1910, APRIL (1).
Vol. CLII.] Part 906.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
HELD APRIL 5TH, 1910, 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, April 5th, 1910, and following days.
Before the Right Hon. Sir JOHN KNILL , Baronet, LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir WILLIAM PICKFORD Knight, one of the Justices of His Majesty's High Court; Sir HENRY EDMUND KNIGHT , Knight; Sir HORATIO DAVID DAVIES , K. C. M. G.; Sir JOHN POUND , Bart.; Sir T. VEZEY STRONG , Knight; Sir T. VANSITTART BOWATER, Knight; and FRANCIS STANHOPE HANSON , Esq., 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.
KNILL, MAYOR. SIXTH SESSION.
LONDON AND MIDDLESEX CASES.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Tuesday, April 5.)
BUSHNELL, Robert George (25, news vendor), who pleaded guilty at the March Session (see page 559) of malicious damage, was brought up for judgment. On his undertaking to return to his parents, who would find him work and undertake to look after him, he was sentenced to One month's imprisonment, dating from March 8, and at once discharged.
Three previous convictions for minor offences were proved.
Sentence, Six months' hard labour.
MEREDITH, William (39, labourer), and PHILLIPS, William (48, labourer), pleaded guilty of stealing 37 boxes of cheese and 12 boxes of butter, the goods of Alfred Winbush Dottridge. Meredith confessed to a previous conviction.
Six convictions were proved against Meredith, including two sentences of penal servitude; he is now on ticket-of-leave, with 273 days to serve. Phillips has served six months' hard labour and one sorter term.
Sentences: Meredith, Three years' penal servitude; Phillips, 18 months' hard labour.
SMITH, George (24, labourer), pleaded guilty of steeling a basket containing a silk coat, a cloth skirt, and other articles, the goods of the Great Northern Railway Company; he pleaded not guilty to an indictment for another theft, and this was not proceeded with; he confessed to a previous conviction.
Ten previous convictions were proved, including two for assaults on the police.
Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.
COLECHIN, Reginald James (16, telegraph messenger), pleaded guilty of stealing a postal packet containing postal-order for twelve shillings and eight penny stamps, the goods of H. M. Postmaster-General, he being an officer of the Post Office.
Prisoner, who had borne an excellent character, was sentenced to three months' imprisonment, second division.
PICKETT, James Charles (25, auxiliary postman), pleaded guilt; of stealing two postal packets, each containing a valuable security, to wit, a postal-order, the property of H. M. Postmaster-General, he being an officer of the Post Office.
Sentence, Six months' hard labour (the Recorder taking into account that prisoner in consequence of the conviction would lose the benefit of his contributions to a superannuation fund of the London and India Docks Company, in whose service he had been for twelve years).
VICKERY, Henry Joseph (28, porter), and WHITE, James Alfred (19, porter), pleaded guilty of forging an order for the delivery of a banker's cheque-book with intention to defraud; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a banker's cheque for the payment of £150, with intent to defraud.
Sentence (each prisoner), 12 months' hard labour.
SNELL, Emma (26, laundress), pleaded guilty of stealing two watches and other articles and £3 7s. the goods and moneys of George Banbury, her employer; stealing one coat and other articles, the goods of Percy Bullock, her employer; stealing three rings and other articles, the goods of Charles Mason, her employer; she confessed to a previous conviction. She was further indicted for that she is a habitual criminal; to this she pleaded guilty; the Recorder declined to take the plea.
Eleven previous convictions were proved, the first being when prisoner was fourteen years old. In 1902 she was sentenced to three years' penal servitude; in 1905 to four years' penal servitude and three rears' police supervision.
The Recorder said he would not pass a sentence of penal servitude, and therefore the indictment for being a habitual criminal need not be proceeded with. The Prevention of Crime Act, 1908, provided that before preventive detention could come into operation a sentence of penal servitude must be passed and served. His own view was that it would have been better had the Act empowered Judges to pass sentences of preventive detention straight away. The life story of this young prisoner was most deplorable; she now appealed for another chance, and this he proposed to give her.
Sentence, Twelve months' hard labour.
WHITE, Edwin Allan (26, packer), BURLTON, Ella (23, servant), HALE, Millie (16, servant) pleaded guilty of forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a bankers' cheque for the payment of £25 with intent to defraud.
Sentence (White), Six months' hard labour; Burlton and Hale were released on their own recognisances in £10 each to come up for judgment, if called upon.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE PICKFORD.
(Wednesday, April 6.)
Mr. Graham-Campbell prosecuted; Mr. Vesey Fitzgerald defended at the request of the Court.
FRANCES MAUD MORGAN , 78, Tuam Road, Plumstead. Prisoner (my sister) and her husband lodged with me; they have been married eight years; the husband is a labourer in the Woolwich Arsenal; they had two children, one seven years old, and the infant, William Alfred, aged fifteen months. On March 14, about 10.30 a.m., I left prisoner and the infant in the kitchen; he was then in good health; on returning at one o'clock he was dead.
Cross-examined. Since the birth of this child prisoner has been very depressed and hysterical; she complained of pains in her head and said she feared that she would do harm to herself or her baby. She was a devoted mother.
Police-sergeant WALTER H. PURBRICK. I was on duty at the Arsenal gates on March 14, at 11.15 a.m., when prisoner came to me; she was very excited and crying, and said, "I have drowned my baby in a bath; send down for my husband." Later in the day prisoner said, "I could not do any work this morning; I washed and dressed baby; I got the water ready for washing; I did not know what I was doing when I put baby in."
Inspector ERNEST BATHURST spoke to finding the body of the child immersed in a small bath. Prisoner was in a most hysterical condition; she made no reply to the formal charge.
Dr. CHARLES T. W. HIRSCH said that when he was called in by the police the child had been dead about 20 minutes. He found a slight bruising on the forehead and on the neck, consistent with the pressure of fingers; there was evidence that the child was alive when put into the water and had struggled. The cause of death was asphyxia.
