupp was manager of one of Mr. Russell's branches. I had no business relations with him. We discovered that he had defrauded Russell of £200 or £300. It may have been more. "W. H. Flitton loan account" was money I had advanced. The heading is in my writing.
Cross-examined. The books were not in good order when I first went there. I assisted in clearing up the queries. I did not keep the books; other clerks did that. I had a certain amount of supervision, but my time was occupied with other things. I was head accountant and had power to supervise if I had time. My time was fully occupied by Mr. Russell. I did private work of an evening, Saturdays, and various times that I have had off from the place. Our joint income would be £340 as near as possible. I pay no rent; the house is our own. I have had financial difficulty since I left Mr. Russell on account of this case being reported in the paper; creditors came down rather heavily upon me. There was a distress put in, but the money was paid, and it was not executed. I had no written authority to pay cheques of Russell's into my own bank, but Mr. Russell knew I was advancing these moneys. I did not tell him when I did it; there was no necessity. If he did not look at his books he could not tell I was doing it. Mr. Russell did supervise the books. He repeatedly checked Miss Nye's cash with her book. I cannot say if he compared the rough cash book with the cash book. It was Miss Nye's duty to receive all cheques. Turnbull and Stevens endorsed cheques. I do not think Thurle ever did; he may have done. If I wanted money, I do not see what the object would have been in paying in the cheque to Mr. Russell's account and asking him for a cheque, because the bank would not allow him to draw the cheque he wanted. Mr. Russell said he could draw all these small cheques, but here is one of £6 5s. that he had to post-date. I have repeatedly
advanced money for Mr. Russell, and been repaid by Miss Nye. When the Austin cheque was dealt with I gave Miss Nye £1 2s. 10d. It should have appeared in the rough cash book. I know it is not there because I have inspected it. I say nothing against Miss Nye's honesty. As regards Eves' cheque I advanced £10 in two £5 cheques, one to White and one for wages. White denies having one £5; he does not deny the other of December 22. On December 24 my overdraft at the bank was 12s. 9d. On that date I should have rents coming in which the bank knew. The rents were paid in on the 31st, £24 6s. 3d. I was making these advances to Russell out of kindness of heart. It is an absolute falsehood that Miss Nye never advanced any money to me. The chaff cutter was delivered to Mr. Russell's nursery. On his instructions it went to Mr. Burdett's, jobmaster, at Hampstead. I have never had any dealings with Henshaw. It is an absolute lie that I purchased it. I have never seen the machine to this day. White is making a mistake or telling an untruth; he may not be doing so intentionally. Mr. Russell, White, and Miss Nye are mistaken. I am the only one not making a mistake. Where the machine was stored, Burdett's, he does not know my name to this day. I have not embezzled this money. In the case of Holman's cheque the £10 I advanced was for market purposes. I cannot say whether that was at Russell's request; it was at White's request; I knew I could not draw a cheque on Mr. Russell's bank. It is an absolute falsehood that he never had more than £5 for market; his own books show that. On December 28 he had £10 10s. from Mr. Russell; on December 26, £12; on December 22, £10; January 4, £9108. I am reading from a copy of your cheques. If Mr. Russell had £300 in the bank at this time, why did he give a post-dated cheque for £20 on January 4 In Eves' account, page 92 of the ledger, there is no entry of a receipt of cash, but a pencil note, "Paid, not to render, "with a query by Thurle. This ledger was kept by Thurle or Stevens. Holman's is not entered. I have had personal dealings with Miroy; those for Mr. Russell would be in his name. As regards the cheque produced yesterday, which was said to be paid by me on Mr. Russell's behalf, about November 17 a bill became due which had been drawn on Miroy's bank. Mr. Russell could not find the whole amount and asked me if I would let Mr. Miroy have a cheque as against any outstanding account between us in order to provide for this bill. My £7 10s. went to help Mr. Russell's bill. Russell did not owe Miroy anything; all these bills are fictitious—accommodation bills. The explanation of Russell's cheque for £75 3s. 6d. is that that was to pay him against the bill that Miroy had given him. I gave the £10 7s. cheque, which is the exact amount of my own account, voluntarily to meet this bill of Mr. Russell's. My counsel produced this to show that I had given this money in order to meet this bill of Russell's. I had no account at that time from them and did not know what my indebtedness was. I was asked for that amount. I have had no receipt. I paid it in Russell's office. Catton is a builder. I have bought things for
him at Hibbert's. I was under the impression till yesterday that the cheque I gave them for £23 13s. 4d. was paid on Russell's behalf, but on further investigation I find it was for Mr. Catton.
Miss NYE, recalled. When I have received money from anybody I have always entered it in the rough cash book. It is not true that I handed prisoner a cheque for £7 17s. 3d. and £2 2s. 9d. in cash to repay £10, or 2s. 9d. and a cheque for £4 17s. 3d.
Cross-examined. As far as I know I have never made mistakes.
Verdict, Guilty. The jury added that they thought the business had been carried on in a loose and lax way.
Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE PICKFORD.
(Friday, October 15.)
Mr. G. Temple Martin prosecuted; Mr. Turrell defended.
FREDERICK JAMES WARNE , 96, St. George's Road, Southwark. Prisoner has lodged with me for two years; she had the back room and I occupied the front room on the first floor; she did not continuously occupy her room, but went away from time to time. I always locked my room door when I went out. On the morning of September 24 I left at 10.15; everything was then safe; there were a gas jet and a gas stove in the room; neither was turned on. At 3.20 I returned with one of my workmen. On going upstairs I found that the gas pipe outside the door was cut and the gas escaping. On unlocking my room door I found prisoner had cut through a lath and plaster partition between my room and hers and ransacked my drawers. The gas jet and the gas stove were turned full on; some of the things had been set fire to, but had burnt out. The hole made between her room and mine was quite big enough for anyone to get through. On going to the door of prisoner's room I found it was open; it was closed when I left in the morning.
Cross-examined. Besides myself and prisoner, the other occupants of the house were Mrs. Harris and Miss Heath. I have known prisoner and her mother for 17 years; the mother was a tenant of mine and used to look after my room for me. She got into straightened circumstances and in arrears with her rent. Eventually I let her go; the daughter got into a situation and out of her wages paid me £6 of her mother's arrears. She wanted a place to which she could go when she was out of a situation; I said this little room was no use to me and it was arranged that she should have it for £2 a month. There seemed to be some jealousy between Mrs. Harris and Miss Heath, and prisoner. Prisoner, when she was at home, used to keep my room tidy, and Miss Heath made trouble about it. Prisoner was a perfectly respectable girl. I did not give prisoner notice to leave because of
Miss Heath's objection; it was because I wanted to let the room. There were taken from the drawers in my room when they were ransacked two letters which prisoner had written to me; she had sent me a postal order and I had not acknowledged it. I have been told that on September 24 she called to ask me whether I had received the postal order. It would not require great force to knock a hole in the lathe and plaster partition; it would take some time to do it. Prisoner used to have a key to my room, but at this time she had not.
Re-examined. When I gave prisoner notice to leave the room she flew in a terrible temper and said she would not leave.
Mrs. HARRIETT HARRIS. I with my husband occupy the basement and ground floor rooms. On September 24, about 11 a.m., prisoner came to see me; she stayed chatting to me in the kitchen nearly half an hour and then went upstairs and after a time left the house. There were in the house myself, my husband, and baby and Miss Heath.
Cross-examined. The front door of the house is never left open or ajar; there is a Mrs. Glbson, who now does Warne's room; she has a key of the front door. When prisoner called she was quite quiet and friendly. There is access to the house through the back from Warne's workshop; I think he employs two men, possibly more. So far as I know, prisoner is a perfectly steady, respectable girl.
ANNIE HEATH . I and my sister have the two top rooms. About 11 a.m. on September 24 I was down in the basement in the wash-house; prisoner came in to the kitchen and chatted with Mrs. Harris; then I saw her go up the stairs; I did not see her again. Twice in the morning I went up to my room, and I noticed no smell of gas.
Cross-examined. Prisoner and I have not got on very well together; I have never made a grievance about her doing up Mr. Warne's room. I have never made a scene in the street about it.
Cross-examined. I do not feel any ill will towards prisoner; I used to think the woman was mad and not accountable for her actions.
Detective-sergeant JAMES JEFFREY L Division. On the morning of September 27 I went to 96, St. George's Road and examined the two rooms on the first floor. On the outside of the front room door there were marks from some blunt instrument, as if an attempt had been made to open it. On going in I found that the two top drawers of a wardrobe had been forced, and there were papers strewn about. On the other side of the room a large hole had been made in the wall, 20 inches by 12; on the side of the hole, which was in the front room, there was a number of articles which had been set light to, and the
wainscot was scorched. The back room I found in a filthy condition; there were the remains of burnt paper there. I arrested prisoner on the charge of larceny and wilful damage.
To Mr. Justice Pickford: The gas pipe outside the room had been cut; the natural effect of this would be to prevent the gas getting into the room; so that had anybody wished to blow up the room this would be a stupid thing to do. It certainly did not look like a serious attempt to burn the room; that is why prisoner was not charged with arson.
Mr. Justice Pickford held that the prosecution had not established intent to set fire to the house, or that the burning of the things was done "under such circumstances that if the building were thereby set fire to, the offence would amount to felony. "(Malicious Damage Act, 1861, sec. 7.); also R, v. Nattras, 15 Cox, p. 73).
Mr. Mulligan prosecuted; Mr. Edmondson defended.
ERNEST BARNARD STEVENS , 93, St. Anne's Street, Woolwich, general labourer. My daughter, Mary Alice, aged 20, was employed by a Mr. Selbach as domestic servant; on January 12 she met with an accident. Defendant (trading as Clifford and Co.) acted as solicitor for me, as my daughter's next friend, in an action in the Bloomsbury County Court, for damages under the Workmen's Compensation Act. On August 4 an award was made for the payment to my daughter of 10s. a week, and that the arrears from the date of the accident to the date of the award, amounting to £15, should be paid into Court to await the Judge's order; Selbach to pay the costs. On my instructions defendant applied to the Court for payment of the £15 to me for expenses I had been put to through my daughter's accident; the application was refused. Later, a further application was to be made, and for this purpose I sent to defendant on September 6 an authority signed by my daughter and myself. I saw defendant once or twice, and was told the money could not be taken out. On September 14 I had a conversation with defendant about the weekly payments being commuted for a lump sum down. Something made me suspicious and I went to Messrs. Long and Gardner, solicitors. In consequence of what they said I went to the County Court where I found that defendant on September 7 had taken out of Court the £15 and the £5 2s. for costs. On September 16 defendant wrote to me saying, "We have taken the £15 out of Court and shall be pleased to see you in reference to the costs of the High Court action; will you look at Messrs. Long and Gardner's bill, enclosed, and let us know your views on the same? "At that time I had put the matter in the hands of my present solicitors. On September 22 defendant and another man called at my house; I referred
them to my solicitors; defendant said they did not come to discuss terms, they were simply there to hand over the £15; I said I did not think I was justified in taking it; he said, "Oh, yes, it is your own money, and you have a perfect right to have it; it will make no difference whatever." I accepted the money, and went straight off to my solicitors the next morning and handed the money to them. I identify the bag produced, containing £15 in gold.
Cross-examined. On September 14 I first knew that defendant had drawn out the £15; I was told so by Mr. Reginald Thurloe Baker; I knew that at that time Baker was in defendant's office. Baker is not my solicitor in this case; he introduced me to my solicitors. After I knew that defendant had with drawn the £15 I never applied to him for the money or for an account or for a bill of costs; the first step taken was to have him arrested; that was not done at the instigation of Baker. I did not tell defendant that I was extremely sorry he had been arrested. I was introduced to defendant by Mr. Jackaman; I know nothing of any order being made by Jackaman to settle this matter on terms of defendant paying to Baker £110. It is not the fact that Baker is paying the costs of these proceedings. I am pretty sure I shall have to pay them. It is not the fact that when I saw defendant on the occasions before September 14 I said, "I want to ask you if I can have any money," and that he replied, "Not yet"; he, in fact, said that he had not received any money out of Court yet; he did not tell me that his bill of costs had to be paid. I do not say that it was my wish to place this man in the dock; wanted to get satisfaction. Defendant has acted for me in three cases; there may be costs due to him; but that would be from me, not from my daughter.
PERCIVAL BANKS PALMER , clerk to the Registrar of Bloomsbury County Court, produced the records showing that in the action of Stevens v. Selbach, there was paid in on August 18 £15 and £5 2s. 8d. costs, on September 7 these amounts were paid out on the receipt of defendant.
HAROLD GEORGE MATHERS , cashier, Capital and Counties Bank, Holborn branch. I produce copy of defendant's accounts. On September 16 a cheque was drawn for 6s. 8d. payable to Electric Light, and another for 10s. payable to Mr. Jackaman; the account being overdrawn, both cheques were returned marked "refer to drawer."
Cross-examined. Defendant still banks with us, and his account is now in credit. I believe that on September 16, when the two cheques were dishonoured, defendant was in custody. We have on one or two occasions honoured his cheques when the money was not in to his credit.
HENRY PERCY STAINES , of Messrs. Hurds, solicitors. My firm acted for Selbach in the County Court proceedings. I was in Court on August 4 when the award was considered by the Judge. Defendant asked that the sum of £15 should be paid to the father to reimburse him the expenses he had incurred. The Judge asked' for the father to be called, and after hearing his evidence decided that the
money must remain in Court. I suggested to the Judge that the £15 belonged to the daughter (who was then still in hospital), and the Judge said that an application must be made by the girl herself.
Cross-examined. I believe that when the money was paid out to defendant it was owing to a mistake of the Registrar's.
LAWRENCE MUNN , clerk to Mr. Thomas Moore, solicitor, proved that on August 30 defendant was being pressed for payment of £1 on a cheque that had been cashed for him by a client of Mr. Moore's, and had been dishonoured; the cheque was not taken up till September 22.
FRANCIS ERNEST CLIFFORD (prisoner, on oath). I was admitted a solicitor in April, 1904. I served my articles partly with Messrs. Long and Gardner, and there became acquainted with Mr. Jackaman. After I was admitted Jackaman occasionally sent me small matters of business. He sent Stevens to me; he also introduced me to Baker. Baker had had his certificate suspended, and he came into my office as managing clerk. On June 23 he again got his certificate, and we decided to part; he asked to be allowed to remain till September 30, and I first of all agreed. Having received the authority of Stevens and his daughter for the purpose, I on September 7 drew out of court the £15 and costs. In the meantime I had had a communication from Jackaman respecting a bill of costs of his against Stevens for £7 18s. 11d. I did tell Jackaman that I had not received the £15; I said this because I did not think any part of his bill was chargeable at all, and I did not want him to press for payment of it until I had authority from Stevens to pay it. I did see Stevens on the 14th, but I did not tell him that I had not received the money. He asked me whether I had any money for him. I said, "Not yet; I have not got out the costs in these matters, and I have also received a bill of costs from Messrs. Long and Gardner; I would like" you to take that away with you and let me know what you think about it. "He took the bill away with him. I paid this money into my own account. At that time I considered that I had a bill of costs against Stevens in respect of police court proceedings taken also on behalf of the daughter. I had also a claim for costs in the Selbach matter subsequently to the date of the award. On September 22, immediately I was released on bail, I went to Stevens's house with a friend; my friend said to Stevens, "We have come for the purpose of tendering you the sum of £15 which you allege to be due"; Stevens said he did not see any reason why he should not take it. I said to Stevens, I did not tell you that I had not received the money. "I did not discuss any terms with "Stevens; he said he would report at 11, Poultry, in the morning, if I thought it would do any good; I said it was quite immaterial; he said he was extremely sorry. My family and connections are people of means; they have always been ready and willing to help me whenever I desired it.
Cross-examined. I did not borrow money of a Mr. Bradley in 1904 to take out my certificate. I am aware that in county court proceedings, except under a written agreement, no solicitor and client costs are recoverable. I do not suggest that Long and Gardner's costs were payable out of the £15, but they certainly suggested it, or Mr. Jackaman did. Previously to banking with the Capital and Counties I banked with the London City and Midland; my account with them is still open; it is overdrawn by about £6, but I am suing them in respect of a cheque which they wrongly dishonoured. (Witness was handed a bundle of about a dozen cheques, between July, 1906, and July, 1909, which appeared to have been dishonoured.) On the day I drew this money out of Court my account shows an overdraft of £13 13s. 7d. When Stevens called on me on the 14th and asked if I had any money for him, I did not take him to refer to the £15, but to the balance which would be due to him on settlement. I did not tell him that I had received the £15 because I took it for granted that he knew that I had received it. I did not give him to understand that I had not received it. There is no truth in the suggestion that until these proceedings I had not been on speaking terms with my father.
JAMES CLIFFORD , a Justice of the Peace for Maidstone, carrying on business there as a merchant and manufacturer (defendant's father), and EDWIN HENRY CHAMBEES, of East Hall, Boughton Monchelsea, Maidstone, merchant (defendant's cousin, stated that they and other members of the family would readily have helped defendant in any monetary difficulties.
Verdict, Not guilty.
BEFORE THE RECORDER. (Friday, October 15.)
CAMPBELL James (62, broker) , who pleaded guilty at the September Sessions (see p. 511) of obtaining by false pretences from Harry William Grey Bell, an order for the payment of £1,909 19s. and that sum in money, with intent to defraud was brought up for judgment.
It appears that prisoner had now paid the whole of the costs of the prosecution, he was sentenced to 38 days' imprisonment, entitling. him to immediate discharge.
BRASHIER Edward Alleyn (26, clerk) , forging, altering and uttering, knowing the same to be forged and altered, an order for the payment of £16, with intent to defraud; forging, altering and uttering, knowing the same to be forged and altered, an order for the payment of £15, with intent to defraud.
Prisoner pleaded guilty to the second charge. Evidence to good character was given.
Sentence, Nine months' imprisonment, second division.
SPARROW Ernest (41, merchant tailor) ; on September 23, 1909, unlawfully, in private, committing an act of gross indecency with Horace Dean, a male person, in the County of Middlesex, about June or July, 1908; unlawfully committing an act of gross indecency with the said Horace Dean; about July, 1909, unlawfully, in private, committing an act of gross indecency with Thomas Broad, a male person; and on August 19, and on divers other days, unlawfully, in private, committing divers acts of gross indecency with the said Horace Dean.
Mr. Muir prosecuted; Mr. C. F. Gill, K. C., and Mr. C. Baker defended.
At the close of the evidence for the prosecution the Recorder ruled that there was no direct corroborative evidence of the act, and directed the Jury to return a verdict of Not guilty.
MAY Harry, otherwise George Morris (19, carman) , breaking and entering the Salvation Army Citadel with intent to commit a felony therein; and, with STEVENSON Henry (17, French polisher), WOODHAM Frank (15, labourer), MOORE Arthur (19, porter) , and all feloniously setting fire to a quantity of hay, the goods of Frederick Tollworthy. Mr. H. C. Davenport prosecuted.
May pleaded guilty to both charges, and also confessed to having been convicted of felony at Tottenham Petty Sessions on March 25, 1909, receiving three months' hard labour for larceny.
GEORGE CROSS , 48, Starr Street, Ware, bargeman. On September 3, 1909, at 1.30 p.m., I was in charge of a barge passing along the river Lea when I saw the four prisoners on the towing-path. May went to a stack of hay, came back, asked one of the other prisoners for something, which was given him, and then went and deliberately set light to the stack; the other prisoners remaining 150 or 200 yards away from the stack. My barge was about 200 yards off. The four prisoners walked down the towing-path together. When I readied Bleak Hall Bridge I went after the prisoners. May ran off. I gave chase but failed to catch him. The other three remained on the towing-path. I did not interfere with them as I had not seen them do anything and they went away.
FREDERICK GIBBONS CROWSDALE , superintendent, Edmonton Fire Brigade. On September 3, at 1.33, I was "called to a burning haystack, which was well alight; another one just catching fire. We were there for 7 1/2 hours. One stack was almost a total loss, the other slightly damaged.
Police-sergeant MASTERS, 96 N, stationed at Chingford. On September 3 I saw Stephenson on the towing-path. I told him that in consequence of information I had received I should arrest him on the charge of being concerned, with three other lads, in setting fire to a haystack. He said, "I did not do it. May did it. May said
lo Moore, 'Give me my matches,' which Moore did. Then he said, Who is game enough to do this?' and set fire to the haystack."
Detective-sergeant THOMAS EVANS, stationed at Chingford. On September 3, at 8.30 p.m., I went with Police-constable Dixon, to 245, Park Lane, Tottenham, where I saw Woodham. I said, "I am a police officer. I shall take you into custody for being concerned with three others in unlawfully setting fire to a haystack, the property of Mr. Tollworthy, at one o'clock to-day." He said, "Yes, I was with the other boys in the field. Moore threw the matches to May. I did not light it. I tried to plat it oat but could not. A man came along and we ran away from him. "I took him to the station; the next morning he was formally charged and said "Yes." The next evening, September 4, I found Moore detained at Tottenham Police Station, and told him the charge; he said, "Yes, I was there with the others and know all about it. May asked me for his matches and I gave them to him. Woodham said, 'It won't half burn.' I said to Woodham, 'I am not going to be in it.' I did not go into the field. Woodham and May went in." I took him to Chingford Police Station, where he was charged and made no reply. I subsequently charged May.
WOODHAM. I do not think; May knew what he was doing. I tried to pull him back. I took no part in setting fire to the haystack and tried to prevent it. Verdict (Stephenson, Woodham, and Moore), Not guilty. Sentence (May), 12 months' hard labour for setting fire to the haystack; Six months' hard labour for breaking and entering; to run concurrently.
Mr. Ernest Walsh prosecuted; Mr. C. A.H. Black defended Penn; Mr. H. W.W. Wickham defended Williams.
WILLIAM SAYERS , 166, Barnsbury Road, provision dealer. On September 23, 1909, I closed my premises At 11 p.m. and went to bed. I sleep on the first floor above the shop. Between one and 1.30 a.m. I was awakened by a noise in the yard. I went downstairs, lit the gas in the parlour, went into the yard, and found that the clothes lines had been broken down and that a grating covering the scullery window had been forcibly removed. Two policeman were coming over the roofs. I called them down into the yard; we went down the staircase, leading to the back scullery and found the three prisoners inside the scullery from which the grating had been removed. They were taken into custody.
Cross-examined' by Cole. The grating had been a fireguard but it closed the window, and was roughly fixed in against the window, which was closed before I retired to rest. There was no latch to the window.
Cross-examined by 'Mr. Wickham. I saw Williams when he was brought into the shop.
Re-examined. In order to get through the scullery window it was necessary to remove the grating.
Police-constable JOHN LEWIS, 680 N. Shortly after one a.m. I was in Cloudesley Road, when I heard an unusual noise at the rear of 166, Barnsbury Road. I summoned assistance, and surrounded 166, Barnsbury Road, with police officers, from No. 160, round Barnsbury Road, Richmond Road, and Cloudesley Road. I entered Savers' premises with two constables and took the three prisoners into custody in the scullery. I arrested Williams. He said, "All right, we will give in"—they went quietly to the station. When searched a key was found on Cole and a key on Fenn. When charged Williams said, "I should like to know where this place is."
Cross-examined by Mr. Black. I did not gather that Williams was in a dazed condition. I found no key on him.
To Cole. The chief inspector did not say the prisoners had been drinking. The prisoners were not drunk.