Dr. SULLIVAN, medical officer of Holloway Prison (called by defendant's counsel), said he had had prisoner under observation since March 14; he described her symptoms and expressed the opinion that at the time she drowned the child she was not in her right mind and was incapable of knowing the nature and quality of her act; she was still insane.
Verdict, Guilty, but insane.
Prisoner was ordered to be detained during His Majesty's pleasure.
Mr. Rogerson prosecuted; Mr. Herman Cohen defended, at the request of the Court.
Prisoner, on the advice of Mr. Cohen, withdrew his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty to the second count, wounding with intent to do grievous bodily harm.
Prisoner had hitherto borne a good character. He had been a soldier and had served in the South African war; he was retired invalided, and was in receipt of a pension, best part of which he has been giving to support his mother. Mr. Cohen asked his Lordship to pass such a sentence as would not involve the loss of pension. In the case of R. v. Bright (4 Cr. Ap. R., p. 194) the Court had distinctly approved of such a differentiation.
Mr. Justice Pickford sentenced prisoner, who has been in prison for two months, to Nine months' imprisonment, second division, dating from to-day. (This will not involve the forfeiture of pension; see Forfeiture of Pensions Act, 1870, 33 and 34 Vic, c. 23, s. 2.)
Mr. Ronald Cruickshank prosecuted; Mr. Curtis Bennett and Mr. Lawrie defended.
Inspector THOMAS HOLLIS. In the early morning of February 23 I heard of a motor-cab accident in the Brixton Road; I arrived on the scene within 20 minutes of the accident and proceeded to take measurements from which I prepared the plan produced. A number of men had been engaged cleaning out the conduit boxes, etc., in the middle of the tram lines. The plan shows the position at which Kent and Foster were working and the place at which Kent's body was found.
Cross-examined. The road was dirty with thin mud; there were no signs of wheel marks in the mud. The wheels of the motor-cab were probably exactly in the tram lines, the gauge being the same.
RONERT JONES . I was engaged with Kent and five other men cleaning out the conduit boxes. We started work about half an hour before the accident. We placed red lights and flare lights, nine in all, at the places where we were working. Just after defendant's motor-cab passed me I saw it catch Foster and knock him down. I ran after the cab and it stopped; I said to defendant, "Where are your eyes?" He said, "The lights dazzled my eyes." I then said, "There's a man under your car." The man was Kent; he had been working about a yard ahead of Foster; it was about 30 yards further on that the cab stopped and Kent's body was underneath it. I produce his coat and trousers; they are very muddy.
Cross-examined. The red lights would be shifted by the men according to where they were working. I could not see exactly where Kent was working when the cab passed me; he would be in the middle of the tram track; he would be carrying his lamp with him as he moved from one place to another.
Cross-examined. I was standing between the two tram tracks; the cab as it passed me was right in the lines; it was going very fast.
ROBERT SAYER , coachman, East Dulwich. I was walking towards Brixton on this morning. I saw the cab about 30 yards before it reached the men; it was going about 12 miles an hour; it went on about 20 yards after striking Foster and then stopped and we found Kent's body under the cab. Prisoner was quite sober.
Cross-examined. Prisoner, after stopping, first went back to Foster; he did not then know that Kent was under the cab. Prisoner was not driving recklessly; the men's lights were scattered about the tram tracks.
Police-constable HENRY SIMERVILLE, 14 W., who took prisoner into custody immediately after the accident, stated that on the way to the station the prisoner said, "I saw the red light; I went to avoid it; I knocked a man down; I stopped my car and went back to see if he was hurt, when another man pulled the dead man from the front of the car."
Sergeant WILLIAM BLAKE, 76 W, examined the cab just after the accident. There was blood on the offside steering arm, which was bent; the near-side tyre of the front wheel had been punctured. The road surface was wet, but not greasy.
Dr. ARTHUR C. ROBINSON, 144, Brixton Road. On being called to the scene of the accident I found deceased lying in the roadway in front of the cab. The post mortem examination showed that he had a compound fracture at the base of the skull. This would be sufficient to cause death. There were minor injuries. I also examined Foster; he had injuries to the muscles of his neck and hip.
Cross-examined. I found no bruises on deceased such as I should have expected to find had he been dragged under the cab for 15 or 30 yards.
EDWARD EALEY (prisoner, on oath). On this morning I was driving from Streatham towards London; the roads were very wet, muddy, and greasy. I was going along in the tram lines. I first saw the lights when I was about 40 or 50 yards away from them. They seemed to be in all manner of positions. I was going from 10 to 12 miles an hour. At the very moment that I was about to steer the cab to clear the lights I had a puncture; I could not get out of the tram track in time, and knocked down the first red light; I then got mixed up with the lights; they dazzled me; I could not discern the men until I was on top of them. I put on the brakes, but the cab skidded and the brakes did not act. I pulled up as soon as I could. I thought I had knocked a man down and I got off to go back to Foster, when I saw the other men round Kent;
until then I did not know that I had knocked him down. I have driven a taxi-cab since August and have an absolutely clean licence.
Cross-examined. When I saw the lights I slowed up. It is difficult to get out of the tram lines with sound tyres, and when one of these punctured the wheel would not answer in time to the steering. I could not stop the cab dead on account of the greasy condition of the road; had it been a dry night I could have pulled up on the spot.
To the Jury. I had no time to sound the horn, my attention was on the steering gear and the brakes.
The Jury, after long deliberation, handed in the following: "We find prisoner Not guilty of manslaughter, but think that he ought to have exercised more judgment and caution under the circumstances, and that drivers should use more care when danger lights are shown."
Mr. Justice Pickford said he entirely agreed with the verdict, and, in discharging prisoner, expressed the hope that the rider of the jury would be taken by him and other drivers as a warning that very possible care must be taken in the use of these vehicles.
Mr. Tully-Christie prosecuted; Mr. Bodkin defended.
ANNIE WELLS , 36, Grafton Road, Kentish Town. Prisoner is my son. On March 6, at 7 p.m., I called at his house; he was with the baby: he said, "I have just given baby his bottle, and they are going to sleep." I did not see a hammer.