GEORGE COLE (prisoner, not on oath). On September 23, between 9.30 and 10 p.m., I was making my way towards home through Chapel Street when I met Fenn and Williams. They asked me to have a drink, which I did. I asked them in turn and we had three drinks. Some more came in and paid for another drink. About 11 p.m. we came out the worse for drink and went into Barnsbury Road, into Pownal Road, where we came to two gateways, went down a yard, lay on a barrow, and went to sleep; we woke up between 12.30 and one a.m., and with the intention of going home we went to the gates and found them locked. We were knocking at the gates making a noise when a constable came by and blew his whistle. For safety's sake we ran away, got over a garden wall and got into this kitchen. The grating was not an ordinary grating, and did not cover the window—it was a fireguard. We got in and lay on the floor. The constable came down and arrested us. We had no intention of committing any felony or any offence whatever.
GEORGE WILLIAMS (prisoner, on oath). I live with my father at 137, Railton Road. On September 23, at 9.30 p.m., as I was going home, I met Fenn, who asked me to have a drink, which I did. Then we went up Barnsbury Road; through Chapel Street, and we met Cole, and had a drink together; there were several people in the bar that Cole knew; we had several drinks there and came out at about 11.30 the worse for drink. One of the prisoners said, "Will you come with us? "I had no idea what that meant, and went with them, as it was on my way home. As far as I recollect I was in a yard, there was a barrow there, and I went to sleep. After that I was saying "Good-night" to Cole and Fenn, and we were going home. As I was going through, the yard I stumbled over something—I think the barrow. That made a noise, and I next heard
a police whistle. I heard a voice shouting to me to follow them. I went in the direction of the voice and found myself in a wash-house. On hearing the police I was the first one to give myself up, knowing that I had done no wrong and had no intention of doing wrong. (To the Judge.) I did not say, "We will give in. "I said I would give in, as far as I can remember.
Cross-examined. Between 11.30 and the time I found myself in the scullery I was asleep on a barrow or else on the floor of this yard. I could not say what happened. I do not know how I got to the yard. As far as I remember I went down a step into the wash-house following the voice—I could not say whose voice it was. I have known Cole by sight for two months; I have only spoken to him three or four times. I have known Fenn about six months.
In the course of the summing up, a Juror asked if their being in the house without intent would be sufficient.
The Recorder said there must be a breaking and entering of a dwelling-house in the night time with intent to commit a felony, or with the actual commission of a felony.
Another Juror. There has been no evidence produced that they were there with the intention of taking anything.
The Recorder. You can only gather a man's intentions from his acts.
Another Juror. Is there evidence to prove that they left any public-house drunk?
The Recorder. There is no evidence except the statement of Williams that they were drunk at all. The evidence of the officer is that all three of them when taken to the station were perfectly sober. (The Jury consulted for five minutes.)
The Recorder. Cannot you agree? I had better discharge you from giving a verdict. The case will be tried to-morrow morning.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL. (Wednesday, October 20.)
Mr. Gr. St. John Macdonald prosecuted; Cole was undefended; Mr. Sydney E. Williams defended Fenn; Mr. Wickham defended Williams.
Before the swearing of the Jury,
Mr. Wickham informed his Lordship that, on Friday last, prisoners had been put upon trial before the Recorder; that the evidence had been completed; that during the course of the summing up three jurors asked questions; whereupon the Recorder, without asking the Jury to leave the box, without asking them whether they had agreed upon their verdict, and without giving them an opportunity to agree, discharged them. Counsel submitted that prisoners could not be tried again, on the well-known principle that a man cannot be put in peril twice for the same offence. (Cited R. v.
Charles worth, 2 Foster and Finlayson, p. 326; Winson v. the King, L. R. 1 Q. B., p. 326).
Mr. Williams made the same submission.
Judge Rentoul said that if he now declined to try these men it would be equivalent to his reviewing the action of another Judge of this Court, of equal standing with himself; that could only be done by the Court of Criminal Appeal.
A jury was sworn, and the evidence given on Friday was repeated. On behalf of Williams, Mr. Wickham called
GEORGE WILLIAMS (father of prisoner), formerly colour-sergeant major in the King's Dragoon Guards, who said: My son is 18 years old. It is my strict rule that he shall be home by 10 o'clock at night, except when he is at work. In ordinary course, he would at 9.30 be on his way home.
JAKES FENN (prisoner, on oath). I am a newsvendor. I was going towards Chapel Street, when I met Williams. We had a drink and, on leaving the public-house, went along Barnsbury Road; we met Cole and went into another house and had drink; there Cole met several of his friends and we all had some more drink. We three left, the worse for drink. Going along Barnsbury Road we rolled into a gateway, where there was a barrow; we lay on the barrow and went to sleep. We woke up, and on trying to get out found the gate was locked. As Cole was trying to open the gate he made a noise, and a constable outside heard it and blew his whistle and other policemen came up. To get away in safety we climbed over the walls and went into the back scullery.
Cross-examined. It was about 11 that we got to the gate; we all three slept on the barrow; there was a board over it. The wall we climbed over was only about 4 ft. high; we fell through the scullery grating and stopped there; I had my legs scratched; I don't know about the others. Verdict, Guilty.
Cole confessed to a previous conviction.
Sergeant HAYNES proved that Fenn was sentenced on June 3 last at Marlborough Street to one month's hard labour for stealing from a van; nothing else was against him, except that since his release he had associated with Cole.
Sergeant LEACH proved a long list of convictions against Cole, commencing in 1899 (prisoner said 'his present age was 27), and including one (in 1906) for being in possession of housebreaking implements by night, with a sentence of three years' penal servitude. He was the daily associate of convicted thieves, and the police regarded him as a most dangerous man.
Detective-sergeant BURGESS proved that Williams was on June 25 last, at Guildhall, charged with loitering for the purpose of committing a felony and bound over in £5 for six months under the Probation of Offenders Act.
Mr. FARMAN, hat manufacturer, a former employer of Penn, said that he would be quite willing to take Fenn straightway back to work and to look after him.
Williams was released on his own recognisances (£20) and those of his father (£20); Fenn on his own recognisances (£10) and those of Mr. Farman (£10) to come up for judgment if called upon; Cole was sentenced to three years' penal servitude.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Friday, October 15.)
WORTH Thomas (34, labourer) , feloniously causing certain grievous bodily harm to Eliza Wilkins, with intent to do her some grievous bodily harm, and unlawfully and maliciously inflicting certain grievous bodily harm upon Eliza Wilkins.
Mr. Percival Clarke and Mr. Scobell Armstrong appeared for the prosecution.
The case came from the neighbourhood of Deptford and the evidence was of a revolting description. Prisoner offered the woman 1s. for an immoral purpose, to which she refused to lend herself. He then with his hands tore and lacerated her person so seriously that the injuries had to be stitched.
Prisoner (described by his Lordship as a prostitutes' bully) was sentenced to four years' penal servitude.
Sentence, One month's hard labour.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE PICKFORD. (Saturday, October 16.)
Mr. Leycester prosecuted; Mr. A. J. Laurie defended.
Police-constable BENJAMIN SPENCER proved a plan to scale of the neighbourhood of the accident.
Mrs. ALICE GRIFFITHS. Deceased was my father; he lived with me and my husband in Marylebone. He was 59 years of age and a costermonger; he Had very good health and there was nothing wrong with his hearing or sight. He had not lost a tooth in his head. He was in
the habit of standing outside the "Bell" public house at Kilburn selling periwinkles. He left my house on September 26 with his barrow of winkles and shrimps to go to Kilburn; he used to go up Edgware Road. He knew his way quite well; he has been that way for about twenty years. I never saw him alive after that. I identified his body at the mortuary.
Cross-examined. It is an ordinary hand barrow. I do not think it is very heavy. I told the coroner he was 65 years of age, but that is a mistake. He is 59 years of age.
WILLIAM Cox, coachman. At about half past 12 midday on September 26 I was in Maida Vale on the right-hand side of the road, going towards the Marble Arch. I saw the deceased man pushing a barrow. He was opposite No. 145 when I first noticed him; he was coming towards me; he was about 40 yards from me; he was on the near side of the road, about half a yard from the pavement. I next saw a motor omnibus coming up behind him about 60 or 100 yards from the deceased. It was coming at the rate of about eight or 10 miles an hour. I did not see it swerve at all; it was about six feet or less from the pavement. It is a very wide road at this spot. I heard a shout and saw the bus knock the barrow flying; I think the front wheel of the 'bus caught the wheel of the barrow. I am positive the 'bus had not turned before it struck the barrow. The barrow was still close to the kerb; I must have noticed it if it had turned out. After striking the barrow the 'bus turned to its near side and went on to the footway, tore up the flagstones, knocked down a lamp-post, and then came to a standstill. After a second or so I went to the spot; Birdseye was lying in the gutter, quite dead. At the time of the accident and immediately before there was no traffic in the road; it had rained during the night; the road was nicely sanded; the 'bus did not skid at all; I did not hear a bell or gong sounded.
Cross-examined. I do not know who it was that shouted. The 'bus was not going along in the middle of the road; it was less than six feet from the kerb. There is no "refuge" near there, so there was no reason why the 'bus should not have taken a wide sweep. It went straight on. I cannot swear that the gong was not rung, but I did not hear it.
Re-examined. If deceased was going to Kilburn there was no necessity for him to turn out at this spot to cross the road.
REGINALD RANSOME , errand boy. On the morning in question I was walking along Maida Vale towards Cricklewood, on the left hand side. I saw a man going in the same direction, pushing a barrow. A motor 'bus was coming on behind; I did not see it until it came up behind the barrow and hit the man in the back. The barrow was at that time about eight inches from the pavement; I am sure the man was going straight on and had not pulled into the road. The man was knocked down and the left front wheel of the 'bus went over his hip.
Cross-examined. The 'bus did not first hit the barrow; it hit the man. The barrow was knocked sideways on to the pavement.
ROBERT WILLIAM ASHTON , porter. I was riding on top of a 'bus going towards Marble Arch; I was on the third outside seat from the front on the off side; I had a clear view of the road. The first thing I saw was a motor 'bus strike into a barrow; I had not noticed either of them before. At that moment I should say the barrow was about two feet from the pavement. The 'bus struck the barrow first. I did not hear any bell; when it happened I was 20 or 30 yards away.
Cross-examined. My 'bus was in motion when this happened; the other 'bus hit the barrow in about the middle; it had passed the deceased, who was walking behind the barrow.
HENRY GILBERT , conductor of the 'bus that prisoner was driving. On this journey we stopped at Sunderland Avenue (60 or 80 yards from the scene of the accident); shortly after we slowed down to pick up some passengers; I then rang my bell and we went on, at about eight or nine miles an hour; the 'bus turned out into the middle of the road; the offside wheel would be about three or four yards from the nearside pavement. The first I knew of the accident was I heard the gear change and then the bell ring, and then the rattle of the winkles on the pavement. The 'bus was going straight along; I did not feel it skid. When I first saw deceased he was lying in the gutter; the 'bus had passed over him. I cannot say how long it was before the accident that I heard the gear change.
Cross-examined. I am sure the offside wheels of the 'bus were within a foot or two of the middle of the road. Until I heard the rattling of the winkles on the pavement the' bus had not changed its course at all towards the pavement; it was still in the middle of the road. I am sure I heard the bell ring; I did not hear shouting. At the same time that you change the gear you put the brake on. On this day the 'bus had been going well up to the time of the accident, the defendant driving with care and at a reasonable speed. We were keeping good time, so there was no need for hurry on this journey. After the accident a gentleman named Tucker gave me his name and address; I must have taken it wrongly, for we cannot find him.
ARTHUR WILLIAM FULLER , M. D., Abercorn Place, Maida Vale. I was called to the scene of the accident directly after it happened. Birdseye was lying on his back in the roadway, quite dead. I afterwards made a post-mortem examination; the injuries I found were consistent with the man having been run over by a motor 'bus.
Police-constable WILLIAM GAMMON, 31 XR. I was called to the scene of the accident and saw Birdseye lying dead in the road. I asked defendant (who was perfectly sober) to come with me to the station. He made the following statement to me: "I was proceeding about eight miles an hour; the 'bus must have skidded on to the barrow; I did not go over the man; I think he must have struck his head on the pavement. "On the way to the station defendant told me that after he struck the barrow he seemed to lose all control of the 'bus.
Cross-examined. Defendant was very much upset. I know the "Bell" public house, Kilburn; it is on the opposite side of the road to where this happened, about a mile further up.
Re-examined. If deceased had crossed the road at this part he would have had to go a mile on his wrong side of the road to get to the "Bell."
Inspector FRANK PIKE, X Division. On September 26 I saw defendant at the police station; no charge was then made against him. He expressed a wish to make a statement; it was taken down in writing and signed by him. (In this statement defendant said. I was travelling just about the nearside of the centre of the roadway, when I saw deceased in front of me, about 30 yards away. He was pushing a barrow, going in the same direction as the 'bus; his near side wheel would be anything from three to six feet from the kerb. I continued my course and should have cleared him, but for the fact that when I had almost caught him up he pulled out in front of my 'bus. At that time I had both hands on the steering gear; seeing him pull out, I released my right hand from the wheel and rang the bell; deceased did not seem to hear me ring, with the result that we both collided; my nearside front wheel appeared to strike the barrow, I cannot say where, with the result that the 'bus turned in towards him, knocking the barrow on to the pavement and the man to the ground. My 'bus continued on to the pavement, knocking down a lamp-post, which stopped it. In my opinion the cause of my 'bus taking an inward course was due to the fact that the force of the impact between the 'bus and the barrow knocked the steering wheel out of my hand. I had applied the foot brake. My next stopping place would have been Elgin Avenue, which is about 20 yards from the scene of the accident.)
Cross-examined. Every bus driver has to be licensed after a strict test at Scotland Yard. I have made inquiries about defendant; he bears an unblemished character.
Detective-sergeant REED, X Division, said he arrested defendant on September 30, after the coroner's inquest; defendant made no reply to the charge.
This concluding the case for the prosecution, defendant went into the box and was sworn; when
The jury said they had heard sufficient evidence, and returned a verdict of Not guilty.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Saturday, October 16.)
PROWSE Alfred James (25, billposter), pleaded guilty of feloniously marrying Helena Griffin, his wife being then alive; and GRIFFIN Helena (22, servant), pleaded guilty of feloniously marrying Alfred James Prowse, her husband being then alive.
Sentence (both), Five days' imprisonment, entitling prisoners to be discharged.
THOMPSON Edward Lascelles (21, soldier) , who pleaded guilty at this Court on March 23, 1909 (see Vol. C.L., p. 877), of obtaining sums of money by forged telegrams and was released on recognisances to come up for judgment if called upon, appeared to receive judgment, notice having been served upon him, on the affidavit of Percy John Moss that prisoner had obtained £5 from him by a forged telegram on June 2, 1909, in breach of his recognisances. Mr. Bodkin prosecuted.
Detective-sergeant GEORGE MERCER, E Division, proved service of notice on the prisoner to appear on his recognisances, together with copy of evidence to be given.
PERCY JOHN Moss, sporting editor, "Daily Mirror." Frederick B. Wilson has been employed as journalist on the "Daily Mirror" for about 4¿ years. Prisoner was casually employed for about 12 months up to April, 1908, when I was instructed to cease employing him. On June 2, 1909, I received a telegram, which I have destroyed: "Send me fiver.—Black Bull Hotel, York, Freddy Wilson." Believing it came from my colleague, Frederick B. Wilson, I sent my messenger at once to the post office with instructions to telegraph £5 to the "Black Bull. "F. B. Wilson was then on sick leave and was taking the cure at Harrogate. On his return he informed me that he had not sent the telegram and had not received the £5.
Cross-examined. I received the telegram at between seven and eight p.m.; it would have been handed in at York about seven p.m.
FREDERICK BONNOTE WILSON . I have been about 4 1/2 years a member of the staff of the "Daily Mirror." Prisoner has been casually employed as a reporter. On May 20 I went on sick leave to Harrogate, returning on July 11 after taking the cure. I did not see the prisoner while there. I did not go to York, was not at the "Black Bull" on June 2, and sent no telegram from there asking for £5, nor did I receive any such sum. Postal receipt produced signed "F. B. Wilson "is not my writing or written by my authority. After my return to the office I told my manager I had not received this money. SARAH ANN GOODALL, wife of the landlord of the "Black Bull," St. Sampson's Square, York. On June 2, 1909, the prisoner, whom,. I identify, came to my hotel with another man. The other man said, "If a telegram comes in the name of Wilson it is for me. "Prisoner played billiards and the other man went out and returned and had refreshment. The other man asked me, "Is there another Black Bull' in York?" I said, Yes, up the Hull Road." He said, "Oh, that's rather awkward; what have we to do? I advised him to go to the post office and he went out, I think, with the prisoner. After 15 or 20 minutes they returned and, some time after five p.m., a telegram arrived, which was handed to the other man, who went out with the prisoner; they returned in about an hour, had refreshment which
prisoner paid for after the other man had handed some money to him. They remained till about 11 p.m. and left. I did not see either of them again until the end of August, when I picked the prisoner out from a number of other men at York Police Station.
Cross-examined. The two arrived at my hotel in the afternoon. I do not remember seeing the prisoner at the time of the Great Ebor Handicap.
Detective-inspector HARRY BENNETT, York City Police. On July 22 I received information from the Metropolitan Police and on August 28 arrested the prisoner as a deserter from the 1st Norfolk Regiment. On August 29 prisoner was put amongst other men and at once identified by Mrs. Goodall. He was then put back in the cell, when he said to me, "I admit being in the 'Black Bull' on the day in question with a man named F. B. Wilson, a boxing man, of Manchester. He received the telegram, not me, and he got the money and I have not seen him from that day to this."
PERCY Moss, recalled. No other F. B. Wilson than the witness was in the employ of the "Daily Mirror." We have had no boxing man named F. B. Wilson, of Manchester, on our staff.
HENRY WILLIAM SAVAGE , clerk in the Telegraph Money Order Department, G. P.O. I produce telegraphic receipt for £5 sent from Fleet Street Post Office to York, handed in at 7.14 p.m., received 7.40; also the official telegram authorising the Post Office to pay the £5. The original telegraphic message has been destroyed, no inquiry having been made respecting it within three months.
The Prisoner asked for a remand in order to have legal advice, and also to call witnesses to show that he had been the victim of a clever fraud.
The Recorder stated that he could not remand the case now; and observed that, as the prisoner had told the inspector he had not seen the man personating F. B. Wilson since, that man would not be likely to appear here.
EDWARD LASCELLES THOMPSON (prisoner, on oath). I met the man Wilson off and on in the winter of 1908, and also after I had been released on my recognisances in March of 1909. I knew him to be a well-known Lancashire boxing man, and had considerable talk with him. I next met him in Leeds about a week before June 2. At that time I was fairly well off. Wilson said he was in low water and asked me to lend him £2; at first I refused; afterwards he persuaded me to do so; he said he was in communication with some one named Harry Jacobs, who was arranging a boxing match at "Wonderland," in respect of which he would receive money in a few days. I saw a good deal of Wilson in Leeds and Harrogate. In Harrogate I saw Mr. F. B. Wilson, of the "Mirror" newspaper, while with the boxer, and remarked to the latter, "There is your namesake." He said, "I know him. Is not he the newspaper man?" I said, "Yes"—that he was on the staff of the "Daily Mirror." He
said, "He is the sporting editor, is he not? "I said, "No, he is not the sporting editor—Mr. Percy Moss is the sporting editor, but Mr. Wilson writes a good deal on sport for them. "F. B. Wilson is a Cambridge University Blue and thoroughly well known to anybody connected with sport; his name is a household word in journalistic and sporting circles as a reporter on cricket, football, boxing, etc. On June 1 I went with Wilson, the boxer, to York. He said he had an appointment with Mr. Frank Lancaster, and he went to keep it at one p.m. On his return I asked him for my £2 and pressed him to write to Mr. Jacobs. He told me he had done so and that some money would be wired the next day. I returned to Leeds that night; returned the next day to York, saw Wilson at two o'clock, and as no money had arrived I pressed (him to telegraph. He went into the post office and told me he had telegraphed for £10 to be sent to the "Black Bull." We went to the "Black Bull"; a telegram arrived; he said, "It is all right, the money has come; I will go and get it cashed. "He went out alone, and came back and paid me the £2 that he owed me. He also persuaded me to go to London with him, as I could participate in the boxing competition. I went to London by the night train and met him by appointment the next morning, when he left me, ostensibly to visit Jacobs at "Wonderland"; from that day to this I ¡have never heard any more of him.
Cross-examined. Mrs. Goodall is mistaken in saying that I went with Wilson to cash the order; I was playing billiards with a corporal; Wilson went out and cashed it; we afterwards went out altogether to another hotel. Wilson knew I was on recognisances for stealing money by forged telegrams—he had read the case in the paper; he said it seemed a stupid sort of thing to do. I did not go to Jacobs at "Wonderland"; I know nothing about him. I was arrested months afterwards as a deserter. I was found not guilty of desertion at the court-martial; after my discharge from this Court I did not go back to the regiment—I had reason to believe I was not wanted there.
The Recorder said he felt a difficulty in dealing with this case without a jury; usually when he had dealt with a prisoner for a breach of his recognisances the complaint had emanated from the original prosecutors, whereas here the affidavit was made by Mr. Moss, who had nothing to do with the previous indictment. He had power to deal with the prisoner, but he should strongly deprecate this being quoted in any way as a precedent; it would be better in future to indict and try the man before a jury in a case where the complainant was not the same person. This was really a trial for forgery. He thought the point one of extreme importance, and one on which it was very desirable that the Court of Criminal Appeal should rule as to the practice to be followed. He was quite satisfied that there bad been a breach of the recognisances, and he should sentence the prisoner, giving him leave to appeal.
Sentence, Nine months' hard labour on each indictment, to run concurrently.
(Tuesday, October 19.)
Prisoner was again brought up, when the Recorder stated that he could be admitted to bail in his own recognisances of £25; that he could send in his notice of appeal, and that he might apply for legal aid.
Mr. Muir stated that under the new Act prisoner could only apply for bail to the Judge in Chambers; that the Judge who tried the prisoner, after passing sentence, was functus officio.
Prisoner stated that he was not prepared to file his notice of appeal without legal aid.
Mr. Muir said there was no power to grant bail before the notice of appeal had been given.
The Recorder said that, under the circumstances, the Session being still current, the better course to pursue would be to alter the sentence. The sentence of the Court would be that prisoner be imprisoned for Eight days, entitling him to be now discharged.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT. (Saturday, October 16.)
Mr. Rogerson prosecuted.
HANNAH TURNER , 11, Windsor Buildings, Queen Street, Edgware Road. Prisoner is my husband. We have been separated by a magistrate's order. On September 25 I was in a public-house in Railton Road, Brixton, with a young man friend, my brother-in-law, and my sister. After my sister and her husband had left prisoner came in, put his head round the corner, and asked the young man if he knew who he was. The young man said, "Yes, I do know who you are, and I am going to protect her (prosecutrix) from your violence." I went outside. As prisoner was going away I turned round and said "Good night" to him. He said, "It is not done with yet." I said, "No; when you come back bring your pals back with you," and he said, "Yes; I will not come back single-handed. "He went away and I did not see him again till I got to the police-station after I was stabbed. I charged him with stabbing me. Between 10 o'clock and half-past I was with my sister near my sister's place, 27, Railton. Road, where I was going to stay the night. I felt a blow on my right shoulder and called for assistance. I felt some blood or something trickling down my back. I saw my brother-in-law run past me, and I believe he caught prisoner. I saw prisoner amongst a crowd of people after he had been caught, and I told my brother-inlaw not to let him go, as I believed he had stabbed me. Dr. Dunstan dressed the wound and Dr. Scott afterwards saw it at the policestation.