Cross-examined. Prisoner and his wife lived together very happily. He was very fond of his children. Recently he has been very melancholy and despondent; he has been ill with dyspepsia. He is a teetotaller. His father's brother committed suicide 12 years ago; his father's first cousin was in a lunatic asylum for 30 years, and the mother of that cousin died in an asylum. When he was a lad prisoner had a fall and was for five months in hospital with concussion of the brain.
D'ANTILI GILDER , house surgeon at University College Hospital, On March 6 I examined the child; it had a fractured skull and was suffering from concussion of the brain; there were five marks of external violence. There was a fair prospect of the child recovering, but witness could not speak positively. The hammer produced might have caused the injuries.
Cross-examined. The blows with the hammer could not have been given with any force.
Inspector JOHN HOGGIN, Y Division. On March 6, at 11 a.m., I went to prisoner's room and found the hammer (produced). At 12.25 I saw prisoner outside the police station; I said to him, "Are you waiting for anyone? What is the matter?" He replied, "I
have been and ruined myself. Oh, my baby." Later he said, "Is my baby dead; I do not know what made me do it."
Inspector ARTHUR NEILL, Y. Division. I formally charged prisoner; after I had cautioned him he said, "Yes, I quite understand I did it."
Dr. RHOMAS HENRY HOSFORD, 25, Camden Road. I have known prisoner for about eight years. On January 18 last he called upon me for professional advice; he was suffering from dyspepsia. He had the delusion that he was suffering from venereal disease. I assured him that there was no foundation for this. I saw him several times subsequently, and he persisted in his belief in spite of my assurances. He told me he was distressed about the poor condition of the baby, and thought it was due to his own diseased state. He complained of pains in his head and the pit of his stomach.
SIDNEY REGINALD DYER , medical officer of Brixton Prison. I have had prisoner under observation since March 7. He has been suffering from melancholia of a pronounced type and has had delusions. In my opinion, at the time he committed this act, it was under the impulse of his delusions, and he was in such a state that he did not know the nature or quality of his act.
Verdict, Guilty (on the second count), but that prisoner was insane at the time.
Ordered to be detained during His Majesty's pleasure.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Wednesday, April 6.)
HARDWICKE, Joseph Bainbridge (53, bank manager), pleaded guilty of threatening to print and publish, and proposing to abstain from printing and publishing certain matters and things concerning the London City and Midland Bank, Limited, with intent to extort money.
Mr. Muir prosecuted; Mr. Curtis Bennett appeared for prisoner.
Prisoner having expressed sorrow for the offence was released on the recognisances of himself in £250 and one surety in £100 to come up for judgment if called upon.
Sentence, Two days' imprisonment.
REX, Alfred James (46, clerk), pleaded guilty of stealing an order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque, the goods of Eastman and Son, Limited, his masters; forging an endorsement on an order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for the payment of £72, and uttering the said cheque knowing the same to be forged, with intent to defraud.
Mr. Herman Cohen prosecuted.
Prisoner confessed to having been convicted on July 22, 1908, at Marylebone Police Court, when he was sentenced to nine months' hard labour for stealing money and stamps to the value of £121, after a previous conviction on August 18, 1904, at Marylebone of six months' hard labour for stealing £95 as a servant.
Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.
STANDING, Austin Reginald (26, footman), pleaded guilty of stealing two blank cheques, value 2d., the property of Louisa Caroline Young, his employer; forging and uttering a certain order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for the payment of £6, with intent to defraud.
In 1908 prisoner was sentenced at this Court to six months' hard labour for obscene libel.
Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.
POOLE, George (38, hammerman), and LEARY, Patrick (27, barman), pleaded guilty of both stealing two packets of chocolate, the goods of Francesco Arpino; Poole being found in a certain place, under such circumstances as to show that he was waiting for an opportunity to commit an offence punishable on indictment. (Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871, sec. 7.)
Poole confessed to having been convicted at South London Sessions on October 22, 1908, receiving 12 months' hard labour for possessing housebreaking implements, after two previous convictions, December 13, 1905, South London Sessions, nine months for shop breaking; April 9, 1908, Mansion House, three months for frequenting.
Sentence, Poole, 18 months' hard labour; Leary, Six months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Wednesday, April 6.)
COATES, Daniel (53, labourer), who was found guilty at the March Sessions (see p. 614) of feloniously receiving one gun and one gun-case, the goods of the Midland Railway Company, was further indicted for stealing one suit-case and other articles, and £5, the goods and moneys of the Great Western Railway Company, and feloniously receiving the same.
Mr. J. P. Grain prosecuted (Mr. Roome prosecuted on the indictment on which the prisoner had been convicted); Mr. David White defended.
Mr. Grain stated that he did not propose to proceed with this indictment.
Detective WILLIAM GEORGE, F Division, said that nothing was known about prisoner, who refused to give any information. Eight cases connected with railway robberies have been traced to him.
Cross-examined. The pawnbroker gave me the information that he had been dealing with this stolen property; he told me the prisoner had pawned them. There was nothing said about it at the trial because it was not a case at issue. I did not know the address of the employer you mentioned at his trial and I have made no inquiries. I heard you give the names and addresses of two firms where he had worked, but I did not take them down; it was not for me. I asked him about it in prison and he said, "That has all been dealt with."
Prisoner wished the Judge, in order that he might have a clean sheet in the future, to take into account in sentencing him the fact that there were other charges against him.
Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.
THOMPSON, George (43, labourer), pleaded guilty of possessing and uttering counterfeit coin. The Judge had him put back till April 11, when John Thompson (no relation of the prisoner), having undertaken to look after and find him work and report on April 26, prisoner was released on his own recognisances in £20 to come up for judgment if called upon.
ADAMS, William (23, carpenter), and HOWES, Caroline (20, laundress), pleaded guilty of feloniously possessing a mould in and upon which was made and impressed the figure of the sides of a half-crown. They were further indicted for feloniously making seven counterfeit half-crowns, two counterfeit florins, and 21 counterfeit sixpences. To this Adams pleaded guilty, Howes not guilty.
Mr. Pickersgill, M. P., for the prosecution, stated that he would not proceed against Howes on this indictment.
Detective-inspector ARTHUR NEAL, T Division, proved seven previous convictions against Adams, beginning in 1900; he was an associate of thieves and was believed to have been manufacturing counterfeit coins for some time past, although this was his first conviction for such. When arrested he described himself as "the King of the Coiners."
Adams (to the Judge). All I can say is that I am guilty of it, but I have only been at it for about five weeks. The way I learnt to make them was out of a newspaper. This woman (Howes) has not been living with me long and I plead for her. There is nothing against her.
Sentences, Adams, Six years, penal servitude; Howes, Six months' hard labour.
Mr. Pickersgill, M. P., prosecuted.
Sergeant DAVID GOODWILLIE, Metropolitan Police. At 12 a.m. on March 10 I went to 11, Essex Street, Kingsland. I saw prisoner standing in the top back room. I told him I was a police officer and
Lad reasons for believing that there was counterfeit coin there. He said, "I have not got anything, guv'nor." I searched him and in his jacket pocket I found this plaster mould (produced) impressed with the obverse and reverse sides of half a crown dated 1889, and these unfinished counterfeit half-crowns (produced), dated also 1889. I found in the room a jug containing traces of plaster of Paris, a packet of borax, a packet of lampblack, two spoons, one metal fork, two pieces of glass, and a quantity of broken moulds, all of which I now produce. Prisoner was taken to the Old Street Police Station, where he was charged with possessing the mould and he made no reply. When I had found the articles he said, "You have got it all. You can see I am only a novice."
Cross-examined by Prisoner. The mould is well made. The coins are very badly made, but at present they are in an unfinished state and I do not know what they will be like when they are finished. They are very brittle; I dropped one and it broke. What I found is certainly not rubbish; they are all articles used by coiners in connection with coining and the coins are the roughest I have seen.
To Prisoner. I do not believe you have had any money lately; you were very hard up.
WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , Inspector of Coins, His Majesty's Mint. The mould produced is rather an unusual one with the ridge and it has been very much used. These coins are very roughly made. They are too brittle; they contain too much antimony. I should say they came from the mould, but as they are so bad and the mould has been so much used it is rather difficult to tell; they are of the same date. The other articles I found in the room are such as coiners are accustomed to use.
To Prisoner. You can tell they are half-crowns, but in their unfinished state I should not think you could pass them. I have seen worse, but not many. Some people will take anything. They are not worth finishing.
Sergeant-Major ALFRED MAY, 6th Battalion Rifle Brigade. I have known prisoner since 1904. He has been in the Militia and latterly in the Special Reserve, and during that time he has borne an excellent character. He was discharged from the Special Reserve on March 19 of this year, having completed his 10 years. I have no knowledge of what he has done since. He bore the rank of sergeant when he was discharged.
Sergeant DAVID GOODWILLIE (recalled). I have known prisoner for some time. He was a constant associate of John Davidson, who was sentenced at this Court two sessions ago to four years' penal servitude for making counterfeit coin (see p. 446). Prisoner was strongly suspected then of being the utterer of the coins Davidson made. He has not yet succeeded in making any good coins. He has been described as a very lazy man and it is stated that he is kept by the woman he lives with.
ALFRED MARTIN (prisoner, on oath). I have never seen Davidson to my knowledge in my life. I have been at work at different theatres, but I have never had any regular job. I have lived by this means. It is impossible for me to have uttered counterfeit coins, as I have been hard up for eight months. My wife has been doing any sort of general work.
Cross-examined. I know Redvers Street, Kingsland Road. I have not visited Davidson there. I did not tell the police that I knew how he was caught last time. The detective told me about Davidson; I did not start the subject. I heard the landlady say at the Police Court that as far as she knew I did not do any work and that my wife works every day. It is true.
Sentence, Nine months' hard labour, the Judge remarking that but for the fact that the prisoner had borne a good character whilst in the Militia and that this appeared to be his first attempt at coining, the sentence would have been very much more severe.
Mr. Pickersgill, M. P., prosecuted.
REGINALD CHAMBERS , assistant at Post Office, 191, Oxford Street, W. At 7.20 p.m. on March 23 a man, whom I do not know, came into the Post Office and I served him with a half-crown postal order. He tendered this florin (produced) and a number of coppers in payment and darted out. I counted the money, my suspicions being aroused. On carefully scrutinising the florin I found it to be counterfeit. I tested it by the slit in the counter. About six seconds later prisoner came in and asked for a three-shilling postal order, tendering this florin (produced) and the rest in coppers in payment. I saw the florin corresponded with the previous florin tendered. I told him that it was counterfeit, and asked him how he obtained it, and he said he did not know. I detained the prisoner and sent for the police.
Cross-examined by prisoner. You waited, but the porter at our place was behind you until the police came. There was nothing to prevent your running away, although the porter was there.
Detective-sergeant JOHN PROTHEROE, C Division. A 8 p.m. on March 23 I and another officer were called to the Post Office at 191, Oxford Street. I there found the prisoner detained. Mr. Chambers said to me, "This is the man who uttered the counterfeit florin. A man preceded him and uttered another coin." He then handed me these two coins (produced). I searched prisoner and found upon him 15 pennies, a good florin, and two separate shilling pieces. He
was then taken to Great Marl borough Street Police Station. On being charged he made no reply. He gave his name as John Edwards, and said, on being asked, "I have no address."
Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I reserve my defence."
JOHN EDWARDS (prisoner, on oath). I went into the Post Office to get the 3s. postal order, tendering a florin and 13 pence in coppers. The assistant looked at my florin and told me it was counterfeit and sent for the police. I told him I did not know where I got it. He did not say anything to me at all while waiting for the police. They searched me, took me to the station, and charged me with uttering a counterfeit coin.