MARGARET FRENCH , 27, Railton Road, sister of last witness. On September 25, about half-past 10, I was with my sister in a public-house in Railton Road. After we left the beerhouse, between 10 and half-past, as I was walking with my sister in Railton Road, all of a sudden I heard a blow. I turned round and saw that prisoner had struck my sister with what appeared to be a bread knife. It was a knife like that produced. Prisoner ran away as fast as he could and my husand ran after him and caught him.
JOHN FRENCH , husband of last witness. At the time of the assault I was 30 yards in front of my wife and Mrs. Turner, walking with a friend. I heard a cry and, on turning round, I saw Hannah Turner fall. Then I ran after prisoner and caught him in Kellett Road and held him until the constable came up. I saw no knife.
GEORGE BREBNER SCOTT , surgeon, 416, Brixton Road. I examined Mrs. Turner at the police-station at 12.15 on Sunday morning. I found a punctured wound at the top of the left shoulder. The direction was downwards and the length about half an inch. I cannot speak with regard to the depth because it was already plugged by the doctor who had seen her before and I did not think it right to remove the plug. It was such a wound as might have been caused by the knife produced. There were three corresponding cuts through the jacket, dress, and under vest.
Police-constable RICHARD WYLIE, 320 W. On September 25, about half-past 10, I heard cries from the crowd, "A woman stabbed!" I fought my way through the crowd and saw prisoner being held by a man named John French. Prisoner shouted to me, "Get me out of it; I am the man. "I took him into custody. At the station when charged he made no reply. I went back and found the woman was being treated by Dr. Dunstan. After conversation with French, I went to Kellett Road and found the knife in one of the small gardens in front of the houses.
JOHN TURNER (prisoner, on oath). On the night in question I was in the Atlantic Road-and saw some people running and I heard a party going along say, "A woman has been robbed." I was going along the road the same as ordinary people do when Mr. French came up to me and said, "You are the man." I said, "Now, what is the matter?" He said, "You are the man that has done this." I said, "Done what?" He said, "You have been and knocked Hannah down." I says to him, "I have done no such thing." People congregated at the corner, naturally enough, when they heard him say this and two gentlemen caught hold of me. I said, "All right; don't hold me; I have done nothing to be held for. "So they held me while Mr. French was punching into me. I said, "Leave go; can't you see him punching into me; why don't you prevent him doing it?" While this was going on the policeman came up and he told the policeman to take me in charge; I had stabbed my wife and the policeman took me to the station.
Detective-sergeant CHARLES HAWKINS, W Division. I was present at Lambeth Police Court on June 30 of this year, when prisoner was sentenced to three months' hard labour for an aggravated assault on his wife. The separation was in January, 1908. Since then he has not supported his wife. I had conversation with prisoner at Lambeth Police Court and asked him why he did not leave his wife alone. He said it did not matter what happened now; he would still continue to annoy his wife if she did not come and live with him. "Even now," he said, "if I am sent to prison over this matter, this won't be the end of it, because as soon as I come out again I shall annoy her again. I shall have my own way with her; I do not care for law." I have made inquiries respecting the statement that his wife is living with another man. I do not think there is any truth in it.
Sentence, 18 months' hard labour, prisoner to enter into his own recognisances to keep the peace towards his wife for two years afterwards, and to be imprisoned until he did enter into those recognisances.
Prisoner said he would appeal. As to the recognisances, there was plenty of time to consider that.
The Common Serjeant. You will. have plenty of time in prison to consider it. Eventually prisoner consented to be bound over.
Mr. George Tully-Christie prosecuted.
WILLIAM SPATCHER , 87, Card well Road, Northampton. About midnight of October 7, I was on the Regent's Canal near the bridge. I had been in a public-house with prisoner and three other men, and asked him the nearest way to Euston Station. We had had drinks together. They said they would show me. They started taking me round two or three streets and then two of the chaps left us, prisoner and another remaining. They took me round the Regent's Canal on the towpath, saying that was the nearest way to the station. On the path the other one catched hold of my leg and prisoner took my watch and chain from my waistcoat pocket. I was thrown down, and they started kicking me on my hands and face. I shouted, "Police!" when they had me on the ground. One of the chaps ran away then. I struggled with prisoner till the police came up. I told him I had been robbed. I ran after the other man but fell down exhausted.
To Prisoner. I was asked at the station if I wanted to see a doctor. I said I did not want to see one.
To the Court. Both men kicked me. There was a piece of skin off my wrist and marks on my face.
Police-constable IRELAND, 465 Y. About 11.50 p.m., on October 7, I heard cries of police coming from the Regent's Canal, near Caledonian Road. I at once went there, and saw prisoner and last witness, who said he had been robbed by two men. I at once made a search with the officer who accompanied me, and found prisoner behind a hoarding underneath the Caledonian Road bridge, about 100 yards from where I saw prosecutor. I asked him what he was doing there. He said he had been with some woman and come there to have a sleep. I helped him out of his position. I noticed that he was covered with mud all over the front and also had blood on his face. I took him towards the last witness, who at once exclaimed, "That is the man that took my watch and chain and also kicked me." I took him to the station. When charged he made no reply. Prosecutor was bleeding from the wrist, and there were marks on the right side of his face where he had been kicked.
Police-constable GEORGE QUESTED, 700 Y. When I arrived on the scene with last witness I saw prosecutor lying on his back on the towing-path. He said he had been robbed of two watches, a-chain, and three medals. I made a search, and found prisoner concealed behind the stonework of the bridge and the hoarding. He was brought out and prosecutor said, "That is the man. "After prisoner had been taken to the station I went back to the towing-path and made a thorough search. I found a silver watch and chain and two medals lying on the path, about. 20 yards from the wall of Canal Terrace, 250 yards from where we found prisoner. The gold watch was found concealed, underneath a mound of earth between the wall and the hoarding where we took prisoner from. The earth had been freshly scraped up. Prosecutor was sober, but very much excited, and was bleeding from a small wound on the wrist and bore marks on each Bide of his face, and complained of injury to his thigh.
To Prisoner. I did not go down to the canal with the other constable. I climbed the railings but we both arrived together.
JAMES JONES (prisoner, on oath). On October 7, about eight o'clock, I came out? of doors, out of home, after having a quarrel there and saying I would never return. I met some friends and we had some drinks together. I stayed with them till about 11 o'clock. After that I went down the canal with the intention of sleeping there for the night. When I had been down there 20 minutes or half an hour I heard some singing. Then three men came along and a man I recognise as prosecutor came up to me and said, "I am a boxer and am in training," and struck me a blow in the mouth I pushed him away from me. He closed with me and we fell to the ground, and he and the other two men were kicking me on the ground. Then they pulled him off me and walked away together, and all three of them were trying to climb the wall at Canal Terrace. All of a sudden there was a cry of "Police!" The two men came running past me and prosecutor after them. When he came to me
he struck ran a blow on the mouth and by the side of the ear and I fell dazed.
To the Court. I did not tell this story to the police when taken in charge.
Verdict, Guilty. Prisoner confessed to a previous conviction. He was first convicted in 1897 of stealing boots and there were many subsequent convictions.
Detective-sergeant THOMAS HOWELL, Y Division, said he had known prisoner for the last 11 or 12 years; he belonged to a most dangerous gang known to the police, who were constantly committing larcenies from the person; especially they lay in wait for excursion trains, and these assaults always took place at the same time.
Sentence, Four years' penal servitude and 15 strokes with the "cat."
Mr. R. B. Campbell prosecuted.
The girl was 14 on June 22 last, and was delivered of a child in hospital in September, her advanced pregnancy being the reason for the postponement of the trial since July.
Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL. (Monday, October 18.)
Mr. Muir, Mr. Travers Humphreys, and Mr. Bigham prosecuted; Mr. L. S. Green defended.
Cross-examined. It was a creditor's petition by John Read Wright and Co., Ltd., for a debt of £64 7s. 4d.
EDWARD THOMAS LEE , 52, Queen Victoria Street, E. C., solicitor. Bellingham and Co., Ltd., distillers and wine merchants, are clients of mine. On November 30, 1907, I issued a writ on their behalf for £76 18s. against James Wall, "Queen Elizabeth," Graham Road, Dalston, and recovered judgment on December 16, with £8 costs, I issued a writ of fi. fa., and execution was put in at 202, Underhill Road, Peckham; interpleader proceedings were issued by Miss Webb claiming the furniture. I eventually received £42 from the sheriff on March 6, 1909.
Cross-examined. Miss Webb succeeded in establishing her title to part of the goods.
HENRY STORR BERRY , Examiner, Official Receiver's Department. The receiving order in prisoner's bankruptcy is dated February 24, 1908; the order of adjudication March 19; the amended statement of affairs gives estimated liabilities £222 12s. 5d.; assets nil. The debtor's public examination was taken on July 2 and 14, 1908, he being examined generally as to his affairs and conduct (passages from the shorthand notes were read).
Cross-examined. Prisoner said he purchased the "Queen Elizabeth" for £6,300, there being a mortgage of £5,800 and £500 being provided by prisoner, £420 in cash and an acceptance for £80. He had lost £500 in the house. He stated that Miss Webb had lent him money. (Passages of the note were read.) Prisoner's pass book on November 29, 1907, shows a payment to Miss Webb of £52. On November 27, 1907, there is a payment in of £52 in coin.
HENRY THOMSON WHITE , cashier, L. and C. Bank, Kingsland. I produce certified copy of prisoner's account from November 4, 1907, to December 9, 1907, when the account was closed by a payment to Webb of £2 5s. 6d. There are debits in favour of Miss Webb on November 27 of £70 and November 29 of £52 by the two cheques produced. The £70 was paid in five £10 notes, Nos. 84533—7, dated 15/12/06; four £5 notes, Nos. 40199—200, 25/1/07, and 87011—2, 26/1/07. The £52 cheque was paid in four £10 notes, Nos. 84543—6, of 15/12/06, two £5 notes, Nos. 87037—8, of 26/1/07, and £2 in gold. Cross-examined. Between November 1 and 27 £424 was paid in. There are payments out: Charrington, £105 19s.; Booth, £50; Inland Revenue, £80 0s. 3db. The £52 paid in on November 27 was made up of a cheque Williams £2 10s., cheque on N. and S. Wales Bank £2, and £47108. in cash.
HENRY THATCHER , 97, Peckham Eye, turf commission agent, carrying on business at 212, Borough High Street. I have known prisoner about two and a half years. In 1907 I saw him frequently; he occupied a room next to my office and used my telephone. On Saturday, December 28, 1907, prisoner asked me to lend him £100. I looked at him. Then he said, "I will tell you what I want, Willy. Give me a cheque for £100 and I will give you the money for it. "I agreed, He asked me to make it payable to "James Webb," and leave it open, which I did. (Cheque produced.) He then gave me £100 in bank notes in exchange for the cheque. He told me he had a friend named Miss Webb who was in trouble, that he was lending her £100, and he wanted to make it appear that he was borrowing £100 from me, so that he would get it back again, and he wanted it payable to James Webb, her father. I paid the £100 in notes into my bank, the London and County, Southwark branch. This transaction took place in my office in the presence of Henry Roberts, my clerk. Miss Webb has never been in my office. She visited my house, 97, Peckham, Rye, a long time before, when prisoner introduced her as his wife. After giving prisoner the cheque I went to the hairdressers. As I returned 20 or 25 minutes afterwards I met prisoner and he asked me to go
with him to the solicitor, Mr. Summerfield, in Broad Street; that he had cashed the cheque in two £50 notes, and would I tell the solicitor that I was lending the money to Miss Webb. We went to Summerfield. Prisoner handed him the notes and said that I was lending the money on behalf of Miss Webb. I was afterwards subpœnaed and on Friday, July 16, gave evidence at the Bankruptcy Court when prisoner applied for his discharge. On that evening prisoner came to my house; he said he had a summons about this, and asked me, "Cannot you do anything for me?" I said "No All I had is true." He said, "Cannot you say you have made a mistake in your evidence?" I said, "What I have given on evidence is the truth and I am going to stick to it." He said, "Well, the only thing I shall have to do is to stick to what I have said and get witnesses." Roberts, my wife, and my brother were present and heard the conversation.
Cross-examined. I have known prisoner 2 £ to three years. I have known Miss Webb 2 £ years. Prisoner has frequently visited at my house. I was on very good terms with him; I have had a passing friendship with Miss Webb. After the cheque tranaction I sued prisoner in the County Court. He afterwards asked me to store some furniture for him, which I did. He afterwards sent and fetched it away without asking me for it. I had not refused to give it up. I sued him for 15s. for breaking a window and got judgment, prisoner not appearing. He had refused to pay for the window. Mr. Berry called at my office to inquire about the £100 cheque—it may be after The County Court action. My feelings towards prisoner have not altered since I wrote. to him postcard produced: "To the scoundrel who pays nobody. Do you intend to pay me the 15s., or are you going to treat me the same as you did your landlord, Mr. Monk, of the house at Dulwich and the landlord of the house in Peckham Park, whom you swindled?" I got judgment for 15s. in the County Court. When I gave evidence in this case at the police-court I do not think I told the magistrate about my visit to Summerfield. I did to Mr. Berry. I told the whole story at the Bankrutpcy Court. I had no interest in the matter. I took Mr. Summerfield to be prisoner's solicitor. I may have handed the notes to Summerfield. I made no comment about it. I did not think there was anything wrong about it. I do not know Hyland. He did not see me with prisoner and Miss Webb on December 27. About a fortnight after the cheque was drawn I stored furniture for prisoner. Miss Webb did not give me the notes on December 27 to take to Summerfield. I know Churchill as working for prisoner an! have seen him with prisoner.
HENRY ROBERTS , 49, Hall Road, Peckham Rye, clerk to Henry Thatcher. On December 28, 1907, prisoner came to the office and asked Thatcher if he would oblige him with an open cheque in exchange for £100 in notes. Thatcher did so, making the cheque payable to "James Webb" at prisoner's request. Thatcher then left the office and prisoner asked me to endorse the cheque. I did so—"James Webb "is in my handwriting. Prisoner then asked me to go to the bank with him to change it. In asking Thatcher for the cheque, prisoner said, "I want to make believe that I am borrowing
this money off you and then I shall have a better chance of getting it given back to me." I do not remember the reason for making it payable to James Webb. I went to the London and Counto Bank with prisoner and at his request cashed the cheque for two £50 notes, which I (handed to prisoner, and went back to the office. On the Friday previous to the Tuesday, when we appeared at Bow Street, I was at Thatcher's house, 97, Peckham Rye, when prisoner came with his son. He was greatly upset and he had a summons in his hand. He said to Thatcher, "What is the meaning of this?" Thatcher said, "It is not my fault you brought at all on yourself." Prisoner said, "What am I to do about it? Cannot you help me?" Thatcher said, "I have spoken the truth and I shall have to adhere to the truth. I am a subpœnaed witness." Prisoner said, "Cannot you make a mistake? Do the most you can. "Thatcher said, "No, I shall make no mistake. I have spoken the truth—that is all I shall do." I next saw prisoner at Bow Street. I saw prisoner in the Old Bailey last Sessions at a refreshment bar; I had no conversation with him.
Cross-examined. I know Churchill as an employee of prisoner. He was outside the office on December 28 when we went to cash the cheque and he stayed outside the bank with prisoner. I have known Miss Webb since I knew prisoner—about 2 1/2 years. I was frequently at Thatcher's house. On one occasion Miss Webb was there; she came on a friendly visit. When we left the bank prisoner got on to a 'bus, which went down the Borough, away from the office, I did not see Thatcher or prisoner again that day. I had taken a few telephone messages for prisoner and I went with him to the bank to oblige him. When I saw Wall at the public-house in the Old bailey Thatcher was there with three or four friends. He did not drink with prisoner. I heard no conversation between them.
THOMAS MORGAN RAYMOND , chief cashier, London and County Bank, Southwark. I produce extract of Henry Thatcher's account, showing a debit on December 26, 1907, of £100 by cheque in favour of James Webb (produced) paid by me in two £50 notes, Nos. 20211 and 95740; also showing that £100 was paid into Thatcher's account on that day in four £5 notes and eight £10 notes, the numbers of which are on paper (produced).
SAMUEL THATCHER , clerk to Burchell and Co., Red Lion Square, solicitors to the Sheriff of London. I produce writ of execution dated December 16, 1907, to levy on 202, Underhill Road, East Dulwich. The bailiff was instructed, and on December 19 a claim to the goods at that address was made by Ethel Webb. An order was made that if a deposit of £100 was made the goods should not be sold. That sum was paid on December 28, 1907, by Summerfield, and paid into Burchell's account at the Union of London and Smiths Bank, Chancery Lane. The issue was tried, and we were instructed to pay out of the £100, £42 to Bellingham and Co., to take our costs, amounting to £18 7s., and to pay the balance, £39 13s., to the solicitor of Ethel Webb, which we did.
NEWPORT FRAGSON , cashier, Union of London. and Smiths Bank, Chancery Lane. I produce extract from the account of Burchell and Co., showing a credit on December 30, 1907, of two £50 bank notes, Nos. 20211 and 95740.
ETHEL WEBB , 2, Temple Road, Leytonstone. I have for some years lived with the prisoner. At the end of 1907 an execution was put in on my premises, 202, Underhill Road. Prior to that, in November, I received from prisoner two cheques for £70 and £52, in repayment of money lent by me to prisoner out of my savings for him to go into the "Queen Elizabeth" public-house, Dalston. I managed his business for him, receiving 30s. per week, and looking after the house and his children. I had saved up £130. When the Sheriff levied at 202, Underhill Road, I paid out the interpleader with the money from the two cheques I received from prisoner, which I cashed in £5 and £10 notes. On December 27, 1907, between 8 and 9 p.m., I went with Hyland and prisoner to Thatcher's house, at Peckham Rye, paid Thatcher £100 in notes, and asked him to pay it to my solicitor. He said he would do so. He knew it was for the interpleader. He had called and offered to do it a few days before. He offered to do anything that he could; he said he knew more about law than I did. I had known Thatcher for some time.
Cross-examined. I have lived with defendant twelve or thirteen years, and received a salary of 30s. a week up to Christmas, 1907. I got the £70 cheque before he left the "Queen Elizabeth," and the £52 cheque the day after. I lent him the money when he went into the "Queen Elizabeth. "I had about £130 in gold. I kept it in my bedroom. I never thought of putting it in a bank. It was entirely my own money. I lent him £125 in gold. I took no receipt for it and made no entry in any book. I never lent money before. I handed Thatcher the £100 in his front kitchen. Hyland and prisoner were with me. I did not ask prisoner to take it to Summerfield because I did not choose to give it to him. I gave it to Thatcher because he offered to do it. I have known Thatcher one or two years or more. As far as I know, Thatcher's story that prisoner paid him the £100 and got a cheque for it is untrue. I do not suggest any reason why Thatcher should say it. He has not been friendly since I sent for my furniture. He has not been friendly with prisoner since he sued him for 15s.
Re-examined. The cheques for £70 and £52 were made payable to me and I endorsed them.
HENRY HYLAND , 56, Cambridge Road, Mile End, stevedore and shipworker. I have known prisoner 18 or 20 years. I have known Thatcher about two years and have been many times to his house. In December, 1907, I was in his office every other day. I was at his residence, 97, Peckham Rye, on December 27, 1907, at between nine and ten p.m., with prisoner and Miss Webb. We were in the front kitchen. Miss Webb took some notes out of the front of her dress
and gave them to Thatcher; the amount was mentioned—£100. She said, "You will pay these for me to Mr. Summerfield to-morrow morning, please." Thatcher said, "I will do so—I will do anything for you, as I have promised." I left with prisoner and Miss Webb. I know nothing of what transpired the next day.
Cross-examined. I have been a ship worker and produce an 18 years' character. I went with prisoner to the Bankruptcy Court to help him as he is deaf. In December, 1907, I was told prisoner wanted to see me about a case Germanson had brought against him. I was told that by Thatcher or Street (the landlord at the office), and I went to Miss Webb's, where prisoner came in. He then told me they were going to see Thatcher and asked me to go with them. I was asked about this by prisoner when he got a summons from Bow Street.
ETHEL WEBB , recalled. I gave evidence at the Bankruptcy Court and was examined and cross-examined about the payment of this £100 to Thatcher I do not think I said anything about Hyland being present.
CHARLES BOULTON , managing clerk to Summerfield, Broad Street Buildings, solicitor. On December 27 and also on December 28 Thatcher and Wall called at my office and saw both Mr. Summerfield and myself. The conversation was similar on both occasions. Thatcher said that Miss Webb, who was a friend of his, had explained her trouble to him and had asked him to deposit the necessary sum of £100 with Mr. Summerfield for the purpose of its being lodged with the Sheriff in accordance with the order, but before so doing he required to know under what circumstances the sum was required, and further as to what likelihood there was of ever seeing any of the £100 back; that Miss Webb had not handed him exactly all that was necessary, but that he would deposit the £100. I understood there was only a small balance to make up. Mr. Summerfield and I explained to Thatcher how the matter stood. Prisoner hardly said a word. He said, "I do not think there is much doubt about it, because the receipts for the furniture are in Miss Webb's name." I explained to him that you were not always successful in these cases. Thatcher then put his hand in his breast pocket and took the notes from a pocket-book.
Cross-examined. The call book on December 27 shows that Mr. Wall called and another person whose name is not mentioned; they are bracketed together. I made no entries with regard to this matter as there was an agreed sum for costs.
HENRY THATCHER , recalled. It has been brought to my memory that prisoner did take me twice to Summerfield to get me to say there that I was lending this money to Miss Webb. I said I was lending it, but, in fact, I was not going to part with any money until I had the money in my hand. I went about twice to the solicitor, the first time, I believe, on the Thursday, before I had seen Miss Webb. I only said that the money I handed over was a loan from me—I did not say that she had told me of her difficulties and asked me to bring up the money.
Further cross-examined. I was instructed in this matter before the 28th. I did not say I had been to the solicitors twice in that week because I did not think of it—it is two years ago.
Verdict, Guilty. Sentence, Three months' imprisonment, second division.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Monday, October 18.)
Mr. C. F. Gill, K. O., Mr. Symmons, and Mr. Packer prosecuted; Mr. Schultess Young and Mr. Wynne defended; Mr. Morle held a watching brief.