Cross-examined. The police sergeant did not say he would charge me with being concerned in uttering two counterfeit coins. I said I had no fixed abode. That is why I did not give any address. I do not see how I can explain how the two florins were from the same mould nor how it was that I repeated exactly the same thing as the other man had done a few minutes before. The 15 pennies found on me included the 13 pennies which I tendered which had been returned to me. I got it in change for small purchases, such as cigarettes and fruit and newspaper. I should say I bought the cigarettes in the morning; I do not know the exact time. I smoked them all. I changed a half-crown at night at a fruit hawker in Oxford Street; I bought a pennyworth of fruit. I went out at 10 that morning to work in Euston Road, to take a note for my employer to a man there. I gave it to this man in the street. I had some money when I left in the morning and I got some more from my guv'nor in the afternoon. I cannot tell you where I met my guv'nor that day, because it will be getting him into trouble. I refuse to do so. During this day I ran about from one place to another for him—bookmaking—and I was alone that day till I saw him at 10 a.m., directly after I started out. I was with him all day working. I got 6s. from him for a day's work. I was going home when I turned into the Post Office in Oxford Street, my day's work being done. I wanted the postal order to send to a man to whom I owed a debt. I got no money from anybody else that day; all the money I had on me was from my guv'nor. I got a florin and threepence change off a fruit hawker.
A long list of previous convictions was proved against him, dating from 1904, the last being on June 16, 1908, for larceny at the North London Sessions, when he was sentenced to 21 months' hard labour. There was no previous conviction for any coining offence. He was stated to be an habitual thief and never to have been known to do any work.
Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.
Mr. Pickersgill, M. P., prosecuted; Mr. Coombe defended (at the request of the Court).
Detective HENRY RUTTER, H Division. About 12.15 midday on March 17 I was with another officer named Stephens in Wentworth Street, Whitechapel, when I saw prisoner with two other men; prisoner turned his head over his shoulder and on seeing us he separated from the other two men and went in the direction of the "Princess Alice" public house, where he entered, the other two men following him. I kept him under observation. I looked into the private bar first, but could not see him. Stephens looked into the other bar. I knew that the urinal was downstairs through the saloon bar and I went down and found the door of the w.c. was bolted on the inside. I knocked and there was no answer. I knocked again and said, "Open the door." The prisoner said, "Who is there?" and I said, "Police." At the top of the crevice of the door there is about an inch of space below the frame and there is a girder across the w.c, which is about 8 ft. high. I saw a hand over the top of the crevice put a small parcel on the ridge of the girder. Prisoner made no reply and after about 50 seconds I said, "If you don't open this door I will burst it in." He opened the door. He had his trousers down. I said, "I suspect you of having some counterfeit coin in your possession." I looked round and on the crevice of the girder I saw a little parcel, which I took down; it contained these 16 half-crowns (produced), each wrapped up in pieces of tissue paper. One half-crown had no tissue paper round it. When I had opened it I said to prisoner, "What about this?" He said, "I don't know." I said, "There is nobody else in here, only you and I, and I saw a hand go up there and put them there." On examining the parcel further I found that seven of the counterfeit half-crowns were dated 1890 and nine dated 1889. I took prisoner to the station; in reply to the charge he said, "I shall not plead guilty. You will have to prove that I put them up there." I afterwards tested each of the coins with aqua fortis and found they were counterfeit. I marked each one "H.R." When prisoner was in the w.c. he said, "I did not put them there." What he said at a later stage has slipped my memory. Now that Bethnal Green is mentioned to me I remember he said that he had been, living in Bethnal Green. I think that was after he was charged.
Cross-examined. Prisoner has never been convicted at all. I have made inquiries about him and have found he has been working for his brother-in-law and another man. He has also worked for a Mr. Myers. There is an ordinary urinal on the left of the basement, where there is a gas jet. A little way down the steps on the right hand side is the w.c. There is no light on the steps leading down, but there is a gas jet at the bottom, which throws a light into the urinal. That gas jet was about half or three-parts on on this occasion, it was turned on sufficiently high to illuminate the inside of the w.c. The aperture at the top of the door through
which I was looking was over an inch. It is about an inch. I could stand and look through it. I said at the Police Court that the door was about 5 1/2 feet high and that there was a space of an inch or 1 1/2 inches through which I could see. The door was about 5 ft. 9 in. high. I am positively sure I saw the hand put that parcel upon that girder. It was only 2 1/2 ft. from me, or 3 ft. at the very most I should disagree with anybody who said that the door was absolutely plumb at the top. I lost sight of prisoner for about 60 seconds from the time I first saw him in the street. I agree that if he desired to put away this money he must have waited till the very moment when I came in order to do it. He must have undone his trousers and have prepared to sit down before getting rid of these coins. When I was knocking at the door he had ample opportunity to undo his clothes for a certain purpose, but it is not for me to suggest anything, although I could suggest something. As to the suggestion of his being able to put the coins down the pan, the second thing I did was to take off my coat and put my arm right into the pan, but it is constructed in such a way that there would not have been enough force of water to take it up, and if it did not take it up they would not go down. I do not suggest that prisoner tried to do that, they would not have gone down if he had—he had time to try. I do not know if he had a white shirt on. I should certainly not say that this house is frequented by a lot of notorious people; it is frequented by the ordinary class of people that one gets in every part of the East End of London. I know that plenty of "wrong 'uns" go there as well as anywhere else. I can give you the name of one coiner who goes there; he has been convicted at this court. This parcel could not have been put there by anyone but prisoner. It was not on my asking him whether he would plead guilty that he said, "I shall not plead guilty." He might have said in the bar, "I know nothing about it." There was a bit of a hubbub there. I did not intend to let him go without my searching him. I wrote out everything that was said about twenty minutes afterwards at the station. I did not write down that prisoner said, "I know nothing about it." I put down what was necessary for the charge. I am stating the facts. He said, "I shall not plead guilty" at the station. He was not asked whether he would plead guilty. There would be no question as far as his pleading guilty. He is simply asked his name, and the charge is then read over to him. Stephens found nothing upon the other two men. I did not know them, and as far as I know they are all right. One of them may have been an old schoolfellow of prisoner. Prisoner said nothing to me about his going with these men to the White City in Aldgate.
Police-constable JOHN STREPHENS, Criminal Investigation Department. About 12.30 midday on March 17 I was with Butter in Went-worth Street, Whitechapel, when I saw prisoner with two other men. I saw them look round as they were passing us and prisoner hurried on in front of the others. I came to the conclusion that there was something wrong and we followed. Prisoner was some yards ahead
of the others when they got to the "Princess Alice." There was a passage which leads up at the side of the private bars into the saloon bar. Prisoner went up there and Rutter followed him. The other two men turned into the private bar and I went in behind them. As I was going in I could see the stairs leading down to the urinal through the saloon bar. Prisoner was practically running down those stairs and Rutter was hurrying on behind him. I searched the other two men and found nothing. I took their names and addresses. I kept them there for about two minutes and then went down the steps to the urinal. Just about the time when I got there the door of the w.c. was being opened from the inside. Rutter went in and said a few words to prisoner. He then put his hand up and took a little parcel from a girder which is immediately in front of the door. He said to the prisoner, "What is this?" and I believe prisoner said, "I don't know." The door of the w.c. was not really open when I got there and there is a little crack of perhaps an inch or 1 1/4 inch, or it might be 1 1/2 inch at the top of the door right along. The door is not quite 6 ft. high. There is a gas jet burning right in front of the door and the girder would be in the centre of the door, right over the top of the roof. The roof of the w.c. is higher than the door. A person standing outside that door would be able to see the hand of a person inside placing anything upon the girder; you can see nearly half a person's body over the top part of the door if you put your eye close to the crack. It would be untrue to say that there is no space between the top of the door and the framework of the door part, because you can put your hand in and hold on to the top of the door. The gas jet was burning; it gave a fair light.
Cross-examined. What I have been saying about the size of the aperture is not an exaggeration of the grossest degree. It is a wooden door, not very thick. From the moment I last saw Rutter following prisoner down there to the moment I went down and saw him standing outside the w.c. door would be three minutes. The saloon bar is at the end of the passage and I could see prisoner. I should say he was going with more of a run than a walk—a very hurried walk. I had suspicions that something was wrong by the way he hurried away. If he was suddenly "taken short" that might account for his wanting to go quickly. If he did not want to keep his friends waiting one would think he might have said something to them about it instead of rushing off. I did not hear him say anything to the other men. He had his trousers down when I went into the w.c.
(Mr. Pickersgill here proposed to call Albert Rigby. Mr. Coombe objected to his evidence as being inadmissible. Held that the evidence was admissible.)
ALBERT RIGBY , tobacconist, No. 115, Mile End Road, Stepney. About 7 p.m. on March 10 prisoner came into my shop and purchased a penny packet of Woodbine cigarettes, tendering in payment a shilling. I gave him a sixpence and fivepence in coppers and the packet. He had just left when I found the coin was counterfeit. I went after him and said, "Do you know the coin you gave me was bad?" He said "No." I asked him to come back to the shop with
me and he did so. I asked him if he had any more money and he said he had not. I sent for a constable and in the meantime I got the change and the cigarettes back from prisoner. On the constable arriving I handed the shilling over to him.
Cross-examined. It was not before I asked him for it that he returned me the change and the cigarettes.
Police-constable HENRY MOTTLEY, 10 J. R. About 7 p.m. on March 10 I was called to Rigby's shop when I saw prisoner. Rigby told me that prisoner had entered his shop and tendered a bad shilling, which he handed to me (produced). I took prisoner to the station and subsequently he was liberated by the officer in charge.
Cross-examined. We never took any steps in that case. As far as I know, the shilling is a bad one; I am not an expert.
WILLIAM JAMES WEBSTER , Inspector of Coins, His Majesty's Mint. All these 16 half-crowns (produced) are counterfeit. Nine are from one mould and seven from another. This shilling (produced) is a bad one.
Cross-examined. I have not seen this shilling before to-day. Glancing at it, I profess to say that it is bad. Here is an "H. M." on it.
To the Judge. The half-crowns are fair specimens; they are very good imitations, they are taken from a pattern piece that has been well circulated. They are very good and a good many people might take them. The shilling is a good-looking shilling. The coins are not the work of a novice.
Police-constable HENRYMOTTLEY (recalled). I put the marks "H. M., 10.3.10" on this shilling. I have not the slightest doubt that it is the shilling handed to me by Rigby.
Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate. "I reserve my defence."
ABRAHAM RUMDONSKY (prisoner, on oath). I am 19 next birthday and have been in England 18 years. I have never been convicted before. On March 17 I left work at 11 a.m. intending to return at 2, there not being sufficient work to keep me going all the day. I met two old school friends, one named Dave Brown, and proposed to go to the White City, Aldgate, to fill up the time. On the way I wanted to go to the urinal, and went into the "Princess Alice" public-house. When I got inside the w.c. Rutter came and asked me what I was doing and I told him I was doing nothing. The first time he knocked I opened the door. This was about three or four minutes after I had gone into the public-house. I do not think the gas jet was turned up. I think Rutter struck a match and lit the gas. I noticed nothing about there being an aperture at the top of the door, as I was sitting down. When I opened the door Rutter came in and said I am going to search you. I said, "You can search me, but I have done nothing wrong. I don't know what for." He searched me and found twopence on me. Rutter could not find anything down there, and then Stephens came
down, looked round the place and found the parcel, and said, "What is that?" He had a lighted candle in his hand. He handed the parcel to Butter. I was taken to the saloon bar, where Rutter opened the parcel and found the coins. He said to me, "You will be charged for being in possession of these coins. "On going down to the station he said something about pleading guilty, and I said, "No; I shall not plead guilty, because I know nothing of it." I said nothing about his having to prove that I put them there. I do not know anything about the 16 half-crowns. What Big by said about my giving him a counterfeit shilling is true, but I did not know it was bad. I had changed a florin at a fruit barrow on the same day and I got this shilling among the change.