Mr. Gill, in opening the case, said that the libel had reference to the administration of the estate of the late Mr. William Studds, of Uxbridge. Mr. William Studds was for many years in partnership with his brother Joseph Studds, and they carried on business near Uxbridge as brick makers, market gardeners, and barge owners. In 1902 Joseph Studds desired to sell his interest in the business, accountants were brought in, and a valuation of between £23,000 and £24,000 was arrived at, and the sum which it was arranged should go to Joseph Studds on going out of the business was about £12,000. William, not being in a position to pay any such sum, an arrangement was made that the payments should be made by bills extending over a considerable period. In August, 1903, soon after this arrangement had been made, William died, and arrangements had to be at once made for carrying on the business, in which a son, Alfred, and a daughter, Ellen, had been assisting. Deceased had two other sons, Joseph, employed as a chef, and prisoner, who was at this time in South Africa. The arrangement made was that the sons Alfred and Joseph Studds should carry on the business, Nellie assisting with the books. It being contemplated that the business would go on satisfactorily and that there would be money eventually to come to the beneficiaries under the will, a payment of 25s. a week was made to each of the beneficiaries, and an additional sum of £50 was paid to Nellie in consideration of her services during her father's lifetime. Mr. Garner, prosecutor, was joint executor with Alfred and Joseph Studds. The year 1903 proved to be most disastrous. In consequence of the continuous rain an enormous quantity of the bricks to be baked were entirely spoiled, with the result that there was a loss to the business of some thousands of pounds, and the weather was also unfavourable for the market gardening. The executors found themselves without means to meet the debt of £11,000 or £12,000, due in respect of Joseph's sale of the business. Joseph Studds having died shortly after his brother, his executors
were anxious to have the debt paid. The first bill, for £2,500, was duly paid, and subsequently the executors of Joseph, one of whom named Ashby had married a daughter of his, took proceedings in Chancery for the administration of William's estate. A receiver and manager was finally appointed by the Court, the estate was wound up, realising about 3s. 6d. in the £ for the creditors and leaving nothing for the beneficiaries. The accounts were gone through and passed by a Master in Chancery, who gave his certificate, and the money which had been advanced to the beneficiares, together with the £50 advanced to Nellie, was disallowed. Prisoner proceeded to make charges of the most appalling and outrageous character, not only against Garner, but against his brother, his brother's wife, solicitors, counsel, and any judge or official who had had anything to do with the case. On September 9, 1904, a letter was addressed to prisoner at Johannesburg by Messrs. Garner and Sons, informing him of the state of affairs: "Dear Mr. Studds,—As one of the beneficiaries under the will of your late father, we think it only right that you should be put in possession of the facts relating to your father's estate. When he died, as you are aware, he owed to his brother Joseph and now, since his death, his executors, the sum of £12,800, besides other contract debts, making a total of about £15,000. We send you statement of assets, which shows a balance of £3,782 17s. 9d. in favour of the executors. Since your father's death the executors have carried on the business, but in consequence of depression in trade and also the severe loss they sustained in brick-making operations for the year ending 1903, caused by the continual wet weather and the burning of bricks so wretchedly bad, that only a proportion of about 10 per cent, were stocked, the rest being all place and shuffs,' the estate is now practically insolvent. There are two bills due to the executors of your late uncle in November next, amounting to £2,500, which, of course, cannot be paid, and if the executors insist upon the payment of these the whole estate must go into Chancery. The executors have been anxiously considering the position of affairs, which we need hardly say arises from no fault of their own, but in consequence of the adverse circumstances mentioned above. Unless some arrangement is arrived at to obtain a, large overdraft at the bank, which the executors will be responsible for, the only alternative to our mind is that the estate should be wound up at once. The bank have been kind enough to allow an overdraft of £2,500 and are now pressing for that sum to be liquidated, and unless some arrangement is arrived at by which the executors of the late Mr. Joseph Studds will guarantee repayment of the amount due to the bank it will be impossible to carry on the business next year, as your brother Alfred informs us it will be necessary to purchase certain new machinery, which is absolutely necessary for carrying on brick-making operations. This will coat some £400 or £500, which cannot be taken out of the estate, as practically the executors have no money in hand. We have written to Messrs. Woodbridge and Sons, who are concerned for the executors of your uncle's estates, explaining the position of affairs, and that unless
the executors come forward and assist us the estate must be realised. We are sorry these unfortunate circumstances should have happened. We know personally that the brick manufacturers round Uxbridge have nearly all been practically ruined, so that you will quite understand that the executors of your late father, having done the best they possibly can, are in no worse position than their neighbours. For your own guidance I may mention that the brick earth was prepared for the year 1903 under the supervision of your father; therefore, no blame can be attached to the executors. Moreover, the burning of this year is remarkably good, and comes out above the average percentage of stocks. If you can suggest anything to the executors they will give it their earliest consideration. With kind regards, believe us to be, your very truly, Garner and Son." Prisoner afterwards caused a pamphlet extending to 16 pages to be printed in Johannesburg, in which it was stated that a reward of £100 would be paid to anyone giving information which would lead to the arrest, conviction, and sentence to a term of not less than three years' imprisonment each of William Garner, sen., and his son, Edward James Garner, and in it the prosecutor was charged with the misappropriation of from £20,000 to £25,000.
HENRY CAREY BELCH , retired builder, Uxbridge. I have known Mr. William Garner for 25 or 30 years as a solicitor practising in Uxbridge and the surrounding towns. I received a copy of the pamphlet produced by post, probably on April 1, as the postmark is March 31. I cannot say I read it all; I read parts of it. I understood it was my friend, Wm. Garner, of Uxbridge, who was referred to in the pamphlet. I thought the right thing to do was to send the pamphlet by post to Mr. Garner, and I did so.
ARTHUR WILLIAM FREEMAN , clerk in the employ of Mr. Wm. Garner. I remember the pamphlet being received from Mr. Belch. There is only one Mr. William Garner practising in Uxbridge. I was present at I vor (Bucks) Police Court on May 13 last. A copy of the pamphlet was submitted to prisoner, who declined to say who had printed it. It bears on the face of it, "Printed and published by Walter John Studds, West Ealing."
Cross-examined. At the Uxbridge Police Court, when prisoner was committed for trial, he stated that he denied to take the whole responsibility of the pamphlet upon his own shoulders.
EDWARD DE CUATRO FILDER , managing clerk to Messrs. Woodbridge and Sons, 7, Old Square, and Uxbridge. Messrs. Woodbridge acted for the executors of Mr. Joseph Studds in the administration suit, and at the end of the inquiry the Master gave his certificate in the usual course.
WALTER JOHN STUDDS (prisoner, on oath). I am the eldest son of William Studds. In April, 1899, I went to South Africa, where I obtained employment as assistant engineer in the Town Engineers' Department in Johannesburg, my salary being at first £30 and afterwards
£32 10s. per month. I received a letter intimating my father's death from William Garner some two or three months after my father's death. I thought he was rather a long time in informing me. I have not the letter, and do not know what has become of it. I have looked for it. It stated that as far as he could tell the estate was worth about £10,000. The next letter I received from Garner was on September 9, 1904. Since I returned to England I have gone into the statements contained in that letter very carefully and very thoroughly. A statement of the assets enclosed with it showed a balance of £3,782 17s. 9d. in favour of the executors. Though Garner in his letter to me says the bank are pressing for the overdraft, he says in his affidavit, sworn in the administration suit, "The bankers are not now pressing for the paying of our overdraft, but are thoroughly satisfied with my guarantee." Before I went to Johannesburg I managed one of my father's brickfields. I never in all my experience heard of only 10 per cent, of the bricks made being stock bricks, and the rest "place" and "shuffs," nor anybody else. "Shuffs" are rubbish, and "place" bricks of very inferior quality. After I received the letter of September 9,1904, I left Johannesburg for England. I did not know until I arrived in England that the partnership between my father and William Studds was dissolved. I arrived on the third Saturday in October, and got to my sister's about half-past one. At half-past three I went down to the farm and saw Alfred Studds, the executor, who had been acting with William Garner. In consequence of what he told me I went to see Garner on the following Monday morning. Immediately I got into his office he said to me, "The estate is in a very bad way; in fact, it could hardly be worse." At this time I had absolute confidence in Mr. Garner, because he had been my father's and grandfather's solicitor. I said to him, "Do you want the business sold or do you want the business carried on?" I forget the exact words. He said he wanted the business sold. He then went on to explain the little scheme he had to throw the estate into Chancery and get the Court to order its sale by public auction, and then to buy it in as a wrecked and ruined business at a merely nominal sum. I did not assist in that little scheme. Garner explained that bricks which had formerly cost 20s. per 1,000 could then be bought at about 10s. per 1,000. He said that this buying in process would be for the benefit of the beneficiaries; he was to get my uncle's executors out of the business without paying the amount owing for their half interest, which my father had purchased shortly before he died, and he, Alfred Studds, and a man named Henry Bozer had already arranged to buy the business in. It was after this interview that I realised what William Garner was and what Alfred Studds was. I laid the particulars of the scheme before my two sisters, and when I mentioned this to William Garner at a subsequent interview, he told me he had told me this in confidence, and I ought not to have said anything about it. I consulted with my solicitors, and we realised that we had a thorough-paced scoundrel to deal with, I wrote a letter to Garner about Alfred's neglect of the business. I received no answer to it.
The Common Serjeant said this estate might have been badly managed; he did not know, neither did the jury care; that had nothing to do with the libel.
Mr. Schultess Young proceeded to call the attention of witness to the affidavit made in connection with the account returned to the Inland Revenue, showing that no value was put on the goodwill.
Mr. Gill said he had carefully examined the plea of justification, and there was no reference to Inland Revenue or anything of the kind. Mr. Schultess-Young said his case was that for his own purpose Garner had made an affidavit to the Inland Revenue in September, 1903, that there was no goodwill, and had committed perjury in swearing that affidavit. In another affidavit he had sworn that there was a very valuable goodwill (November 11, 1904). Mr. Garner's letter of September 9 to prisoner stated that the estate was insolvent and the affidavit containing the statement that there was a valuable goodwill was sworn very shortly after that.
Examination continued. I have made a number of attempts to get information from Mr. Garner. I have had practically no information from him, except that contained in the letter of September 9, 1904. I have made many attempts to get information. I published two pamphlets in Johannesburg in respect of which I was prosecuted before the Uxbridge magistrates. My counsel apologised and said I would never do it again—without my instructions.
The Common Serjeant. Are we really going to be told in a court of justice that counsel in your presence in a police court apologised on your behalf and gave an undertaking in your name without authority, and that you are not bound by it?
Mr. Schultess Young. I should not put such a proposition for a moment. I am instructed that the facts are different. The Common Serjeant. Was the prosecution dropped? Mr. Schultess. Young. Yes.
The Common Serjeant. He takes advantage of it. (To prisoner.) Let me ask you one question, as we have heard some distinction drawn between you and your counsel. Is it with your wish and by your instructions personally, your own real wish and your instructions, that this plea of justification that all these accusations are true is put upon the record? Prisoner. Most certainly. The statements are correct. The Common Serjeant. That removes all difficulty on my part. Further examined. It is a fact that counsel at the hearing at the police court in my presence apologised for the libel and said on my behalf that I was very sorry and would not do it again, or something to that effect, but it was without consulting me. I did not object; I did not know I had a right to object with counsel representing me. I say that the affidavit of William Garner and Alfred Studds of December 1, 1905, is teeming with perjury.
(Counsel proceeded to deal with items apparently omitted from the accounts for which it appeared credit was subsequently given. Some
items in respect of which corrections were made by the Master were alleged as fraudulent entries. Other items disallowed were alleged as embezzlement.)
(Wednesday, October 20.)
Mr. Schultess Young asked leave to interpose a witness with reference to the question of the burning of bricks.
Mr. Gill called attention to section 6 of the Libel Act of 1843, which provided that where justification is pleaded" the truth of the matters charged may be inquired into, but shall not amount to. a defence unless it was for the public benefit that the said matters charged should be published. "The matters charged in this indictment were the offences of perjury and embezzlement and obtaining money by false pretences and a charge of stealing £23. He understood it was now proposed to cal a witness on the question of the burning of bricks, but neither in the indictment nor in the justification was there a syllable which had any reference to that.
Mr. Schultess Young submitted that the question of burning was clearly covered by the matters charged. In the justification it was pleaded that "William Garner supplied grossly falsified copies of his account, which carefully omitted his fraudulent entries to the beneficiares. "If entries were omitted showing the amount of bricks sold, that would be justification.
The Common Serjeant asked if it was alleged that Garner swore falsely that 80 or 90 per cent, of the bricks made were unsaleable where was that in issue? The allegation was that prosecutor had embezzled a lot of money, and at present evidence had only been given of one item out of more than 800.
Air. Schultess Young (quoting from the plea). "The business yielded, a very large profit whilst under executors' control; he (Master Fox) can understand by William Garner embezzling the funds of the estate and making it indebted to him on paper, he has defrauded the estate of £1,740 0s. 6d. through the Court of Chancery." The Common Serjeant said he would not exclude the evidence.
GEORGE WRIGHT , Manor Lodge, Acton, chairman of the county magistrates and a member of the County Council. I have been engaged in the brickmaking business about 38 years. I have never known so large a proportion as 90 per cent, of "place" and "stuffs" made; that would be ridiculous; 5 per cent, is what it ought to be not more. If a person tried to make so large a proportion of "stuffs" he might possibly do so by pouring water on the top of the kiln when it was full fired. A man who did not know anything about the businessmight spoil the lot. The cost of making stock pricks without the royalty is from 15s. to 17s. per 1,000. It depends upon the neighbourhood. The cost of making is in some places rather more than in others. As compared with the present year the price of bricks was fully 5s. higher in 1903. In some places the earth would have to be fetched from a greater distance.
Cross-examined. 1903 was not a very bad year. I know that the family of Head have been engaged in brickmaking a great number of years. I do not think it would be correct to say that within experience there never has been so bad a season as 1903. In a contenuously wet season—the result being that the bricks seldom dried properly and the rain percolated to the bricks while burning—a large number would be spoilt if they were not properly protected.
Re-examined. We do not make so many bricks in a bad season, and have to take greater care in protecting the bricks. I do not qualify my statement that a percentage of 90 per cent of "stuffs" is ridiculous.
EDWARD COLLINS , Ealing, a member of the London County Council. I have been a brickmaker for a number of years, and was coexecutor of Joseph Studds' estate. I valued the bricks in Mr. Studds' fields about the time the second bill became due, in September or October of 1904. I estimated there were 10,000,000 or 11,000,000 bricks on the field, and that the value of them was about £15,000. I saw the fields after that and the bricks seemed to be diminishing rapidly. I understood they were then under the controll of the executors of Mr. William Studds, of whom Garner was one. I saw Alfred Studds there apparently in control. In consequence of the bricks diminishing we (the executors of Joseph) began to be suspicious, and applied to the Court to get a receiver appointed in order to protect our people. That was opposed by the executors of William Studd. When I saw the bricks there was a fair proportion of good ones. There was a considerable quantity of "stuffs" that had been stacked down for perhaps 20 years; on those I did not put any value at all. About 15 per cent, of what I saw would be "place" and "stuffs." I know the neighbourhood of Uxbridge pretty wall.
Mr. Schultess Young. What is the reputation of Mr. Garner in the neighbourhood? (Question disallowed.)
Cross-examined. Judgment was given in the administration suit in November, 1905, and after that there was an order under which the accounts were taken by the Master. The Master gave his certificate in May, 1907. It took a considerable time to go through all the accounts. A receiver and manager was appointed. At the time the suit was commenced something like £10,000 was due to the executors of Joseph. There were certain sums disallowed owing to here not being any estate. As a matter of fact, we never got even a small proportion of our debt and the creditors were only paid about 3s. 6d. in the £.
Re-examined. A receiver was not appointed until six months after proceedings had been taken in Chancery. I understood that was in consequence of the opposition of William Garner and Alfred Studds.
WALTER JOHN STUDDS (prisoner, on oath), further examined. I applied to William Garner for particulars of the condition of the estate before I issued the pamphlet. In April, 1908, I wrote requesting a full statement of the executors' and trustees' administration, together
with access to all books, documents, papers, valuations, vouchers, etc., with full liberty of inspection," etc. There was authority given to the bank to accept the signature of two of the executors, namely, Alfred Studds and William Cramer, instead of three. On March 9, 1909, I sent to Messrs. Garner and Sons the following letter: "Re William Studds, Deceased.—For some time I have been investigating the accounts, documents, etc., relating to this estate on behalf of myself and co-beneficiaries, and I find that you and your co-trustee, Alfred Studds, are liable to us in a sum of upwards of £8,000 in respect of moneys received, or which ought to have been received, by you, which has not been paid over or accounted for. I have discovered a large number of apparently gross inaccuracies, misstatements, and omissions in the various papers and accounts which I have examined, but before commencing legal proceedings I have decided to give you an opportunity of explaining and refuting or making any statement you may think fit regarding these discrepancies. Enclosed I send you a few only of the more serious irregularities of which I complain to enable you to say anything in regard to all or any of them, and I hereby give you notice that unless I hear from you on or before Friday next, the 12th inst., I shall commence such legal proceedings as I may be advised." In reply to that I received a letter from a firm of solicitors leaving it to me to take such proceedings as I might think proper. After that I published the pamphlet. 'I have been trying for about five years to get Garner into court and get an explanation' from him. Summoned at the Uxbridge Police Court, I there frankly disavowed any desire to libel any persons with the exception of Alfred Studds and William Garner. I received from Garner a copy of the accounts about 1906, for which he charged five guineas, which my brother Alfred paid at my request, I being at the time in South Africa. I also received a list of the amounts disallowed by the Master. Alfred Studds is now practically in possession of the Ivor property, so far as I can judge; he is living in my father's house. I put my own character entirely in issue in this case. With regard to the items 517 and 754 in the account which, according to the affidavit of December 1, 1905, are entered as "freightage," the respective amounts being £100 and £105, these were really an honorarium paid to an official of the Kensington Vestry during the working of a large contract, and the affidavit also states that they were made at the request of the late Joseph Studds, but Mr. Studds had been dead about eight weeks when the first alleged payment was made, and about nine months when the second was paid; besides that, he had been out of the business for two years before my father died. I charge William Garner with deliberate perjury and falsification in respect of those two items alone. "There is nothing in the account about the honorarium paid to Weaver, the official of the vestry, and the account is wrong and untrue in that respect. Also there are no entries of the amounts paid to J. Studds or A. Studds as maintenance. There is an item disallowed of £600 paid to Hare and Co. for taking up leases; this is entered a second time, making £1,200 against the estate until
it was discovered by myself. I make out that there is £9,450 owing to the executors of Joseph Studds. I arrive at it by careful calculations from entries in my dead uncle's 'handwriting in his private ledger. I have been for five months going into the matter. With regard to item 476: "September 28, 1903, Studds N., wages £50," that is wrongly entered; it was a grant to Nellie with the consent of the other beneficiaries. Many of the disallowances are in respect of payments to members of the Studds family. I myself never received a farthing, but by my authority my allowance was paid to my sister Nellie. If it had been entered as paid to Nellie it would not have been false, but it is entered as paid' to myself. I say that paying it to my sister is not the same thing as paying it to me, because it puts me in an unfavourable light as showing that I had received money from the estate when the creditors had not received 20s. in the £. I objected to these amounts being paid to the beneficiaries when the creditors had not received 20s. in the £. With regard to the statement of Mr. Garner in the affidavit of December 1, 1904, that "the various accounts have now been practically vouched by the chief clerk, there being only a few items requiring explanation," and that "the only surcharges are for sums of money paid by the executors to the children of the late William Studds, the whole being less than £500," the disallowances certified by the Master are £1,600, and that statement in the affidavit I describe as perjury. I also found a complaint against Garner because he says that the late Mr. Studds left no legitimate children.
Mr. Gill. This is not a matter which is contained in any of the libels. It is not in the indictment certainly; it is not in the plea of justification, and what the charge is in regard to it I do not know. The Common Serjeant. Is this one of the many perjuries? Mr. Schultess Young. No; it is one of the many false statements with which the whole of the accounts and documents abound. It is an amazingly false statement.
Further examined. When I was at the field I saw remarkably few "stuffs." With regard to item 834, "Foster, returned draft, £23," I 'have looked carefully into the account and there is no previous entry of that amount. All the errors I have discovered are in favour of Mr. Garner and practically every one puts something into Mr. Garner's pocket. I vio not think there is a single one in which he has made a mistake against himself. I published the pamphlet as being the only means of getting William Garner into court at all. The amount of money disallowed by the executors for maintenance is £412 14s. 7d.
Cross-examined. Of the sums disallowed the total number is 88 or 90. Of that number 76 may be advances to beneficiaries, which I complain of as being wrongly described as wages, but I cannot give evidence without my notes. I would not trust one of William Garner's figures because I distrust him absolutely. In addition to the sums paid to Nellie Studds there were also sums paid to Mrs. Carter, which were disallowed. There are no payments entered to Joseph Studds. I seriously say I do not know what money my sister Nellie had from
the executors. I have no evidence of it but the affidavit of William Garner, which I would not trust. From what her brothers and sister told me and from William Garner's affidavit I assume she did. I know her handwriting. I see in the letter produced she has written "I do not know what I should have done if I had not had the £50 on Monday." I do not doubt that she had it. I gave her £100 myself at this time for furniture. I believe she was asked on her death bed to say that she had received it as wages, and she also wrote that to Ashby. I was in South Africa at the time. I say that entering it as wages was wilful and corrupt perjury; it was trying to get it allowed through the Court of Chancery in order to defraud the creditors. Never mind how it affects me. I want to punish this rogue. My pamphlet deals with William Garner's misconduct in managing the estate. The estate could well have afforded to give my sister £50 or £150 if it had been properly managed. I have been trying for five years to get this man into court, and it has cost me about £1,200 to bring him here now. I state in the pamphlet that triple perjury has been committed by him (1) in the affidavit verifying account "A," (2) in the falsification of the trust accounts, and (3) in the false affidavit sworn December 1, 1905. I suppose I first threatened Garner to send out circulars about him after my return from South Africa, when he told me he was going to ruin the business, and do it in a business-like manner, so as to throw the odium of doing so upon Ashby. I cannot fix the date. I threatened to send out thousands of pamphlets to everybody in the neighbourhood where this man lives, and did so, offering £100 reward for information which would lead to his arrest, conviction, and sentence to not less than three years' imprisonment. I wanted value for my money. I looked for an honest solicitor and honest counsel to take up my case. I have been a long time finding them. A man named Time well did not help me to start this case. I know him and that he was secretary to the Police and Public Vigilance Society until it expired. As to whether I know he was the man who got up charges of perjury against the police, I know he is very self-sacrificing. If there were a few more such men in the community there would not be men like Garner at large. He has not assisted me in this case, except by his advice. Garner challenged me in the Press in South Africa to come to England and face the matter out. There were three pamphlets in all, and I circulated 2,000 of each of them I state in the last one, "I have employed some ten or twelve solicitors, at a cost of about £600, and three barristers, whilst two firms of accountants are also implicated in these frauds, and this criminal conspiracy." (Much laughter.) It is a very laughable matter, no doubt, to have your property knocked about and not get proper action taken; it is a big joke. There are some big men undoubtedly behind this man (Garner) and they keep him out of prison. Some three or four years ago I wrote to the Lord Chancellor. It is no doubt a joke that the business which was worked up by my father and grandfather should be destroyed by that scoundrel in twelve months. There are others here to speak to this man's character. The attempt is being made to shield a thief behind more respectable
men. When I was prosecuted before the Uxbridge magistrates my solicitor was Mr. Freke Palmer. He humbugged me for four months and ran me into a bill for £50. I was represented by Mr. Curtis Bennett, who apologised for me in my presence and gave an undertaking that I would publish no more libels, but he did it without my instructions and without my knowledge, except that I heard him say it in court. I say he is one of the three barristers implicated in the conspiracy and helping to shield this man. Amongst the people I accused of setting the law at defiance and refusing to punish crime is the Public Prosecutor, but my counsel has with drawn that. Certain facts were put before him with regard to this man and he should have taken action. I have also laid the facts before the Attorney-General. I also accused him of setting the law at defiance. When I spoke in the pamphlet of "a foul judge "I was alluding to Sir William Lucius Selfe, and if the gentlemen of the jury would go into the facts I feel convinced they would answer in my favour. I also attacked the Public Trustee in the passage: "The Public Trustee fails to take action against fraudulent executors"
Mr. Schultess Young. The imputations against all these other persons except Garner are quite frankly with drawn.
Further cross-examined. I have no complaint to make against Mr. Fox. Master Fox certainly found out a very great deal. It would have been excusable if he had not found out nearly as much. I admit the handwriting of the letter produced in which I wrote to William Garner from Johannesburg, "Shameless old liar, reckless old swindler, clumsy old thief," etc. I have also written to the Criminal Investigation Department. The deaths of both my father and sister were extremely suspicious. My sister, who was nursing my sick sister, went away to prepare a home to take her down to the seaside, and she was dead in 24 hours. I certainly intend to inquire into my sister's death as soon as I am free to do so. I recognise the copy of my father's will produced. I do not know whether it purports to give Mr. Garner extraordinary powers.
(Thursday, October 21.)
JOSEPH STUDDS , 6, Northfield Lane, West Ealing. I am the second son of the late Mr. William Studds, of Ivor. My business is that of dining-room keeper. I am one of the executors of my father's will. Application was made to me by Mr. Garner to authorise the bank to accept cheques signed by himself and my brother Alfred. I offered to go down and help Garner in the management of the business. He said he would consider it. I was living at Hanwell at the time, and when I went down to the farm to stay for my holidays in September, 1903, Garner told me; he thought it best for me to continue in my own business, and he asked me the reasons for wanting to go into the business. I said I did not consider it fair that I should have to work as a weekly servant at 50s. a week and that I wanted to be an employer, not an employee. He then agreed to all the beneficiaries having 25s. a week out of the estate.
I had nothing to do with the management excepting to sign a few papers, on which occasions I was sent for to Mr. Garner's office. In the course of the proceedings by Ashby and Collins against the Studds I made an affidavit. I did not know it was stated in that Affidavit that my father had no lawful issue. My father was married. In consequence of a communication made to me by my brother Walter, I wrote to Gamer asking for a copy of the accounts, and in reply received this letter: "In reply to yours, we shall be glad to have a copy of the accounts made for you on payment of our charges of five guineas, as they are very long. You are one of the executors of your late sister (Nellie), and we shall be glad if you will let us know what you propose to do with respect to the moneys due to our Mr. Garner from her estate.—Yours truly, Garner and Sons." That had reference to the 25s. a week that he had allowed us to draw. I finally obtained a copy of the accounts, but had to write twice for them. I sent the £5 5s. on the following Saturday. Having received the accounts I took them to a firm of accountants in Old Jewry. I did not get it back again. I also received an account of the money disallowed by the Master. (Mr. Young called attention to the item of £105 said in the account sent to Walter Studds to be paid to "Weaver "and in that sent to Joseph to be paid to "Studds." received various applications from Garner to repay the amounts advanced to the beneficiaries, and wrote to him, "I fail to see how you can hold me responsible for any of ¿he moneys disallowed by the Master."
Cross-examined. I was apprenticed as cook when I was 17, and knew more about that than I did? about brickmaking. After my father's death all the beneficiaries signed a paper authorising Mr. Garner and my brother Alfred to carry on the business. Later on I thought I ought to go down and help conduct the business. I thought in that way I should be looking after my own interest. As a beneficiary I received 25s. a week. Afterwards I asked for and obtained a sum of £75, which I have not paid back, and Mr. Garner has told me he had to pay that out of his own pocket.
Re-examined. As far as I can remember it was my brother Alfred who asked me to sign this paper making him sole manager of the business. I do not remember that I had any conversation with Mr. Garner about it. I know nothing about the wages book of the executors.
GEORGE HENRY JARRATT , book-keeper of the Kensington, Borough Council. I produce the book showing the amount due weekly to William Studds by the Borough Council in respect of the contract he had for barging dust and slop in the Kensington district. When Mr. Studds died on August 8 there was £470 due to him in respect of the July account and part of the August account.
Mr. Schultess Young. This estate was fraudulently ruined by these executors. This contract was given up producing several thousands of pounds.
The Common Serjeant. Alfred Studds may have ruined it or anybody may have ruined it; that is not the charge in this casé. The
libel is that Mr. William Garner defrauded the estate of a very large sum of money and committed a number of perjuries to cover his continued embezzlement or stealing.
Mr. Schultess Young. "For Mr. John Fox, Master in Chancery, to Mr. Justice Neville to accept such accounts as those verified by perjured affidavits such as those sworn to by William Garner and Alfred Studds, of the falseness of whose affidavits he had ample proof, is to make the Court of Chancery a tabernacle for the shelter and protection of fraudulent and dishonest solicitors and accountants, protected, when action is attempted to be taken against them, by other dishonest solicitors and barristers who, instead of doing so, only run their clients into bills of costs. "Surely I cover that.
The Common Serjeant. Certainly not; they may have lost a good contract.
Mr. Schultess Young. The next year after it was lost it was resumed by Mr. Alfred Studds.
The Common Serjeant. That does not matter. How is this material to this libel? It is not a charge that the man wrecked the estate. Further examined. The council's liability under that contract was £5,666 from the year commencing April 1, 1903, and ending March 31, 1904. In 1904 that contract was not renewed. In 1905 Mr. Alfred Studds obtained the contract after advertisement for tenders, his tender being the lowest. In that year he received £3,382 16s. 4d., or about two-thirds of the price that was paid to his father. The first payment after the father's death was on September 30, £391 0s. 8d. (Item 56 in the executor's accounts in Chancery.)
EDWARD CLAYTON ASHBY . I am the son-in-law of Joseph Ashby, who died in 1903. I was an executor with Mr. Collins of the will of the deceased, and we brought an action against William Studds's estate in 1904. I knew the late Mr. William Studds quite well, and had known him for over 20 years. I was consulted by Mr. Joseph Studds with reference to the dissolution of the partnership. During the first part of the action the estate was managed by William Garner and Alfred Studds, the executors of William Studds, and in the course of 18 months a receiver was appointed. I have the balance-sheet for the last year of the firm, when the death of the two partners took place, and also their valuation. (The Common Serjeant ruled that the documents could not be produced.) I attended before Master Fox and also before Master Nayland, in order to prove as against the executors of William that there was some estate to pay creditors.
Mrs. CHARLOTTE ANN CARTER. I am a daughter of the late William Studds, and one of the beneficiaries under the will. I first saw Mr. William Garner after my father's death on the day of the funeral. He read the will. My brothers, Alfred and Joseph, my sister Ellen and myself were present. Mr. Garner said, "Now children, your father has left you a goodly heritage here, and we shall have to turn it into a private company. "After some more conversation about things, he told my brother Joseph that he had a paper he wished him to sign, authorising them (Garner and Alfred) to draw cheques without
having to run to him (Joseph) for his signature. My sister went and got pen and ink, and when she came back the paper was signed. After that Mr. Garner was away for a month; I think he went on his holiday. Afterwards I had some conversation with him on the subject of my brother Alfred being manager. I asked him if it could be turned into a company. Mr. Garner said "No," on account of my uncle's money being in. I also said it was not reasonable to expect a boy of my brother Alfred's age to manage a business that it had taken three long-headed men to manage previously. To that Mr. Garner replied that someone would be appointed to help him. I said I hoped there would be as I was sure the business could not go on with only one.
Cross-examined. My brother asked me to sign a paper authorizing Alfred to manage the business until Mr. Garner came back from his holiday. At that time I thought the business was to be turned into a company., as Mr. Garner had said. I have not paid back any of the money I received as maintenance. I think I received £50 or £55 in ail, at the rate of £5 a month. I know what Mr. Garner has lost that money out of his own pocket, but it was his own agreement. A civil action is pending brought by my brother Walter and I against Mr. Garner. I was desirous that my sister Nellie should have more assistance out of the estate than anybody else as she was more in need of it; she was entirely dependent. It was not at my suggestion that the £50 was paid to her, but I was quite willing that she should have it.
Re-examined. Whatever was paid to her was. not paid as wages; there was no wages owing. I was told that I was to receive money from Mr. Garner's office. Nellie died about Christmas, 1905.
CHARLES PEAKE , Willesden. I have been brickmaking 45 years I am near the brickmaking fields of Mr. Studds and saw them at the end of 1903. There were a few more "place" and "shuffs" that year because it was wet, but nothing like 90 per cent.; I should say in my own case 7 or 8 per cent. more.
Mr. Symmons submitted that there was no evidence upon which the verdict of the jury ought to be taken. The gravamen of the whole, charge was "defrauding the estate by means of the Court of Chancery of 1740," and of that no evidence had been given.
The Common Serjeant. I have got to rule upon that, and I rule that there is no evidence with regard to any substantial part of the libel, and it you wish it I will so direct the jury. Mr. Symmons. That is what I invite your lordship to do. The Common Serjeant. That is right, is it not, Mr. Young, that unless the whole of the plea is proved the verdict on the plea of justification must be negative?
Mr. Schultess Young. Your lordship is referring to R. V. Newman (Dears, 85).
The Common Serjeant. I was not. I was only referring to the well-known law.
Mr. Schultess Young contended that the law of R. V. Newman is old, and cited Zierenberg and wife v. Labouchere (2, Q. B., 1893, p. 183), where Lord Esher, the Master of the Rolls, remarked that, strictly speaking, a person pleading justification must prove the whole libel to be true, and if he failed to do so the plea of justification failed altogether; but the old practice in that respect seemed too strict, and he thought it sufficient if the truth of important particulars were established. That ruling, counsel submitted, varied the old law in R. V. Newman, which was of the date of 1851, and the rule seemed to have been relaxed to that extent. Of course, the thing would be reduced to an absurdity if a person proved 99 charges and failed to prove the hundredth.
The Common Serjeant. Probably so. "De minimis non curat lex." If 99 crimes all of the same nature were proved the jury would probably say that that was substantially proving the whole number.
Mr. Schultess Young. The ruling in R. V. Newman was that every single tittle must be proved strictly.
Mr. Symmons observed that the point in Zierenberg v. Labouchere was whether the defendant in a civil action was or was not bound to give particulars of the various points on which he justified the libel. It was not a criminal proceeding at all. In the course of his observations Lord Esher did say that apparently in civil as well as criminal actions in the old days it would have been necessary to prove every item.
The Common Serjeant. I hold that there is no evidence of the substantial part of this libel, and therefore there is no evidence to go to the jury in support of the plea.
Mr. Schultess Young. It is not necessary to ask leave to appeal. I can go straight to the Court of Appeal without leave.
The Common Serjeant. I should not give you leave. You have your own rights, whatever they are.
The jury, in accordance with his lordship's direction, found prisoner Guilty of the publication of the libel, and the justification not proved. Sentence, Nine months' imprisonment.
The Court further ordered under section 8 of the Libel Act of 1843 that, in addition to the lawful punishment to which prisoner has been sentenced, he pay the whole of the costs incurred in or about the prosecution, including the proceedings before the examining justices.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Tuesday, October 19.)
MOSS William (48, dealer), BROWN Thomas (27, labourer), GOODWIN Thomas Henry (53, grocer), and GASKELL William (43, licensed victualler) ; all stealing two cobs, three sets of harness and one trap, the goods of Nathaniel Mash; one cob, one gig, three sets of harness and three rugs, the goods of Albert Edward Johnson; and one cob and one set of harness, the goods of Thomas Ward, and feloniously receiving the same. Moss and Gaskell, stealing one trap, the goods of Wade and Co., Limited, and feloniously receiving the same; Goodwin and Brown, stealing a quantity of preserved meat, the goods of Augustus Robert Carpenter, and feloniously receiving the same.
Mr. Muir and Mr. Travers Humphreys prosecuted; Mr. Marshall Hall, K. C., and Mr. Curtis-Bennett defended Gaskell; Mr. Daniel Warde defended Goodwin.
Moss pleaded guilty to the charges regarding Mash, Johnson, and Ward; not guilty with regard to Wade and Co.
Gaskell and Goodwin were tried on the indictment for feloniously receiving the property of Albert Edward Johnson.
ALBERT EDWARD JOHNSON , son of Albert Edward Johnson. My father's stables are at Hare Walk, Hoxton. On July 29, 1909, at 10 p.m., I locked them securely with the property safe inside. On July 30, at six a.m., I found the stable door open with a skeleton key in the lock, and that a black gelding cob, a gig, three sets of harness, and two lamps were missing. There was other property in the stable. I communicated with the police. On September 6 I went to Macclesfield Police Station and saw all the property stolen except two lamps and a white-lined collar.
Cross-examined. I valued the trap sit about £7; that was the price paid for it second-hand and it had been done up. The gelding was about 12 years old, was bought two years ago at £20 after it had had an accident—it had improved since we bought it and we have been offered £25 for it.
ALBERT EDWARD JOHNSON (senior). My property was stolen on July 30. I value the cob at £25, the cob set of harness at £9, the pony set at £5, and the trotting set at £3; the gig at £7 and the three rugs at £3.
WILLIAM SCARR , sub-foreman L. and N. W. Railway. On July 31 horse and carriage traffic was being sent from Addison Road Railway Station instead of from Euston in view of the August Bank Holiday. On that morning two men brought pony, trap, sack of harness, and bundle of rugs to Addison Road Station and signed note produced in the name of J. Johnson, as the sender of the goods to Gaskell, Macclesfield. I believe Moss was one of the men, the other was a thinner and rather taller man of about 27 or 28 years of age. The articles were dispatched by the 7.25 a.m. train.
Cross-examined. If the goods were not met on arrival they would wait till the consignee called for them. If the wheels are taken off, put in the carriage and sent as goods, the cost of carriage would be less.
Cross-examined. I know Percival as the best veterinary surgeon in Macclesfield. He told me Gaskell had this harness to sell; I went to the "Bull's Head" and Gaskell brought it into the bar, where other people could hear the conversation, and T bought it at a fair price. I have bought harness twice before from Gaskell. He is the landlord of the Bull's Head Hotel, a house much used by farmers and country people; he would have opportunities of dealing in horses, etc. I have known him over two years; I have never heard anything against him.
FREDERICK STANWAY , Macclesfield, coach builder. In the middle of August, 1909, Gaskell employed me to touch up and varnish a gig, which I valued at £5. I saw it in the "Bull's Head" yard. It had rubber tyres.
Cross-examined. I have known Gaskell for about two years as a man of good character and the landlord of the "Bull's Head," which is the second largest hotel in Macclesfield—a commercial hotel. The population of Macclesfield is about 35,000. The "Bull's Head" is frequented by farming and agricultural people; Gaskell would have an opportunity of selling a cob to advantage, and it would be generally known if he had one to sell.
JOSEPH HOBSON , Macclesfield, tripe dresser. On August 28 Gaskell offered me a rubber-tyred gig for £10, which I bought at £9, including lamps but no cushions. In my opinion I gave rather more than it was worth. The police afterwards took possession of it.
Detective-constable DENNIS SPROSTON, Macclesfield Borough police. On September 4 at 9.30 a.m. I saw Gaskell at the "Bull's Head" Hotel. I said to him, "Good morning, Mr. Gaskell. I have called to see you respecting two horses which have been sent to you from Euston Station, London, on Wednesday last. "He replied, "Yes, I did receive two horses and two sets of harness. One of the horses I have sold to Tom Coulton for £7. I had them sent to me by a friend of mine named Goodwin; he is a grocer of Kingston Road, Surrey. "I said, "Can I see the horse and harness you have left?" He said, "Yes, come in the yard. "I went in the stable and there saw a bay gelding and two sets of harness, which answered the description of the stolen property. I said, "What correspondence have you received respecting these horses and harness?" He went into the hotel and brought me five letters produced. I said, "Are these the only communications you have received?" He said, "Yes, except a letter which I received from a man whom I do not know, but who I have since found to be named Bayliss, of 309, East Street, Walworth. He wrote me on Monday last and asked me if I could do with a greengrocer's turnout, to which I answered, 'Yes, if it was all right. "' He also said he had received a letter from Goodwin on the Saturday previous, which would be the last Saturday in August; I asked him to find it, but he said he could not, and that he must have destroyed it. I asked him if he had had any dealings with Bayliss before, and he replied, "No, this is the only transaction. "I have no note of this conversation; I made an official report immediately afterwards; of course, I did not know this conversation would be needed. Gaskell
added that he had known Goodwin, who was a personal friend of his, for about 30 years, and that Goodwin had promised to introduce him to a sheriff's officer some years ago. When he brought out the communications I saw "Bayliss" on the counterfoil of the registered letter; that was how I got to know. He said he supposed Bayliss was the sheriff's officer that had sent these things on. I asked him what price he was going to pay for these horses and harness. He said, "I do not know; I have sent a remittance of £5 in £1 postal orders last night"—that was on account to Bayliss. He showed me the counterfoil of the registered letters and said, "I have asked him to make arrangements to meet me in London on Monday night"—that would be September 6—and he was going to arrange about the price. I then took possession of the horse and the two sets of harness and took it to the Corporation yard. The same day at 11 a.m. I went across according to the Chief Constable's instructions and took from Gaskell a verbatim statement (produced). I did not tell him he need not make a statement unless he liked. I said I had been instructed to come across and take his statement about how he had become possessed of the horses and harness. He said, "Oh, yes," took me into his private room and I took it down word for word as he gave it. It is not signed by Gaskell. He said he had known Goodwin for 30 years, but had had no other transactions with him at all, that Goodwin had promised to introduce him to a sheriff's officer and that he thought Bayliss was the one, that he did not know Bayliss and had never seen him. During my inquiries in this case I find that a cheque had been sent to Goodwin by Gaskell for £10.
Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. The "Bull's Head" is the second largest hotel in Macclesfield and is licensed to Gaskell. It is on the Market Place and is largely used by market people. As far as I know, Gaskell is perfectly respectable and has a fair business. He gave me Goodwin's name and address correctly. I saw the name of Bayliss on the counterfoil and Gaskell said he had only had that one transaction with Bayliss. He gave me correspondence and promised to find the letter he had had from Goodwin; I saw him at 6 p.m. and he said he thought he had destroyed it. The next morning, Sunday, at 10.30, Stevens and I arrested him on suspicion of having committed a felony. He said he was busy. He wanted to make himself tidy, but we did not permit that—we told him he could have anything sent across to the station, which is across the road. His son at once told us Gaskell had sold a gig to Hobson and harness to Weston.
Detective-Sergeant FREDERICK STEVENS, W. Division. On September 5 at 10.30 a.m. I saw Gaskell at the "Bull's Head," Macclesfield. I said, "I am a police officer from London. During the night of August 31 a stable was broken into at Clapham, and two cobs, three sets of harness, and a cart stolen. The cobs and two sets of harness have been found in your possession, and I shall arrest you for receiving them, well knowing them to have been stolen." He said, "Yes, but I did not know they were stolen. I got them from a man named Goodwin, of Wimbledon, whom I have known for about 20 years. He told me he could introduce me to a friend of his who is a sheriffs
officer, who very often grabbed horses, and he could, let me have some horses cheap. "I told him that Goodwin was arrested together with a man named Bayliss, and a man named Moss for stealing the property. He said, "It is the only stuff I have ever had from Goodwin—what you have got. I do not know either of the other men, in fact, I have only heard of one—that is the sheriff's officer." I took him to Macclesfield Borough Police Station, where he was detained. I subsequently went back to the hotel and found two black geldings in the stable, five sets of harness in the passage way in the house covered over with a long curtain, and three rugs in the back parlour. I brought all the property to Macclesfield Borough Police Office and showed it to Gaskell; I also told him that a gig had been recovered from a man named Hobson. He said, "I will tell you the truth about it, I got all this from the same man as the other—Goodwin's friend. "I subsequently searched the house and took possession of a number of documents. I asked him if he had any receipts relating to the purchase of this property. He said, "I never gave or received any, but I always registered the letters when I sent the money away. "I searched the prisoner and found documents produced upon him and in his house. One is" January 13; Dear Sir,—Just a word to say postal order safe, and passed to my friend. He may. have another lot you may do with presently. I think it likely when the cheap trains run he may take a trip to see you"—that is from Goodwin. I obtained a set of trotting harness from Weston which was identified by Johnson. Sproston obtained a gig from Hobson, which was identified by Johnson. I have seen Gaskell write his signature in the prisoner's property book. Requisitions for a telegraph money order for £5 on July 21, payable to T. H. Goodwin, 167, Kingston Road, Merton Park, is in Gaskell's handwriting in my opinion. (Witness identified a large number of documents found on Goodwin as being in Gaskell's handwriting, including the following: "Saturday morning; Dear Goodwin,—Just a hurried line to say I had two (horses and two sets of harness from your friend. I have heard this morning they are all stolen, and the police have all particulars where I sent £5 to East Street on account, also letters I had from him. They may call and see you to know about his character, as I told them I heard of him through you. I am sorry that you ever introduced me to such a character, and can only conclude you must have been taken in on the man, as I know you have always been a straightforward man. I am coming up on Monday by the excursion, and will give you a call.—W. Gaskell." The envelope shows that was posted at 1.15 p.m.
Cross-examined. I saw Sproston for two or three minutes before going to the "Bull's Head. "I had a warrant and intended to arrest Gaskell. The word "grab" was used by Gaskell. He said he had only had one lot of things from Bayliss. He also said he had only had one lot from Goodwin—he said it about both. Several of the documents I took from a file kept in the ordinary way in his house—criminals sometimes do very foolish things. When I produced the sets of harness he at once said they had come from the same man—Goodwin's friend.
Re-examined. I found Gaskell had been buying other traps and harness during the last twelve months. Two of them had been honestly come by. I found he had bought a trap belonging to Wade which was stolen on January 4, also a trap belonging to Ward in the possession of Hobson. There were five sets of harness stolen. (To the Judge.) I had instructions to arrest Gaskell before I left London with regard to receiving property in another case.
Detective-Inspector ALFRED WARD, W Division. On August 31 I received information of the theft of a tradesman's cart from a stable belonging to Nathaniel Mash, greengrocer, High Street, Clapham, during the night. I made inquiries, and on September 4, at 6.30 p.m., saw Goodwin at 167, Kingston Road, Wimbledon, a small general shop. I said, "I am a police officer. Do you know a man named Gaskell?" He said, "No." I cautioned him and said, "Are you quite sure?" He said, "I know a man named Gaskell who lives at Macclesfield." I said, "Have ever you had any dealings with him respecting the buying and selling of horses or traps?" He said, "No." I said, "I understand you have had dealings with him," and he replied, "I have once only. A man named Moss, whom I know as a dealer, came to me about a month ago and told me he had a cob to sell, some harness and a trap, I think. I told him a man named Gaskell could do with it, and Moss told me he would send it on to Gaskell and that he, Moss, would arrange that the money should be sent on to me." I said, "Where does Moss live?" He said, "I do not know." I said, "How did you let him know when you had got the money for the property?" He said, "He called. £5 was sent to me first and £10 after. This I paid over to Moss and received £1 for my share." I then told him I was not satisfied with his statement and should detain him pending inquiries. He then said, "I have known Moss about two years—I know him as a dealer. Gaskell I have known 15 years; he is now a public-house manager at Macclesfield. He asked me should I have any cobs or traps I was to send them on to him, as he could do with them. I have not seen him for four or five years. "I asked if he had got any correspondence. He said, "I have no correspondence. I have destroyed it all." I walked behind the counter of the shop, and as I commenced to search amongst a heap of papers Goodwin pulled out a card (produced) and put it behind him. It looked as if it was put in amongst the pile of papers and he drew it out and put it behind him. I said, "What have you there?" He replied, "Nothing." I took the card from his hand. It is: "September 4. Dear Goodwin, Gaskell will be up on Monday; I have promised to meet him at your shop at two o'clock. "It is addressed to 167, Kingston Road, Merton. I found a lot of other correspondence (produced). I then told Goodwin that I should search his stable. He said, "I have not got one." I said, "I believe you have and I shall have to find it." He then said it was further down the road and accompanied me with other officers to 185, Kingston Road. It is a stable at the rear of some houses. There was a quantity of all kinds of property—half a chest of tea, sugar, desiccated
cocoanut, a coster's barrow, etc. The new Singer sewing machine (produced), No. D37, 508, has since been identified by Messrs. Singer as obtained by a trick by Morgan, for whom a warrant was issued. It has never been used. That was in the loft. I asked Goodwin whose machine it was. He said it was his wife's. I asked him about the coster's barrow. He said Moss had taken it there. The name was partly obliterated. I conveyed Goodwin to Brixton Police Station, where I told him he would probably be charged with Moss and a man named Bayliss (Brown). He said, 'I have only seen Moss once and I do not know who Bayliss is. "On the morning of September 6 Bayliss and he were in the yard for exercise when Goodwin said to me, "Bayliss has been to my place five or six times. I do not think T had better say anything at present, but will tell you later on. "On that day Gaskell had arrived and the four prisoners were charged with stealing and receiving Mash's property and the property of Johnson—a cob, trap, three sets of harness, and three rugs. Goodwin said, "I do not know anything about it. "Moss, pointing to Goodwin, said, "This man knows nothing whatever about it; he is a respectable shopkeeper. "Gaskell said, "I wish to say I did not steal, I did not know the articles were stolen, and I have never seen the cart that is charged there"—that would be Mash's cart; that would be perfectly true; he had not seen that because that was found somewhere else. He did not mention the name of Mash, but that is what he meant. Brown made no reply. I found at Goodwin's shop four letters from Gaskell and one from "J. W."—that is Moss, who is known as Williams. I found also seven letters from Gaskell, two or three signed by him, all in the same handwriting. Goodwin's son handed me post-card headed "Saturday morning. "There is no one called Johnson residing in Fraill Street, Croydon.