Cross-examined. The two friends I met are not here to-day. When I was in the w.c. I did not say to Butter, "I have just come in here, Mr. Butter, I saw you and Stephens in the street." I said, "I have come down here, Mr. Butter, because I wanted to use the urinal." I did not know him to speak to, but I know his name. I did not know Stephens. I am sure I used the w.c. Three or four minutes elapsed before Butter came down. I did not draw the plug. (To the Judge.) Stephens asked me if I was taken up at Bethnal Green. I said I had been there last week, and they said I had a counterfeit shilling, and I told them I did not know it was bad. I did not say to them, "I only had one on me." I said, "I had one single shilling and I did not know it was counterfeit, and it turned out counterfeit afterwards."
JOHN STONE , managing clerk to Mr. Mew, solicitor, Aldgate. In consequence of a communication that was made to me by prisoner's relations I saw him and then went to the "Princess Alice" public-house. I went down the stairs. The urinal is situated on the left, and you turn to the right to go into the w.c. It is very dark and there is a gas jet burning in the urinal. At the time I went it was open and there was a very faint glimmer of gas in the w.c. The door opens inwards, and I bolted myself in and turned the gas up inside the w.c. I saw the girder referred to. There are two ledges, one each side. I particularly noticed whether anybody could see through the top of the door, and I am positive and emphatic that it is impossible; the door is absolutely plumb. There is not the slightest aperture at the top of the door. The door is painted white because it is so dark down there, and is made of match-boarding one inch thick; it is of wood fitting into one another; that is what I call match-boarding.
Cross-examined. I put myself also into the position in which Butter says he was, and from that position I emphatically say that the door was plumb; there was only a very, very slight aperture. The police are mistaken as to the aperture; it is untrue. (To the Judge.) I am tall enough to easily see through the aperture. My little finger would not go through the aperture, either inside or out.
On Mr. Coombe's application the Judge directed Sub-Inspector William Wallace (City Police) to inspect the door in question and measure the aperture.
MAURICE LAZARUS , master tailor, 5, Casson Street, Whitechapel. I work for a shop in Fleet Street and employ six others. Prisoner has been in my employ six months. On the day he was arrested he had been working from eight to 11. During the whole time he has been with me I have found him honest. As far as I know he has a good character generally. If he is discharged I shall reemploy him.
(Thursday, April 7.)
FREDERICK BROOKS , blouse manufacturer, Old Kent Road. I was here yesterday as a friend of Mr. Stone. I have never seen prisoner before. I went down to the "Princess Alice" yesterday with Stone. He went inside while I remained outside. When the door was shut there was a small aperture at the top of the door, but it was so small that I could not put my little finger in. It could not be described as an inch or an inch and a half. It was impossible to see half a person's body through it. When the gas was out you could see nothing at all; it is all artificial light down there. There was a gas jet inside the w.c. If that gas were partly on you could see something looking from the outside, but you could not distinguish what it was. It might have been a hand or a hat or a stick. I could see the hand if the gas was full up. I am six feet two inches.
To the Judge. When looking through the aperture I was almost touching the door with my nose.
ARTHUR WILLIAM PASK , commercial traveller, 58, Kent Road, Queen's Park. Mr. Stone is my friend and I happened to be here yesterday out of curiosity. I do not know prisoner or his relations I went last night to this place and found I could not get my little finger through the. space at the top of the door. Brooks and I remained outside while Stone went in the w.c. When the gas was full on you could certainly see the hand moving above the aperture of the door if your eye happened to be close to the aperture, but you have to get accustomed to the light to see that. If the gas was half on you could see nothing at all, and if it was out it was absolutely pitch dark.
Detective Henry Rutter (recalled). It is not true that Stephens found the parcel. He did not have a candle when he came down. He saw me take the parcel from the girder. The reason I put my hand down the w.c. was I thought there might have been two parcels of coins. The first thing I did was to take the parcel down. Your suggestion that we were down there 15 minutes before I found the parcel is wrong.
Further re-examined. There was no excrement in the pan.
where to get the parcel from because he put his hand up. He put his hand down the w.c. after finding the parcel.
The Judge. I cannot call him, but the prosecution ought to call the officer I sent down yesterday, as it is their duty to give all the information they can.
Sub-inspector WILLIAM WALLACE, City Police. I went yesterday with one of my officers to the basement of the "Princess Alice" and examined the door of the w.c. When the door is closed there is a slight space between the door and the framework of from three-quarter inches on the hingeside, diminishing to three-eighth inch at the front jamb; it does not appear to be hung exactly straight. There is a gas jet in the interior of the w.c. and I lit it. The officer went inside the w.c. and closed the door while I remained outside. I could see the iron girder which ran from the middle of the door straight across the ceiling of the w.c. It has a two-inch flange each side and I could see the officer's hand pass along the whole length of that girder either side. I produce a sketch of the w.c.
Cross-examined. There is a light showing at the back and just by the doorway. There are two doorways leading into this w.c., there is a urinal and then a w.c. Outside there is an incandescent light, so that there is a good light in the cellar, or there was when I went down there at 4.41 p.m. I did not feel any necessity of getting my eyes accustomed to the light. I could see nothing when the gas was turned out. You could not have the gas on very much because it would blow away; there seemed to be too much pressure behind and it had to be turned down about half way. When I was down there it was turned on as full as possible. I did not make any experiment when there was only a glimmer of light. I could not see half the man's body as I looked through, and I could not get my hand through at any part. The inside of the w.c. is of white porcelain bricks and these make it rather lighter.
Verdict, Not Guilty.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Wednesday, April 6.)
Previous convictions were proved.
Sentence, Two months' hard labour.
GOULD, Arthur Albert (38, horsekeeper); MOORE, William (24, greengrocer); and VERSEY, Henry (25, carman) , all stealing two horses, one set of harness, and other articles, the goods of Charles Swaine and another; all stealing one horse, six sets of harness, and one lamp, the goods of Howard Axtens Callard; Moore and Versey stealing one horse, the goods of Robert Chapman.
Mr. Roome prosecuted; Mr. Tully-Christie defended Moore.
The third indictment (against Moore and Versey) was first tried.
Cross-examined. I do not know either of the prisoners.