Cross-examined by Mr. Warde. Goodwin's shop is a small general grocer's and provision dealer's containing a very large quantity of stock. Goodwin never told me he had seen Gaskell the previous summer. The post-card would have been delivered by four o'clock. It was amongst other papers—I do not say it was hidden. Goodwin's stable was apparently used as a store. The desiccated cocoanut Goodwin said Moss had brought there. The sewing machine was obtained from Singer's in June.
DENNIS SPROSTON , recalled. I saw Gaskell on Saturday, September 4, first at 9.30 a.m., when Bayliss's and Goodwin's names were mentioned and when I took possession of the documents. I asked Gaskell not to communicate with Goodwin or Bayliss or anyone in London; he promised me not to do so; that would be about 10 a.m.
Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. I first mentioned this in court on hearing the post-card read, which I had never heard of before. I did not state this before the magistrate. I asked Gaskell privately not to communicate with London. It was when I took his statement at about 10.30 a.m. The post left after that.
Sergeant CHARLES HAWKINS, W Division. On September 5, 1909, I arrested Moss in his room at 51, Ladysmith Buildings, New Kent Road. I found there a piece of blotting paper (produced) bearing the
name of "Gaskell, 'Bull's Head,' Macclesfield," two or three times. Request for telegraphic money order (produced) is in Gaskell's handwriting; receipt signed "T. H. Goodwin" is in Goodwin's handwriting. (Witness stated that a number of letters found at Gaskell's hotel were in the handwriting of Goodwin.)
Detective-inspector JOSEPH MERRIGAN, New Scotland Yard. I know Moss's handwriting. Post-card, signed "J. W. Moss," three telegrams, in the name of Bayliss, a number of letters signed "Goodwin friend," a number of postal orders and two labels, letter to Goodwin signed "J. W.," the signature "J. Johnson" to consignment note, signature of Johnson on way bill of July 30 and way bill of January 4, 1908 (should be 1909), and two other letters signed "J. W." (produced) are all in Moss's handwriting, in my opinion. I have known Moss by the name of Williams.
FRANK HENRY HOLLAMBY , clerk in the Accountant General's Department, G. P.O. I produce from the custody of the G. P.O. the original telegrams, postal orders, requisition, and receipt for telegraphic money order which have been produced in this case.
Sergeant CHARLES HENRY GOOOIN, W. Division. On October 2 I went with Sergeant Stevens to 167, Kingston Road. As we were leaving the shop Goodwin said to me, "I do not quite understand what you mean about the sewing machine, but Bayliss brought it here; he told me it was his and I gave him £2 for it."
Cross-examined by Mr. Warde. He did not say he lent Bayliss £2 on it.
(Wednesday, October 20.)
HENRY DAVIS , head stableman to Wade and Co., Ltd., Station Road, Walworth. On December 28, 1908, my employers had a Ralli car in the stable—the cushions, back seat, and the lamps I had at home. On January 5, 1909, I went to the stable, found it had been entered with a key and the Ralli car stolen. It was brought back on September 24—the wing had been straightened and the monogram taken out; it was not my employers' monogram.
PERCY WELLS , sub-foreman, Euston Railway Station. On January 4, 1909, a two-wheeled trap was dispatched by consignment note (produced) signed "S. Johnson, for Mr. Williams, 10, Fraill Road, Croydon," to Gaskell, Bull's Head Hotel, Macclesfield. Receipt, Hated January 6, 1909, by George Turner for £2 19s. from Mr. Gaskell is the kind of receipt given by my company for the carriage.
FRANK STAN WAY , recalled. In March last I saw a Ralli car without back seat, lamps or foot rest in the yard of the "Bull's Head," and at Gaskell's request I supplied the deficiency, for which he paid me £2 4s. I removed the crest and painted over the place where it had been. Gaskell asked me its value, which I put at £15 before the additions. It was an old car.
Cross-examined. This being a second-hand car, it is quite usual to erase the crest—any one driving it with the crest on would be liable to pay the duty for armorial bearings. I did not supply, the mats or lamps—Gaskell supplied them.
ARTHUR STANLEY BOWER , Lower Wellington, Chelford, near Macclesfield, farmer. About the middle of March I saw a Ralli car in Gaskell's yard for sale, and offered £25 or £25 10s.; Gaskell would not take less than £30; a fortnight afterwards I bought it for £27. It was afterwards given up to the police.
Cross-examined. A man named Wood told me the car was for sale. I only paid £2 deposit on the purchase. The "Bull's Head" is one of the biggest hotels in Macclesfield.
THOMAS WARD , 70, Deacon Street, Walworth, butcher. I have a stable at the rear of 109, Walworth Road, which on August 24 was locked up with my horse, set of harness, two vans, and a trap safe inside. The next morning between 5 and 6 a.m. I found the padlock had been removed, and my cob and set of (harness stolen. On September 8 I went to Macclesfield and found the cob and harness in the possession of the police. The cob was eight years old; I bought it 18 months ago for 30 guineas with a warranty. I had had the harness about a year and given £6 for it.
Cross-examined. I had no receipts. The cob was 14 hands high. The harness was made for me in Goswell Road.
WILLIAM SCARR recalled. On August 25 a horse was brought to Euston Station by two men, and consigned to Gaskell of Macclesfield by the 7.10 a.m. train by J. Johnson of East Street, Croydon. I believed Moss signed the consignment note.
WILLIAM WHITE , carman to Nathaniel Mash, 30, High Street, Clapham, greengrocer. Our stable is in a railway arch at Clapham. On August 31, 1909, at 7 p.m. it was safely fastened. The next morning at 4.30 a.m. I went to the stable and found that a bay gelding, a chestnut gelding, a tradesman's cart and three sets of harness were stolen. The door was locked as I had left it. It must have been opened by a false key. We bad only two keys, one kept by me and the other by Mr. Mash. On September 4 I went to Macclesfield, found the two horses and two sets of harness in the possession of the police and brought them to London on September 6, when I found the cart and the other set of 'harness had been brought back.
NATHANIEL MASH , 30, High Street, Clapham, fruiterer. On August 31 I had a cob, pony, cart, and three sets of harness stolen from my stable. The cart and one set of harness were brought back the same day. I had had the bay cob about two months, and had given £23 for it, which was a low price. The chestnut pony I bought six months ago for £11, which was its full value. I had bought one set of harness at £9 or £10 nine months ago; it was worth about £5 or £6 to sell; another set was bought second-hand at £4 with the cob, which was its value. The third set, which was 'brought back, was old and worth very little.
Cross-examined. I consider £7 a fair price for the cob. I have known Gaskell for some time as the landlord of the "Bull's Head"; he frequently deals in horses, carts, and harness; a great many people
come to his house. I told Gaskell the horse had been seized by the police, and he has repaid me the £7.
PERCY WELLS recalled. On September 1 two horses were brought to Euston Station and consigned by the 7.10 a.m. train to Gaskell of Macclesfield by Henry Johnson, East Street, Croydon. The consignment note was signed "J. Johnson" by the prisoner Moss.
CHARLES GOOGIN recalled. On September 1 I received information of the robbery from Mash and went to a yard at the rear of 17a, Marlborough Road, Old Kent Road, where I took possession of a twowheeled cart and set of harness, which was returned to Mash and identified by him.
WILLIAM EDWAED PAYLEE , canvasser and collector for Singer's Sewing Machine Company, Limited, Newington Causeway. In April, 1909, I leased to Norton under agreement produced sewing machine No. V. 37,506 (produced) found in the possession of Goodwin. It was to be paid by deposit of 3s. and 1s. 6d. a week. The machine was delivered at Norton's flat, 75d, Station Road, Camberwell. I called for payment and found the flat empty, and have not seen Norton since.
Cross-examined. Any payment that had been made would have been received by me. I did not deliver the machine. I was introduced to Norton in the Walworth Road, made an appointment and saw him at his flat. After the machine was delivered I found that he had gone removing his furniture and the machine. He made me an appointment to pay me the 3s., but he never turned up.
Cross-examined. I delivered the machine to a lady with a child in her arms. She signed receipt produced with my pencil, "Mrs. Martin," and I witnessed the signature.
WILLIAM HARRIS , carman to A. R. Carpenter. On June 15, 1909, I was in charge of a one-horse van containing tins and glasses of preserved' meat. I called at the (Treat Western Railway Office, Borough High Street, for about two or three minutes when my van and contents was stolen. William Jones gave me some information, and I communicated with the police.
AUGUSTUS ROBERT CARPENTER , Sutherland Place, Walworth, preserved meat manufacturer. On June 15, the last witness took out one of my vans containing amongst other things, glasses and tins of preserved meat to the value of £18, which were stolen. On September 27 I went with police officers to Goodwin's shop, 167, Kingston Road, Wimbledon, where I saw 123 glasses and tins of preserved meat similar to those missing; there were in the stolen van 19 dozen. I identify glasses and tins produced as my manufacture bearing my name. In Goodwin's shop prices lower than my wholesale price were put upon three glasses—a breakfast tongue, which we sell at 1s. 2d., was marked 1s.—the retail price would be about 1s. 6.; a glass of brawn was marked 8 1/2 d.—our price is 9d. and the retail price 1s. A Galantine was marked 1s. 3d.—our price is 1s. 4d.; retail price 1s. 10d. to
2s. I have never dealt with Goodwin. One of my travellers informed me the goods were marked at these low prices in his shop.
Cross-examined by Mr. Warde. I do a large business—up to 20,000 packages a year. I cannot say the articles found at Goodwin's were those in the van—they were the same class of goods. Our goods are sometimes sold by auction from grocers who have become bankrupt, but not generally perishable goods. In the stolen vans were 12 open tins of brawn, which would not keep longer than a weeksimilar empty tins were found. We sell many goods for cash without entries appearing in our books. The goods were openly exposed, some in the window and counter of Goodwin's shop, and some in the room behind.
Re-examined. There were 12 open tins of brawn in the van; 12 empty tins exactly corresponding were found at Goodwin's.
CHARLES HAWKINS , recalled. On September 25, at 11.30 a.m., I was at Goodwin's shop with Carpenter. I said to Goodwin, pointing to the property, "Mr. Carpenter has identified this property as his which was stolen in the Borough. Do you wish to give any explanation how you came in possession of it?" He said, "Moss brought it here and I bought it. I thought he got it from a sale. He is a bad lot to get me into this. "I said, You will be charged with receiving the goods, well knowing it was stolen." He said, "I did not know it was stolen—I am very sorry."
Cross-examined by Mr. Warde. Goodwin had been arrested and remanded on bail for three weeks. I had been to the shop, but I had not seen Carpenter's goods to take notice of them. There were tons of stuff there—it was a well-stocked place.
Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. I should not say Goodwin does a large business. It is a small shop but well stocked with sugar, tea, soap, soda, etc., all mixed up together.
Mr. Marshall Hall submitted that there was no case against Gaskell, and that there was no proper evidence of identity of the articles stolen from Johnson.
The Recorder held that there was abundant evidence of identity for the Jury.
Mr. Warde submitted that there was no evidence that any portion of Johnson's property passed into Goodwin's possession.
The Recorder ruled that there was sufficient evidence that Goodwin was an accessory before the fact.
Mr. Warde submitted that, Goodwin not being arraigned for the larceny, there was no evidence of his being an accessory before the fact to the felonious receiving by Gaskell.
Mr. Muir pointed out that the law was quite general—if any person aids, abets, counsels, or procures another to commit a felony, under the Accessories and Abettors Act, 1861, he can be indicted and dealt with as a principal.
Held that there was a case for the Jury.
FRANK CECIL HENSON , clerk to Sir Henry White, Great Marlborough Street, solicitor; JAMES MCCLEARY, Macclesfield, boot and shoe manufacturer; WILLIAM ALFRED JONES, 24, Mark Lane, E. C., manager British Trade Journal; WILLIAM WOOLDRIDGE, surveyor to the L. and S. W. Railway; GILBERT OXON WHITE, coal merchant; JOHN BENNETT, Love Lane, Eastcheap, fishmonger; and HARRY PERCIVAL, Macclesfield, veterinary surgeon, gave evidence to the character of Gaskell as an honest and upright man.
WILLIAM GASKELL (prisoner, on oath). I have been the licensee for two and a half years of the "Bull's Head Hotel," Macclesfield; I was formerly manager and am now tenant of Ind, Coope and Company, Burton. I previously carried on business for some years at Sandbach, Cheshire, as grocer and confectioner; before that I was commercial traveller for Teetgen and Co., Ltd. I lived at Wimbledon, where I married a Miss Wynne, through whose parents I became acquainted with Goodwin about 20 years ago. He has been 23 years in his present shop and I travelled for him. I have always known Goodwin as honest and respectable. In August, 1908, I was staying for a short holiday at Wimbledon with my wife's parents and called on Goodwin. My hotel is the second largest in Macclesfield, with stabling for 40 or 50 horses, is much used by farmers; the stables are full up every Saturday and I have had considerable dealings in traps and harness. When in London Goodwin asked me if I could do with goods seized by the sheriff's officer. He said the goods so seized were sold by public auction and generally a friend of the sheriff's officer was present to buy them in. I told him I could do with traps, harness and that style of goods as such articles were largely dealt in at my hotel on market days. Goodwin told me that the friend of the sheriff's officer bought the goods at a knock out price, that no names were mentioned. In January, 1909, I had a letter from Goodwin to which my letter of January 4 is an answer asking him to send the Ralli car, which arrived on January 6. Receipt for £2 19s. is for the carriage. That was the first transaction. I paid Goodwin £3 and afterwards £7 for the car; kept it for some months and had it fitted with a back seat and one back and two front cushions; I bought two lamps, indiarubber mats and a footrest, and in March I sold it to Bower for £27. It remained on my premises in a perfectly open way and was offered to anyone likely to purchase who came in. Stanway valued it at £15 before anything was spent on it. I wrote to Goodwin telling him to put the wheels inside a trap and send it by goods train as the carriage is about onefourth. I offered that Ralli car to Mr. Alderman Pickford's son, the manager of the local branch of Ind, Coope and Co., and to others. The next transaction was a pony and gig received on February 1. I showed that to several people who objected to its shape. I had never seen Moss or known anyone by that name until I saw him at the police-court. On July 27 I had a letter from "Goodwin's friend" stating that he had a pony, gig, harness, etc., for sale and I telegraphed to
Goodwin saying I could do with the lot and wrote letter produced. No price was offered until I had seen the goods. If I had not liked them I should have sent them back. The goods arrived late at night; I took the pony to my stable and left the gig until the next morning at the station. I had a telegram asking for money and sent £5 bytelegraphic money order to Goodwin and afterwards paid him £15; the carriage was £5 18s. 6d., making £25 18s. 6d. I sold the gig for £9 to Hobson on August 28; one set of harness I sold to Weston for £3 3s., including a pair of reins, which I supplied, value 12s. I did not sell the cob, the other harness or the rugs, but used them and they were on the premises when the police came in September. Percival valued the cob at £12, I made a profit on that deal of £3 or £4. The first transaction I had with Bayliss was a cob and set of harness alleged to have been stolen from Ward. I had a letter in the name of "Goodwin's friend"; I naturally concluded he was the sheriff's officer's friend. I received telegram of August 25, "Sent goods. Please send money at once to this address—Bayliss, 309, East Street, Walworth. Registered letter to follow. Goodwin's. friend." The cob arrived in a loose box; I paid £3 8s. 3d. for carriage on August 30, forwarded £5 to 309, East Street, Walworth, and a further £5 to 309, East Street, in reply to letter produced signed "Goodwin's friend. "The cob remained at my place until the police came. I had no idea it was stolen. I afterwards received letter dated" Saturday morning" (August 28) offering another lot—cob, cart, etc., which I accepted by telegram (produced). On September 1 two cobs arrived instead of one, but no cart. The railway foreman brought them up and said they were for me. I told him I only expected one cart, one cob, and a set of harness, but that I supposed the sheriff's officer had sent the two horses, as they would come at a reduced rate in one box. On September 3 I received telegram from Walworth Road, "Gaskell, did you get goods all right? Send money what they are worth. Wire back." I wrote on September 4 enclosing £5 on account, stating that I was coming up to town for a few days' holiday and making an appointment to meet the sheriff's officer and settle the price. I had never seen Bayliss or Moss. I paid £4 11s. carriage. After writing that letter Sproston called on me—his account of what took place is accurate. The next day I sold one of the ponies to Tom Coulton for £7; the other was valued by Percival at £8. Sproston came about 10 a.m. on Saturday. It was market day and I was very busy. He said, "Have you had two horses sent to you from London?" I said "Yes" and took him up the yard, showed him the bay horse and said, "The chestnut I have sold to Tom Coulton; it is running about the town—I can easily get it for you. What is the matter?" He said, "I am sorry to say these two horses are stolen." He took the horse and harness to the police station. That was the first intimation I had that these things were improperly come by. After Sproston had left I wrote letter produced bearing postmark 1.15 p.m. to Goodwin. Sproston had not then asked me not to communicate with London. I do not remember him making that request, but it was a very busy morning and I may not have noticed.
I posted the letter myself soon after 10 a.m. at Chesterton post office. I believe the post leaves there at about 12. Sproston afterwards came back and asked me if I knew where the horses had come from. I said, "Yes; I have only lately had any communications from this address—it is very fortunate that I have got the address. "He asked me if I had any other communications. I said, "Yes, I will get what I have." I handed them to him and said, "I believe I have some more communications. I will hunt them up during the day. I have kept all the communications I have received except that I may have accidentally destroyed one or two. "Sproston asked me how long I had known Goodwin. I told him "20 years"—not 30 years. He asked me where these goods came from. I said, "From a friend of Goodwin's"—not "from Goodwin." He said, "Do you know his address?" I said "Yes," and handed him the letters. I said, "Goodwin's friend, I believe, is a sheriff's officer." I told him about the £5 and that I had some telegrams and letters. He took down a statement from me, but I did not take particular notice what he said as it was a busy morning and I had to keep running in and out of the commercial room. I never dreamt I should be brought into anything of this kind. At that time there was no suggestion that the other goods I had received were stolen. Sproston left and I promised to search for any other communications I had received. Early on Sunday, September 5, Sproston came with Stevens as I was sitting at breakfast with my wife, having been very busy with a breakfast for an excursion party. Stevens said, "I am a detective from the Criminal Investigation Department. I have come down to arrest you for receiving two horses and two sets of harness, knowing them to be stolen. "I said, "I suppose you will allow me to just tidy myself?" being in deshabille after this party. He said, "You cannot move. Have you got anything about you? Hold your hands up." I held my hands up and he went through my pockets. They refused to allow me to have a cup of milk and took me to the station. I never told Stevens that Goodwin's friend was a man who "grabbed" horses. I never said, "This is the only stuff I have had from Goodwin." At Macclesfield police station I was asked by Stevens, "Have you had two black cobs and some harness?" I said, "Yes, I have two black cobs and I believe three or four sets of harness." Later on he came over with the harness. I immediately picked out one set of harness marked "W. G." that was mine and which I had bought from Viger, of Wimbledon, with a trap. He said, "Is that little trap of Hobson's which your son has told me about the one that came down with the same turnout?" I said "Yes." He said, "Also a set of harness that has been recovered from Weston?" I said "Yes." I found out afterwards that my son and my man had told him about them. There was no secret about it. With the exception of the goods bought from Goodwin or Goodwin's friend there is nothing whatever on my premises which can be suggested to have been stolen. I bought from Goodwin seven bottles of champagne and three bottles of Koosh bitters for 27s. 6d., I had correspondence with Goodwin about a keg of brandy, but I refused to have anything to do with it as there was no
excise permit to move it. Before the police visited me I had no idea, that any of the goods sent by or through Goodwin were stolen or that Goodwin was other than a respectable man. The articles came down openly to me and were shown to dozens of people; I drove them about the town. There was no secret whatever about anything at all.
Cross-examined by Mr. Warde. Goodwin told me the person I received the goods from was someone buying at a sheriff's sale connected with a sheriffs officer. No one else was present when that conversation took place. I have written letters to Goodwin saying I was open to buy horses or traps. I once had a side commission for Goodwin while travelling for another firm. I first sent money to Goodwin in January, when I sent £3 and £7 in postal orders, the counterfoils of which were on my premises. Any money I sent him was to be handed over to the person with whom I was doing the business; I do not know that he had any benefit from it; he had no commission from me. I sent him £20 altogether in the second case.
Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I am an undischarged bankrupt. I did not take particular notice of the handwriting of Goodwin's friend. I see he spells Goodwin as "Godwin," and that he writes "I" with a small "i"—he was naturally a very illiterate man. I did not notice that it was a gross fraud on the public for the friend of the sheriff's officer to buy the goods at a knock-out price. The price I paid was the fair value. Letter of January 4 is signed "J. W."—I suppose it would be Johnson who had sent me the goods. Several labels with Johnson's name on were found at my hotel. It did not excite my curiosity that the person sending the goods was Johnson. On May 3, 1909, I wrote: "Dear Goodwin,—I have just received a letter from your friend to know if I could do with a quarter cask of brandy. Of course, I do not know the quality or strength. He said he would put it in a soda cask, but I think it would be very risky on the railway, as any one would know a soda cask would not contain fluid, and, of course, not having a permit there might be trouble if they happened to sample it, as they are very particular. Of course, if it was case goods it is different. "I certainly did not think that was stolen property; I naturally thought it was something seized by the sheriff's officer. I went on corresponding with Goodwin because I trusted he would never be associated with bad characters. Letter of July 8, 1909, "Dear Goodwin,—Goods arrived safe," refers to some bottles of wine for which I sent 27s. 6d., which is mentioned in a letter. If that letter is dated April 22, I cannot say what goods are referred to. On July 30 I received a letter from Johnson: "Just a hurried line. I have just received a wire asking for some cash. Goods coming on. Please send some money to Goodwin till after holidays.—Johnson. "I naturally concluded Johnson was the sheriff's officer—a man who signed "J. W." Telegram to me: "Sent goods. Send money at once this address, Bayliss, 309, East Street, Walworth," refers tothe first transaction I had with Bayliss. I concluded he was the sheriff's officer, because he had written me in the name of Goodwin's friend about Ward's cob coming down; then I got a telegram from
Johnson and then a letter from Bayliss; then I sent £5 to Goodwin for Bayliss. A label found in my possession showed that the goods came from Johnson. I did not ask Goodwin for an explanation about this gentleman with so many names; I had no idea but that I was dealing with a straightforward man. The letter says: "Dear Gaskell,—Just a line to let you know I sent you a very nice cob and harness worth about £25, but if you send me £10 I think you will get yourself a day's work." Percival valued the cob at £15. I paid £10 and £3 odd for carriage, getting in addition the harness. It did not strike me as curious that a man I had never seen in my life addressed me as "-Dear Gaskell." I never sent Goodwin £1 as his share. Letter produced: "Dear Goodwin,—I wrote to Gaskell and asked him to send me £1, and I asked him about another cob, so if he writes to you let me know what he says.—J. W."—is in similar handwriting. He never wrote to me about that. (To the Judge.) I never asked Goodwin why his friend could not dispose of this property in London. Such things are sold at better prices in Macclesfield. (To Mr. Muir.) On July 28 I wrote to Goodwin that his friend should take the wheels off and send by goods train, "unless he wants to send it straight away." I thought the sheriff's officer might have no place to store things and that he might have a difficulty in getting the wheels taken off at a place like Euston. The conversation about the sheriff's officer was in August, 1908. Goodwin asked me if I could do with any goods seized by the sheriff's officer. I said the only things I could do with down in our neighbourhood would be horses, traps, etc. He then told me that all goods were sold under the hammer by the sheriff's officer, and he generally had a friend present who practically knew the upset price, who bid a little over, and they were generally knocked down before anybody else had a chance. That did not strike me as a fraud, because I have seen the same thing done in my town. I was to pay the sheriff's officer through Goodwin, because he did not disclose his name and I could not get an invoice or receipt. On April 22 I wrote to Goodwin sending 27s. 6d. for the wine, and asking for a sample of tea, which he sent me. I have received ox tongues in tins from Goodwin. I had had goods from Goodwin's friend in January, when I received the trap and Johnson's turn-out. I did not mention these things to Sproston because he only asked me about Mash's goods.
Re-examined. The first two payments were made to Goodwin direct. In the third transaction the name of Bayliss was given and money was sent to East Street. When carrying on a confectioner's business in Cheshire I had three deaths and very serious losses, and had to file an assignment. I offered a composition, which was accepted by all my creditors except my landlord. There was no concealment of the fact that I was an undischarged bankrupt; Macclesfield is only 18 miles from Sandbach and everybody knows me. I never applied for my discharge and have been trying to earn an honest living. My bankruptcy was five years ago.
the whole of which premises are used for the business, together with a stable, which is used as a store, close by. I am 53 years of age, am married, and have seven children. I have been 23 years in business at 167, Kingston Road. Until arrested in this case I have never had any charge brought against me. I have known Gaskell about 15 years; he was a traveller for Teetgen and Co., and for a short time travelled for me about 14 years ago. I used to supply small shops. I had seen very little of Gaskell and had no business transactions with him for 13 or 14 years until he called upon me in the summer of 1908 in a friendly way, had a chat and left. Nothing was said about a sheriff's officer—I have never been acquainted or associated with one or with a friend of one who attended sales and bought goods at a knock-out price. I never told Gaskell or anyone else such a story. I have known Moss about two years through selling him empty boxes, etc., such as grocers sell. He told me he was a dealer and paid for what he had. In the early part of January, 1909, he called, told me he had a trap for sale, and asked me if I knew anyone who could buy it. I gave him Gaskell's name and address in Macclesfield and wrote and told Gaskell what I had done. I mentioned that Moss was a dealer. I received letter of January 14, 1909, from Gaskell enclosing £3, which I handed to Moss; I did not receive the further £7. I next received letter of February 1 from Gaskell: "Just a line to let you know if your friend should hear of a trap. "I took no notice of that letter, not seeing Moss for a day or two. I received letter of April 7 from Gaskell, "Should your friend be able to hear of a trap. "I had nothing to do with the sale of any of these traps. I did not know there were any sales. I never got anything out of any of the sales. In April I bought eight bottles of wine from Moss at 3s. a bottle. One I took over to my wife; it was cheap champagne and she did not like it, and (told me to get rid of it, so I wrote Gaskell that I had seven bottles for sale. About that time I bought at a grocer's sale at Wellington sardines, a pair of scales, four bottles of bitters, tickets, and a few odd things. I sent Gaskell seven bottles of wine, three bottles of bitters, and I think a sample of tea. I received 27s. 6d. from him. I received the letter referring to the brandy. I had nothing to do with putting it in a soda cask and took no further notice of the matter. Before being charged I had no knowledge that four or five traps, horses, etc., had been sent to Gaskell by Moss. I introduced Moss to Gaskell in January, and then just before August Bank Holiday he requested that I should have the money sent to me on account of it being Bank Holiday; that is all I know about it. It was the laugh of my neighbourhood when I was charged with stealing horses. Moss represented himself as a dealer, said he attended auction sales, and offered me the tins and glasses of Carpenter's meat which he said he had bought at an auction. I paid him 5s. a dozen for the small glasses and 2s. each for the large tins; they had been knocked about and exposed for sale: it was a good price. I sent some to Gaskell at 28. a tin, I paying the carriage; the remainder I had in my shop
on the counter, on the shelves, and in the window; they remained in my shop exposed for sale for three weeks after my arrest. At the end of July, 1909, Moss told me he had written to Gaskell and offered him a cart, pony, and harness, and, it being holiday time, would I allow the money to be sent to me; he told me he was a dealer, and I naturally concluded he had bought them at auction. I received £5 from Gaskell and passed it to Moss, and £10 afterwards, which I paid to Moss, and he gave me £1 out of it; that is the only money I received out of any of these transactions. I had nothing to do with the robbery at Ward's premises. All the letters I received from Gaskell were in the shop when I was arrested. A post-card had been delivered a few minutes when the officers came in and it was put with other papers on the counter. I picked it up and was about to give it to the officer. I did not know what it referred to. I did not understand its contents and did not try to conceal it. I had never read it properly—I had not read it at all. I only knew Moss by that name; he had never written to me as Wilson or "J. W." I took the "J. W." on card produced to be "J. M." I thought it was Moss's writing. Bayliss (Brown) used to come to my shop with Moss as his odd man. Bayliss came to me and wanted to borrow money—£2. I told him I could not lend it; he said if he brought his wife's sewing machine would I lend him £2 on that, which I did. That was some months before my arrest; the machine has been in my stable ever since; I have never attempted to sell it or deal with it, because it was not mine. I said to the officer it was my wife's because I had shown it to her and she wanted me to let her have it.
Cross-examined by Mr. Marshall Hall. What Gaskell has said with regard to the sheriff's officer is not true.—I had no conversation about it. I say he is mistaken. I have known Gaskell for many years and believe him to be a respectable man. Moss was respectable so far as I knew; he had always been honourable in the transactions with me. Gaskell had told me he could deal in horses and traps—I did not tell him it would be worth his while to buy them from Moss—that he got them cheap. I never told him the things were bought at sheriffs' auctions at forced sales. I know that there are such sales and that property is sold cheap at forced sales. Post-card produce is marked "S. E. Dist., 1.15 a.m." It was delivered to me at tea-time, while I was sitting down to have a cup of tea. Gaskell did not pay me £15 in addition to the £5; he paid me only £10. I do not remember writing to Gaskell to ask if he could do with a ralli car—looking at letter produced, I have no doubt I did. Moss was the man who had the set of wheels mentioned in that letter. I did not know that in all these transactions Moss was passing as "Goodwin's friend." (Exhibit read in which Gaskell acknowledges Goodwin's wire that the goods had been sent.) At any rate I introduced this man Moss to Gaskell believing him to be a thoroughly honest man. I did not give Gaskell any inducement to deal with him. (Further letter read.) Moss offered me the things for sale. I did not know who Johnson was.
Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. I have only known Moss by the name of "Moss." Brown I knew as "Bayliss." Letter produced is in Moss's handwriting: "Dear Goodwin,—I wrote to Gaskell and asked him to send you £1, and I asked him about another cob. So if he writes to you let me know what he says.—I remain yours truly, J. W." I take "J. W." to be J. M.—it is "J. W." no doubt. I did not know Moss by the name of Williams. He lived at 51, Ladysmith Buildings. I had a note of his address (produced). It is "Mr. Williams. "I did not know him as Williams. I may have heard that once—he may have passed by the name of Williams, but not to my recollection. Bayliss was the only one of Moss's friends I knew. I have heard of Pardy. Letter produced is from him to me. "Mr. Goodwin,—Will you be so kind as to send me 10s. worth of bacon, tea and sugar, as the game is very bad?" I do not know what was "the game." I knew Pardy as Moss's friend. I did not know that Pardy and Moss were convicted for warehouse breaking in September, 1903. Letter produced is from Gibbs, a carman employed at Robinson's jam factory to me. "Catford, November 6, 1906. Dear Sir,—I am just writing a few lines to ask if you would do me the grea, kindness of giving me a two years' driving reference"—he had never been employed by me—"after I had left Robinson's jam factory I went on at Pink's; I was only there one month, and the character is no good. One of the boys at Robinson's went and put me away, and told them everything about what I used to sell you, and now they will not give me only a bad reference." I only bought of Gibbs a few empty jars. I thought he had a right to sell them. I did not give him a reference, and have never heard of him since. Card produced is in my handwriting containing address of "W. Morgan"; he was employed by Pink's as carman, and with another of their employees was convicted of larceny. I am an agent for the London and Lancashire Fire Insurance Company, and I have a great many addresses of people who may get insured, including the addresses of Stern and Dobson, who may have been discharged by Pink's on suspicion of committing larceny. I do not remember who wrote document produced. "Rotherhithe, S. E. Dear Sir,—I have got six boxes of best sultanas—can you give 2d. a pound; five quarter-gross boxes of 3d. Lifebuoy soap at 6s. each. Please answer soon.—Yours truly, J. R." I do not remember who wrote letter produced. "Dear Friend,—I have got three cases of salmon if you can do with them.—Yours, J. R. Answer at once as I am short of cash and must sell at once." Lifebuoy soap is manufactured by Lever Brothers. I do not Tememiber having the address of one of their carmen. I had Carpenter's goods in the early part of July. Letters produced, dated June 23, is from me to Gaskell. I wrote directly I received them. I told Inspector Ward on September 4 that I did not know a man named Gaskell. I thought he meant in the neighbourhood. I said afterwards that I knew Gaskell at Macclesfield, and that I had had one transaction only with him. That was the best explanation I could give.
Mr. Warde again submitted that, Gaskell and Goodwin being jointly indicted in the third count for feloniously receiving Johnson's goods, there was no evidence of possession or constructive possession of the goods, the subject matter of the indictment.
The Recorder held that under the Accessories and Abettors Act there was no necessity for such evidence. There was evidence that Goodwin was concerned as an accessory before the fact, and this was sufficient under section one of the Act (R. V. Smith, L. R., 1 C. C.R., p. 266; R. V. Oddy, 2 Denison, p. 264).
JOHN EDWARD NAYLOR , Acton Park, commercial traveller; CHARLES WILLIAM GOFE, 81, Hamilton Road, Wimbledon, retired broker; BENJAMIN THOMAS KING, 165, Queen Victoria Street, consulting engineer and chartered patent agent; WILLIAM JAMES, 68, Do Quex Road, Wimlbledon, removal contractor; WALTER SMITH, 111, Kingston Road, Wimbledon, corn merchant; and SYDNEY GEORGE TENNISWOOD, 52, Kingston Road, Merton, laundryman, gave evidence of character for Goodwin.
Verdict (Gaskell and Goodwin), Guilty.
The further, indictment against Brown, Goodwin, and Gaskell was postponed to the second day of next Sessions. Sentence postponed. Brown was admitted to bail on the recognisances of himself and his sister, Louisa Sullivan, in £25 each
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Tuesday, October 19.)
Mr. Eustace Fulton prosecuted; Mr. Purcell defended.
MARY ELIZABETH SWAYNE , a sister at the operating theatre, St. Mary's Hospital. On July 31 I sent by Carter, Paterson and Co. a trunk addressed M. Swayne, c/o Mrs. Chalon, 5, Cadogan Road, Hillmartin Road, Holloway. The trunk contained clothing of the value of £45. I put on it two labels, which I addressed myself.
ARTHUR SPALDING , 20, Ashburton Grove, Holloway, carman in the employ of Carter, Paterson and Co. On July 31 I received from St. Mary's Hospital a trunk addressed "Swayne. "In the ordinary course of my duty I took it to the High Holborn depot and called out the name and address to checker Arthur Baggs. Having done that my connection with it ceased. The trunk would then be taken from my van and placed in its proper bank.
Cross-examined. At High Holborn there is one long bank, different parts of which are used for the deposit of baggage going to different depots. July 31 being the Saturday before Bank Holiday was an
exceedingly busy day for Carter, Paterson, and altogether there would be at the bank perhaps 14 or 15 vans loading and unloading. The drivers have nothing to do with the loading or unloading. Besides the driver and boy there is a loader or unloader of each van, and there are truckers, checkers, and porters, in all I dare say between 20 and 30 men. I call the names and addresses on the labels to the checker, who writes them down. I should have perhaps 30 parcels on my van. I have never known a checker make a mistake.
ARTHUR BAGGS , checker, employed by Carter, Paterson at the High Holborn depot. On July 31 I was checker for last witness. The sheet produced is the one on which I wrote. It has upon it the name "Swayne. "That is the only connection I have with the packages. I do not see the packages at all. I do not see what is written on the labels. After being checked the package goes to another bank. This one would, in fact, have gone to the Goswell Road bank.
Cross-examined. The carman unloads the parcels on his cart and they are stacked on the bank and would remain there some minutes until the porter takes them to the right part of the bank. On a busy day they would remain there five or ten minutes or even longer. There are twelve parts of the bank and the porters would have to distribute the parcels according to the different depots.
WILLIAM FRANCIS RAINIER , loader at the High Holborn depot. It is my duty to call out to the checker the particulars I find on the label of a package. My only source of information is the label. On July 31 prisoner was acting as checker. The sheet produced is the one which was made up by the prisoner. I see upon the sheet the name "Morris Isling."(Islington). It appears to have been written over another name. I cannot make out exactly what the other name is, but you can see there is another name underneath; it appears to be Swayne. When that van was finished loading I should go and load the next van. The sheet which the checker had made up would be put inside the van for the carman to take with him, and according to the entries on the sheet he would make his deliveries.
Cross-examined. I should not myself move the parcels from one part of the bank to another. They would be brought to me by a porter. If a porter took a package to a wrong bank the mistake would be at once found out. In the case of a mistake in the sheet the checker should make the correction over the top. I do not know that prisoner has been eight years in the Army. After the loading the carman clears out with the van as quickly as possible. I have three vans to look after and as soon as I have finished one van I go on to another. When the porter brings the parcels there is not always a checker ready, and they might remain on the bank perhaps 20 minutes before being dealt with, or even longer on the Saturday before Bank Holiday. While prisoner was checking with me he would have noopportunity of tampering with the packages. He could not possibly have put fresh labels on without my seeing him. I remain with the van until it is loaded. Then I leave the van and go to the next one while the checker makes up the sheet. It is doubtful whether the
checker could get to the parcels then. I should be sorting up the other stuff while he is making up the sheet. While I am calling out the parcels he is, of course, with me. The checker as soon as he had put the sheet in the van would go off to another load. The van would remain perhaps a minute unattended until the proper carman and van boy came up. I believe that on this particular Saturday both the manager and under-manager were there walking up and down. There would also be two foremen, and altogether I should think there would be fourteen vans loading and unloading.
ARTHUR HENRY WILLIAMS , carman. On Saturday, July 31, I was acting as checker at the Goswell Road depot and checked off the goods that came from High Holborn with carman Drew. I identify the sheet produced. The packages are distributed to the different delivery carmen.
Cross-examined. Possibly a porter might make a mistake by not delivering a package at its proper bank. I have never seen a sheet written over like that produced.
Cross-examined. The trunk had on only one label.
CHARLES JOSHUA WILD , manager, Carter, Paterson's High Holborn depot. Prisoner was working for the firm from some time in June, and on July 31 was employed checking goods from High Holborn to Goswell Road. To the best of my belief the sheet produced is in his handwriting. There is something written under item No. 13. After the van had been checked and loaded it would remain a few minutes.
Cross-examined. At the time this van was loaded there would be present the manager and assistant manager and one foreman, the other foreman being at his meals. Prisoner had good references and I believe he said he had been eight years in the Army and had been three years with a Mr. White, a packing case maker. Prisoner was told on the Saturday that the firm had no more work for him then, but he might call again on the Tuesday and that if there was a vacancy the firm would give it to him.
JOHN FRANCIS CANHAM , I live with my father at 33, Camden Passage, Islington. On July 29 at 9 a.m. I was in my father's shop when somebody came in and asked if we would take in a letter in the name of "Morris." I said "Yes" Next day a letter came in that name and the man who had been in the shop, the day before called for it. He tore the letter open and read it and then asked me if I would take a trunk in for him coming from Salisbury Plain, addressed "Morris." I said I would and communicated with my father. I believe prisoner to be the man who called. I afterwards went to the police station and saw a number of men in a row and was asked to pick out the man who had called. I failed to do so, but I am positive now that prisoner is the man.
Cross-examined. It was in July I went to the station. (Prisoner was not under arrest until September.)
FRANCIS CANHAM , newsagent, 33, Camden Passage, Islington. On July 30 my son said something to me about a trunk. On July 31 about half-past 11 at night a man whom I recognise as prisoner came to the shop and asked for a trunk left in the name of "Morris." I delivered the trunk to him and he took it away. It had arrived earlier in the day by Messrs. Carter, Paterson's. Some time afterwards I identified prisoner at the station unhesitatingly.
Cross-examined. Prisoner was in my shop perhaps three or four minutes. I told the magistrate I identified him by the looseness of his body.
Detective-sergeant ERNEST HOOK, G. I arrested prisoner on September 4 and told him he would be put up for identification as a person answering the description of a servant of Messrs. Carter, Paterson, who was wanted for stealing a trunk on July 31. He said, "All right. "I saw him detained at the station. He said, "Have they recovered the stuff?" I said "No." He said, "How much do they say it was worth?" I said, "They say £40." He said, "I should like £4. "I took him to the station and he was put up for identification. The boy Canham was brought in first and failed to identify him and picked out another man. The father afterwards picked out. prisoner as the man who had fetched away the trunk on July 31. Prisoner was then charged and made no reply.
Cross-examined. I went to prisoner's house, I believe on August 6. I saw him and his wife and landlady. I told him I was making inquiries about a trunk stolen from Carter, Paterson's. He said he knew nothing about it and told me I could search the place as much as I liked. I was in conversation with him about 20 minutes and, as far as I know, he gave me all the information he could. I did not then arrest him. I afterwards ascertained that he had gone into the country looking for work and that his wife, being unable to support herself, had gone to live with a nephew. I afterwards communicated with the Enfield police and prisoner was arrested.
FRANCIS CHARLES PRIDEAUX (prisoner, on oath). I am a carpenter, joiner, and packing-case maker, and also a skilled wheelwright. I was in the Army eight years and produce my discharges. I entered the Army in November, 1896, and passed into the Reserve in 1905. My papers speak of me as sober and trustworthy. After I left the Army I went to work for Mr. White, in Waterloo Road, and was with him some three years. I worked after that at Upminster, where I have a. brother, and gave Mr. White and my brother as references when I went to Carter, Paterson's. Up to this time no charge has ever been made against me. I did not go to Canham's shop on July 30 and 31. I do not know to this date where Canham's shop is. I
know nothing whatever about the stolen trunk or portmanteau. When I booked off the bank on July 31, the under-manager called me into the office and said:" I do not think there will be any work for you on the Tuesday, but you may come up and see. I spoke to the manager about you, and he told me you would come before the two men already on the staff, and if we have a vacancy you will take it. "I said if I had a job to go to I would not care, as I preferred working at my trade. My wife is an invalid, and at the time I went to Carter, Paterson's she had to go to the hospital for an operation. I went to Carter, Paterson's on the Tuesday after the Bank Holiday. They had not any work for me, so I went home and scrubbed the room out for my wife and remained at home until Detective-sergeant Hook came.
Cross-examined: I see that item 13 "Morris" is written over another name, but what that name is I cannot say. The first letter is something like an "S." Mistakes of the kind often occur at Carter, Patersons. The loader would perhaps call out the name and address and immediately stop me and say "Woa" and make a correction. Then, not being used to the work I would write the correction over the name I had already got there. I do not know anybody at Salisbury Plain.
Verdict, Not guilty.
Mr. Sydney E. Williams prosecuted.
Judge Rentoul pointed out that by the statute no girl under, 13 could consent to an indecent assault, and the inference was that a girl over 13 might do so. The jury, having heard evidence, would, he thought, entertain no doubt that she was a consenting party and, therefore, that no case was made out against the prisoner.
Verdict, Not guilty.
Mr. Tully-Christie prosecuted; Mr. Huntly Jenkins defended Liebert.
Sentences, Ollearo, Three months' hard labour; Liebert, 14 days imprisonment, second division; both prisoners recommended for expulsion under the Aliens Act.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Wednesday, October 20.)
Mr. Leycester prosecuted; Mr. Turrell and Mr. Sydney E. Williams defended.
ANNIE O'REILLY . I am cashier at a shop of the Express Dairy Company in Pentonville Road. On the afternoon of September 20, about twenty to four, I was going from the shop to the bank at the corner of Belgrave Street and Euston Road; I had in my hand two paper bags, one containing £15 8s., the other £4 in silver. As I was crossing Euston Road a man came toward me and made a grab at the bags; I screamed and struggled with him; finding he could not get the bags from me he ran down the underground subway. He had succeeded in bursting open one bag; some money he took, the rest rolled on the ground; altogether 9s. was lost. I identified prisoner as the man by his build and the clothes he was wearing.
Cross-examined. I cannot exactly swear to prisoner, but I can swear to his clothes. When prisoner was brought to me by the policeman a few minutes after the occurrence I told the officer that was not quite sure of the man.
Police-constable ALFRED READY, E Division. On September 20 I was on a tramcar in Euston Road. I was off duty and in civilian clothes. As I was getting off the car I saw prisoner snatch at something which prosecutrix was holding in her hands. He ran down the subway. I followed him, about 25 ft. behind him; as he turned a bend I momentarily lost sight of him. On getting round I saw him standing tight up against the wall of the lift-hall, pushing himself back as far as he could. He was without his hat. I told him he would have to come back with me. He made no reply. I took him back to Belgrave Street, where I saw prosecutrix. I asked her if she would come the station and charge him and she said she would. Prisoner then said, "I don't know the lady." Nothing had then been said as to what he would be charged with. At the station he was charged. He replied, "I know nothing about it." On being searched 9s. 6d. was found on him. No railway ticket. I have no doubt whatever that prisoner is the man I saw snatch at the bags.
Cross-examined. I did not find on prisoner a letter of introduction to the stationmaster at the L. and S. W. Railway, London Bridge. There were in his pockets some spare pieces of paper. As they had nothing to do with the charge I returned them to him. It was only for two seconds that I lost sight of prisoner. Of course, there are several entrances to the subway.
Police-constable JOHN BARRON, 25 ER. I live in Euston Road, near Belgrave Street. On the afternoon of September 20 I was at home lying on my bed. On hearing a woman scream I jumped up and looked out of my window. I saw a man rushing down the steps into the subway. I rushed into the street, without boots, jacket, or cap, and stood outside the entrance to the Tube for two minutes. I then saw prisoner coming towards me in company with the last witness, who I did not know was a policeman. I immediately recognised prisoner as the man I had seen running down the steps. I have not the slightest doubt he was the man.
THOMAS ALDERSON , stationmaster at King's Cross Station of the City and South London Railway. On the afternoon of September 20 I was in my office when I heard someone rush into the subway at the back of the booking office. I opened the booking office door and saw a man turn into the booking hall and hide behind a pillar. I was quite close to him. He held up his finger and said "Hush. "He had collided with the first pillar and knocked his hat off; six or eight seconds afterwards two men came running in; they asked me if I had seen a man. Before I could answer they saw prisoner and arrested him. Prisoner had not been to the ticket office or taken a ticket. There was nobody about the station at the time except the bookstall boy.
Cross-examined. There are six or seven ways into the subway, but only two into the booking hall where the prisoner was.
Re-examined. Prisoner did not say anything to me about wanting to get employment.
JOHN CREW (prisoner, on oath). I was for 15 years in the Royal Navy, which I left with good discharges; I am in the Royal Fleet Reserve and draw a pension; I was for a short time in the Fire Brigade and for ten years was employed by the Great Northern Railway. This is the first time I have ever had a charge of any sort brought against me. On September 18 I was discharged from the Great Northern Railway on account of reduction of staff. On September 20 I went out to seek for work; I had then in my pocket about 10s. or 11s. As I was going down into the subway two young chaps ran by me; I did not take much notice of them, but they branched off to the left, as the booking hall is on the right. I was going into the station to ask the stationmaster where I could apply for a job as lift attendant or wire-splicer. As the stationmaster came out of his office I went to beckon to him, but before I could ask him anything I was pounced on by a young man. I said, "What have you got hold of me for?" He dragged me up to the lady, and the lady said, "I cannot swear that he is the man." She said the same at the station. I had a note on me to the chief electrical engineer at London Bridge Station, where I had been recommended to apply for work. I was not going there on this day, because I had been travelling about all the day, but I thought as I was near this station I would try there first. I know nothing of this robbery and am absolutely innocent.
Cross-examined. I live about 20 minutes' walk from this Tube station. I now know the Express Dairy shop, where prosecutrix is employed, but at this time I did not know it. I had never seen the lady before. On this day I had been to several places after work; I had the note of introduction to the London Bridge people with me, but I meant to go there on the following day. I went into the subway from Belgrave Street; I was not running—just my ordinary walk, I
generally walk sharp. When the station master came out I took off my hat to him and was just going to ask him about work when the constable came up. That man was in plain clothes and when he caught hold of me I said, "What's the matter?" He said, "Come up here with me and see this lady." I had no chance of saying anything else. At the police court I did not say anything about having seen two men running past me. I was going to do so, but my solicitor told me to reserve my defence. The men I saw were quite young, about 20 or 22; I am 40; no one would take me for a man of 20. Verdict, Not guilty.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Thursday, October 21.)
JARVIS William (58, secretory), PALMER William (33, manager), WEBSTER John Alfred (milk carrier) , all unlawfully conspiring and agreeing together and with others unknown, to pervert and defeat the due course of law and justice upon the hearing of a summons against the North-Eastern Dairy Co., Ltd., and to sell and cause to be sold a certain article of food, to wit, milk which should not be of the quality demanded by the purchasers and to obtain from such of the liege subjects of our Lord the King as should thereafter purchase milk from the North-Eastern Dairy Co., Ltd., divers large sums of their moneys and to cheat and defraud them thereof; Jarvis committing wilful and corrupt perjury; Palmer committing wilful and corrupt perjury; Webster committing wilful and corrupt perjury.
Mr. Muir and Mr. Travers Humphreys prosecuted; Mr. George Elliott, K. C, and Mr. Leycester appeared for Jarvis; Mr. J. H. Watts defended. Webster and Palmer. The conspiracy charge and the charge of perjury against Jarvis are postponed until next sessions.
(Charge against Webster.)
On April 2 of this year prisoner was "sampled" while on his round and at the resulting prosecution at the North London Police Court the defence of "warranty" was set up, the milk, it was said, having been solid in the same condition as received. The assignments of perjury were that John Alfred Webster had at about 5.30 p.m. on April 2, 1909, handed five churns of milk to William Palmer, the manager of the North-Eastern Dairy Co., Ltd. (the milk having, in fact, been received by Albert Cobb); that John Alfred Webster had loaded up his handcart on the morning of April 2 with milk from a churn supplied to the North-Eastern Dairy Company by one Davall; that John Alfred Webster saw William Palmer, the manager of the NorthEastern Dairy Co., get the milk from a churn supplied by Davall; that the milk sold by him (Webster) about midday on April 2 was in
the same state as received by the North-Eastern Dairy Company from Davall, and that he (Webster) did not know that the North-Eastern Dairy Co., Ltd., had used skim milk for adulteration.
WILLIAM GEORGE HOBBS , second clerk at North London Police Court, produced the summons dated April 13, addressed to the NorthEastern Dairy Company, 52, Durham Road, Islington, and the copy of the analyst's certificate attached. On May 7 the hearing of the summons was commenced before Mr. D' Eyncourt, and prisoner Webster was called as a witness. Here was an adjournment to May 14, when prisoner Jarvis, a director of the company was called; a further adjournment to the 20th, when no evidence was taken, and again an adjournment to the 26th, when the witnesses were Kirby, Webster, Palmer, and Jarvis. On June 11, the witness Cobb having been called, the company was fined £100 and £21 costs. (The evidence given by Webster was then read.)
(Friday, October 22.)
ALBERT HENRY COBB , milk carrier. I was in the service of the persons carving on a milk 'business at 52, Durham Road, from 1886 until the present year. I am now a master man. From 1903 that business was carried on in the name of the "North-Eastern Dairy Company, Limited. "I left on June 27 of this year. The business was under the control of the manager, Mr. William Palmer. In the early morning the milk was fetched from Finsbury Park Station and the milk-carriers took it out on the rounds. I superintended the distribution of the milk to the carriers. We used to have separated milk from the "West Surrey" and whole milk from different farmers—I could not tell you the names. Some of the separated milk was mixed with the new milk in varying proportions. I received instructions in writing from Mr. Palmer what to put in every morning. The mixing was done in the dairy in the presence of the milk-carriers and they could see everything that was done. Webster was not there some mornings, because he would be fetching the milk from the station. We had separated milk from Davall's and Eggington's. I never knew any other class of milk to come from them. To the best of my belief milk came from Eggington's on April 2. It was mixed with the new milk. Milk also came from Davall's. It was labelled with the labels produced. Palmer was not in the dairy when that milk arrived. I received the milk at the dairy. Davall's milk was sent out on the round after it had been mixed with separated milk. Milk was sent out on two different rounds, about six o'clock in the morning and a little after nine o'clock.
Cross-examined. I left the North-Eastern Company because the brokers were in and started for myself. The North-Eastern is now the Manor Park Dairy Company and the business is still being carried on at the same place. I am now working for myself the round I previously worked for the company for 20 years. I have been sampled between ten and twenty times when with my late firm and twice convicted. On one of the occasions when I was summoned the proceedings
against me personally were dropped. May I explain that each of the carriers leaves a sample in the yard before he goes out. The sample taken from me on that occasion did not correspond with the sample I had left at home, I never tampered with that milk in any shape or form. I toot the blame for the matter, but the fine was paid by the firm. I understand that the reason why I was proceeded against personally was that Mr. Bryan, one of the directors, went to the local authority and asked them to deal with the matter in that way. I doubted whether the sample I had left behind was different from the milk I had taken out, but you must understand the sample is not sealed up, but is open for anybody to interfere with it. I do not think it was said that the milk I took out had more water in it than the sample left behind; it was deficient in fat. The mixing with separated milk had been going on for nine months or a year. It was during that time that Palmer was ill, but he was only in bed a short time. He used to come down about nine o'clock and do his work then. I had not been mixing the milk before Mr. Palmer came. I could not tell what time Mr. Palmer arrived on the morning of April 2, as after I had served the men I had to go and do a round. I got back at eight o'clock; he was not there then. I went out on a second round and when I came back after being sampled he was in the shop. Palmer and I are the best of friends, but he has not spoken to me for the last few weeks—I do not know for what reason. He begged of me to come back again for his sake. No milk was sold to my knowledge as separated or skimmed milk, but I never served in the shop. The quantity of separated milk that came from Eggington's that morning was six barn gallons, according to the book produced. As a rule there was milk left over from the previous evening. If where had been separated milk mixed with that, a note would be left me to that effect so that I should not mix it again. There were one or two days when we did not get any separated milk at all. Where none is entered in the book none came in. The proportion in which separated milk is mixed with new milk is from four quarts to eight quarts per churn, according to the quality of the milk. Davall's milk would not stand adulteration with separated milk. I used sometimes to destroy the slips on which the instructions as to mixing were written, but I found some of them in an old overcoat and they were produced at the police court. I did not myself mix water with the milk on my round.
Re-examined. On the occasions of my two convictions I paid neither fine nor expenses and still remained in the service of the company. I said I did not remember any other roundsman being convicted, but I remember now there was another man, but I cannot think of his name. It was at Highgate Police Court. The milk the cariers take out is booked against them. At the end of the week a return is made of milk sold under price to other dairymen and an allowance is made in respect of it.
the time I was with the company to mix with the new milk. I have seen it done by Mr. Palmer and Mr. Cobb. Other milk carriers were present when this was done. Webster was one of them.
Cross-examined. There was no concealment about the mixing. As a rule, separated milk is not used with the new milk in the "family" trade. The latest time I have seen the mixing done is a quarter past six.
ALFRED COXON , accountant, Union Street, Burton-on-Trent. I am secretary and manager to Eggington's Dairy Company, Limited. We did not suhpply milk to the North-Eastern Dairy Company. We supplied William Jarvis with separated milk which was consigned to Finsbury Park. The first consignment was sent off on March 31 or April 1, and the last on April 5. Eggington's is in Derbyshire.
JOHN ALFRED WEBSTER (prisoner, on oath). I have been in the service of the North-Eastern Dairy about 13 1/2 years. On April 2 I went to Finsbury Park Station to fetch milk in the usual way. In all I got five churns, two from Davall's, two from Evans, one from Eggington. I brought them back to the shop and gave them to Mr. Cobb. If Mr. Palmer had been down I should have given the milk to him. I used always to give the milk either to Palmer or to Cobb. At the police court I said I gave the milk to Mr. Palmer. I did that because Palmer told me to say so. I did not ask Palmer what I was to say; he told me what I was to say; he told me I was not to mention Cobb's name at all, because of his two previous convictions. On April 2 I went out on my round as usual. I forget the name of the farmer whose milk I took out on the first round. I took out Davall's the second time. That was about 12 o'clock as near as I can say. As far as I 'know, the milk was in the same condition that I received it in at the station. I put no water into it. I did not see Cobb mix the skimmed milk with it that morning.
Cross-examined. Mr. Cobb gave me the milk on the second round. I had not seen Palmer there that morning. Cobb gave me the milk from Davall's churn. It was turned into pails and then given to me. I got back from my second round about half-past two and then saw Mr. Palmer. I told him I had had a sample of milk taken at the corner of Harvest Road. He said, "What time was it taken?" I said, "About 12 o'clock. "Mr. Cobb was in the shop. Mr. Palmer said to Cobb, "What milk did you give Webster?" Cobb replied, "Davall's milk. "I did not hear Palmer ask Cobb whether any of Eggington's milk had been put into it. I handed over the sample of milk the officer had given me and then came out of the shop. On the following (Saturday) night I asked Mr. Palmer what he thought of it. He said, "We are sure to have a conviction, but you must not bring Cobb's name into it in any way whatever. "He gave as the reason that there were two convictions against him. The summons was served about the 17th. Palmer told me again about that time, "Do not mention Cobb's name. You can say that I
received the milk that morning—that I got up that morning to receive the milk and served you with it. "Nothing more was said about it then. I went to a solicitor's office about a week before the hearing with Mr. Palmer and a statement was taken from me there. Palmer heard what I said. Palmer then made a statement as to what his evidence would be, but I did not hear what he said, as I was turned out of the room. I waited outside the door till he came out and we went away together. I think he said he was at the dairy on the morning of the 22nd. After the first hearing I went again to the office of the solicitor. Mr. Jarvis and Mr. Palmer went on together and I went and met them. I did not make any further statement on that occasion and did not go into the solicitor's room. On one occasion when I went away from the solicitor's with Palmer he said to me, "Jarvis has made a fool of himself. "That was after Jarvis had given evidence. He afterwards told me that I ought to have stuck to the lie I told on the first occasion and we should have been ail right then. I understood him to mean I ought to have stuck to what he had told me to say at first, that Mr. Palmer received the milk. It was a lie that Palmer had received the milk and had handed it out to me. At the second Hearing at North London I told the truth. I knew that the defence which was sought to be proved was the defence of warranty, that my employer bought milk with a warranty and had to prove that he sold it in the same condition he received it in, but I was so muddled by the solicitor I hardly knew what I was saying. I said what I was told to say by Palmer. It was not a true story; it was a lie.
The Common Serjeant asked Mr. Watts if he wanted to call any more witnesses after the admission of the prisoner that his statement was a lie.
Mr. Watts said he had other witnesses.
FREDERICK MANSELL . I am in the employ of the Manor Park Dairy Company and recently went to Mrs. Davall's farm at Bradley Orton, Staffordshire. In Mrs. Davall's dairy I saw the refrigerator that is used for cooling the milk. The milk runs down outside pipes which contain water. I did not ask to see the machine at work. I examined the refrigerator very closely and found a leak in the top part. If the milk was flowing down you would not be able to see the leakage and the water would mix with the milk. I also found the machine had been mended in several places and the leak appeared to be a very old one.
ALFRED WALTER STOKES , F. I.C., F. C.S., public analyst for the Metropolitan Boroughs of Paddington, Hampstead, and Bethnal Green. I have seen a copy of the public analyst's certificate which was attached to the summons. I have not analysed the milk myself, but merely attend as an expert on the figures. As the result of examining the analysis, which gives fat 2.78, solids not fat 7.97, and water 89.25, I have formed the opinion that the sample contains 6 per cent, of added water and that no separated milk could have been added to this sample If separated milk had been added there would have been an increase in the figure of solids not fat and a decrease of fat. The legal
standard for solids not fat is 8.5, whereas this sample contained only 7.9, the decrease showing added water.
The Common Serjeant observed that this evidence was very interesting, but he did not see the materiality of it, if the witness gave material evidence which was false, knowing it to be false.
Mr. Watts said he had hoped by this evidence to satisfy the Court that no separated milk had been added after the milk had been received by the company, and that the milk itself was of poor quality.
The Common Serjeant pointed out that they were not trying the quality of the milk, but whether prisoner had given material evidence which was not true.
Verdict, Guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy.
Sentence was postponed until next Sessions, prisoner being released on bail.
(Saturday, October 23.)
(Case against William Palmer.)
The assignments of perjury were that at about 5.30 a.m. on April 2, 1909, prisoner received five churns of milk from prisoner Webster; that Palmer had taken the labels off two of the churns; that Palmer had measured out the milk from Davall's taken out by Webster on his second round; and that the milk received by the North-Eastern Dairy Company on April 2 from the Eggington Dairy Company was sold in the shop of the North-Eastern Dairy Company and not used to adulterate the milk of the latter company.
This prosecution related to the same set of circumstances as the former, and WILLIAM GEORGE HOBBS, ALBERT HENRY COBB, JAMES HOWARD, and ALFRED COXON repeated their evidence. FREDERICK MANSELL and ALFRED WALTER STOKES were again called for the defence.
Verdict, Guilty. Sentence was postponed, prisoner to remain in custody.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Tuesday, October 12.)
GRANT Charles (26, painter) , pleaded guilty of feloniously uttering counterfeit 5s. pieces thrice on the same day and of a previous conviction. Prisoner, it appeared, went from shop to shop making small purchases and receiving good money in exchange for the counterfeits, which, according to the statement of Mr. William John Webster, the officer of the Mint, were exceedingly well made.
Sentence, Three years' penal servitude. The 23s. of good money found upon prisoner was ordered to be applied in the compensation of the small tradesmen who had been defrauded.
COOPER George (50, painter), and SMITH George (40, painter) , both pleaded guilty 01 feloniously making counterfeit coin; feloniously having in their possession four moulds in and upon which were made and impressed the apparent resemblance of both sides of the King's current silver coin called a shilling, and unlawfully and knowingly having in their possession 80 pieces of counterfeit coin, with intent to utter the same.
There are convictions against both prisoners, who were stated by Inspector Ball to have been engaged in the manufacture of counterfeit coin for some little time.
Sentence: Cooper, Five years' and Smith Four years' penal servitude.
BALLS George (26, butcher) , pleaded guilty of obtaining by false pretences from Louis Corper £18 10s., and from Alfred Higgs £46, in each case with intent to defraud, and confessed to a previous conviction.
Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE PICKFORD. (Wednesday, October 13.)
Sentence, Three years' penal servitude.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Wednesday, October 13.)
WRIGHT Albert (56, labourer), and ANDERSON George (35, labourer) , both pleaded guilty of breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Harry Josiah Abery and stealing therein £1 2s., one brooch, and other articles, his goods and moneys. Wright confessed' to a previous conviction.
Anderson was further indicted as an habitual criminal under the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, and pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Tully-Christie prosecuted.
Warder FREDERICK COOK, Brixton Prison, produced a long list of convictions, the first going back to 1888 and the last being in 1908, when prisoner was sentenced under the Prevention of Crimes Act (1871).
Detective-sergeant GEORGE PRIDE. I prove serving upon prisoner at Brixton Prison at 9.15 p.m. on the 4th inst. a notice to the effect that he would be indicted under the Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, with being an habitual criminal. I read the whole of the notice to him and
he said, "I did not think you would do it on me like that. I thought it was only the judge could do it. "I asked prisoner if he fully understood what was set out in the notice. He said "Yes." I have seen him in company with well-known convicts in Bethnal Green.
Detective-sergeant HORACE CASTLETON, W. Division, said that while prisoner was awaiting trial he asked him where he had been living and he replied, "At Row ton House, Hammersmith," but he was not known there, and he was unable to mention the names of any employers.
Prisoner Anderson elected to give evidence on oath, and said that since he had been out of prison he had been selling flowers in the street on and off for about two months and denied being an habitual criminal. He admitted, however, in cross-examination that the longest period he had been out of prison since 1888 was under twelve months.
Verdict, Anderson guilty of being an habitual criminal.
Sentences, Wright Three years' penal servitude; Anderson, Three years' penal servitude, to be followed by five years' preventive detention.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT. (Thursday, October 14.)
SIMPSON George (18, labourer) , pleaded guilty of burglary on the night of October 1, at the Post Office, 137, Romford Road, and stealing money, a quantity of postage stamps, and other articles; also to the possession of housebreaking implements.
Prisoner was found loitering in Forest Lane, Forest Gate, on October 5, and the housebreaking implements and some of the proceeds of the burglary were found upon him. Dr. Dyer, of Brixton Prison, certified him to be fit for the Borstal treatment.
Sentence, Detention in a Borstal Institution for one year.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Friday, October 22.)
Mr. Gregory Fisher prosecuted.
GERTRUDE HASSARD , 35, Lancaster Road, Wimbledon. On September 3, 1909, at 6 p.m., I had vase produced on the ledge inside my front parlour window, which was slightly open. At 5 p.m. I found the window wide open, the vase gone, and footmarks on the flowerbed.
I gave information to the police and a fortnight afterwards recovered it. The value of the vase is £4.
Detective-sergeant JOHN GILLON, V. Division. On September 17, at 7.45 p.m., I was in Merton Road, Wimbledon, when I saw the prisoner and kept him under observation until 10.25 p.m., when he entered the "White Hart" public-house, Kingston Road. I called him out and told him I. had been keeping observation on him, that he had been acting very suspiciously, and that he answered the description of a man who a fortnight previously had stolen a china vase from 35, Lancaster Road, Wimbledon Common. He became very abusive, made use of very strong language, and put himself in a fighting attitude. I told him if he used violence I should return it. I took him into custody. He walked up the Hertford Road and as he reached No. 126 he stopped and said, "Gillon, I could do you a hit of good—what am I on if I find that vase for you?" I knew him. I said, "I do not know what you mean." He said, "Am I on half a quid if I find it?" We walked a little higher up the road, came back again, and facing No. 126 he stopped again. We went a little further down the road and returned to No. 126, when a female entered the front garden of that house whom he (prisoner) seemed to recognise. I said to her, "I am a police officer; has this man sold you anything?" She said, "Yes; he sold a vase about a fortnight ago—I bought it off him for 9d." She produced the vase, which is that of the prosecutrix. This was in the house. Prisoner again became very violent and used obscene language, threw himself on the ground and would not get up. I handed him to a police-sergeant who was passing; an ambulance had to be sent for and prisoner was strapped upon it and taken to the station. I took possession of the vase and put it on the table in the charge-room, when prisoner said, "I bought that vase off Snapper for 3d. and I sold it for 9d. You know him. You will have to pinch him as well as me. I do not give a b——if I get five years." I know who Snapper is.
Cross-examined. I did not speak to prisoner in the public-house.
ELIZABETH SPENCER , 126, Hertford Road, Wimbledon, spinster. I purchased vase produced from prisoner for 9d.—he seemed to be hawking it round. I said I did not want it, but he said, "Do buy it; it is the last one I have; you shall have it for 9d." I did not know it was stolen and had no idea of its value.
Police-constable WILLIAM HANDFORD, 465 D. On September 3, 1909, at about 4.30 p.m., I saw prisoner, whom I knew, in Lancaster Road, Wimbledon. I was on point duty in uniform. He appeared to be acting suspiciously and watching me. I went down the road; prisoner walked back and I followed him to the bend of the road, where I lost sight of him. He was carrying a carpenter's basket, which seemed bulky and which was large enough to hold vase produced.
Cross-examined. I was at the police court when prisoner was brought up, but did not give evidence.
ARTHUR PAPPIN (prisoner, not on oath). One night I was in a public-house when the detective told me a lady had lost a china flowerstand out of her house and that he was offered a sovereign if he could find it. I told him if he liked to come along with me I would take him to the house where I sold the article, which I bought of a man named napper for 3d. I took him to the house, where we saw the lady, and she gave up the vase. The detective then charged me with stealing it. I bought it from Snapper and before I bought it I said, "Is it straight?" He said "Yes". I said, "You know I am well known: of course, I do not want to get myself into trouble." He said it was straight and I gave him 3d. for it to oblige him. If I had been guilty of stealing that article would I or any man of common-sense, knowing the police officer as well as I did, take him to the house where I had sold it? I did him a favour. He told me the lady had offered him a sovereign. On one occasion he has given me a drink and I tried to put him in a way to obtain a sovereign. I did not say anything about him giving me half sovereign for doing him that good turn. I thought the vase was worth about 2s. That is how I bought it off Snapper. I have no witness to call.
Convictions proved: July 20, 1903, at this court, five years' penal servitude, after the following previous convictions: March 1, 1900, three months at Wimbledon for stealing geese in his correct name, Arthur Pabbit: October 24, 1900, six months at Wimbledon for stealing fowls; February 13, 1901, three months at Mortlake for stealing a motor horn; March 14, 1902, two sentences of three months at Mortlake for larceny; January 6, 1903, Surrey Sessions, six months and three years' police supervision for stealing reins from a coach house. Prisoner was released on ticket in July, 1907. October 16, 1907, nine months under the Prevention of Crimes Act. Stated to he a most powerful and violent man.
Sentence, 15 months' hard labour.