Cross-examined. I think the value is about £35. I do not know either of the prisoners.
JOHN JOHNSON , farmer, Colchester. I was at a horse sale on January 22. I saw Moore arrive into the market with an old dun cob. There was another man with him; I did not take much notice of the other man. I paid four guineas for the dun cob, which was chip kneed. I sold it for £5 to a man named Fisher.
Cross-examined. I gave fair value for the horse.
HENRY BUTCHER , 8, High Street, Colchester, clerk to Sexton and Grimwade, auctioneers. I sold the dun cob to last witness. Versey came with it to enter it for sale. He said his name was Smith, Knight's Farm, Great Ormesby. I asked him if he wished to put any warranty on it. He said, No, because if he put a warranty on it he would not have the money till the following Wednesday. For horses with no warranty we pay the same day.
Cross-examined. I saw Moore at the market. I did not speak to him.
Cross-examined. I have not seen prisoners before.
Cross-examined. The price was 7 1/2 guineas. I do not know defendants.
JOSHUA MARTIN , "Red Lion" public-house, Soham. I bought a dun cob from Mr. Simpson at Bury. I gave 7 1/2 guineas for it. I think it is a fair price. A man named Jerome afterwards picked out the horse as having belonged to Mr. Chapman.
Sergeant HENRY HOLFORD. I arrested Moore on March 7. I handed him over to Sergeant Hawkins and he was taken to Brixton. I arrested him on another charge.
Cross-examined. I know prisoner Moore well. No charge has ever been brought against him.
Detective-sergeant CHARLES HAWKINS. I was at Colchester on March 11 and saw Versey in the police station. I told him I was a police officer and that he would be charged with stealing a dun coloured cob pony. He said, "I am in it and I must get out of it." I had previously told him, "Moore is in custody; he said you stole the horses." Versey said, "I shall see about that." On the way to London he said, "The dun coloured pony you spoke about we drove it down and put it in the auction." On March 22 Moore and
Versey were charged with this offence. Neither of them made any reply.
Prisoner VERSEY. I deny saying I was in it and should have to get out of it.
The Witness. I wrote this in prisoner's presence and read it over to him. I said, "Is that correct?" He said "Yes."
WILIAM MOORE (prisoner, on oath). This document is a receipt for a dun cob I bought on January 20 at the back of the Elephant Depository from a dealer. I gave £3 5s. for it. He is a dealing man I generally see at sales named Smith. I asked the detective to try and find him when I was in the prisoners' waiting room. He said, "We have got you; that is good enough for us." I wrote a letter to my wife asking if she could find the man. They would not grant me bail so that I could find him. When I bought the dun cob I took him to my stable. I said to Versey, "I have bought a cheap cob; what shall we do with it?" He said, "Meet me at Colchester." He lives there. I drove the cob down and put him up for the night at the "Castle" public house. The cob's knees were chipped, looked as if done for months. It was a bit aged. Next morning Versey put it in the sale. I told him I should not warrant the cob because he would not eat, and I did not want him returned. I heard nothing more till March 22, when I was charged with stealing this cob.
Cross-examined. Versey is my brother-in-law. I have known him eight or 10 years. I am a greengrocer and work a round with a horse and cart. I buy a pony if I see anything cheap to get myself a few shillings. I attend horse sales at the Elephant, Caledonian Market, and Ward's Depository, Edgware Road. I do not buy ponies every day, only occasionally. We do not make inquiries when buying horses as to where they came from. I have known Smith about two years. I cannot tell you where he lives. I generally see him at Caledonian Market on Friday's. I said to him when I bought the cob, "You had better give me a receipt." He wrote it out on the card; I put it in my pocket and took no more notice. I said to my wife, "I think I will leave this at home. I don't think I want to carry this about again." The police did not ask me the name of the man I bought it from. They call the man I bought it from Long Ted. The police did not ask me to give a description of him. They would not let me have a word to say to them. I did not take notice of the notices in the cell. I forgot about getting the police to find the man.
HENRY VERSEY (prisoner on oath). I sold the cob on behalf of Moore. He told me he thought perhaps it would fetch more down in the country. I was going home to Colchester and we drove it down there together. I put it in the auction in the name of Smith. That was because they all know me as Smith. They call me that as a nick-name and always have done from a boy.
Cross-examined. I was present when Moore bought the horse of Smith. Moore knows Smith better than I do. I do not know where Smith lives. I did not think there was any need to make an effort to bring Smith here; I did not buy the horse. It did not belong to both of us.
Verdict, both Guilty.
Sentences, Moore and Versey (each), 20 months' hard labour.
The prosecution offering no evidence on the other indictments, the Jury were directed to find a verdict of Not guilty.
ROSS, Harry (38, dealer), and THOMPSON, William (39, fitter) , both breaking and entering the dwelling house of George D'Albert and stealing therein three diamond rings, two scarf pins, and two gold bracelets, his property.
Mr. Counsell prosecuted; Mr. Turrell defended Ross; Mr. Purcell defended Thompson.
HERBERT JOSEPH HAYES , 38, Russell Road, Finsbury Park, postman. On the night of February 24 I was in Furlong Road delivering letters. I had a postal packet to deliver at No. 16. I knocked. The door was not opened. I looked through the letter box and saw a man in the passage. There was an incandescent gas light burning in the hall. It was full on. The man did not respond to my knock, but turned and walked towards the stairs, down which was coming another man. The one in the passage held his finger up as a warning. Ross was the man I first saw. I noticed the door had got two abrasions from the use of a jemmy or some sharp instrument. I came down the steps and sent two little girls who were passing for the police. In the meantime I saw a constable on the other side and called his attention. After that I saw both prisoners as they were leaving the premises by the hall door. I did not see either of them come out of the house. As they left the house they left the door open. Ross was arrested, the other doubled back. I went to Caledonian Road Police Station at 8.45 a.m. on March 8 to identify the other prisoner from 11 or 12 men. I pointed him out as the man I saw.
Cross-examined by Mr. Turrell. I recognised the men through the letter-box by the gaslight. I did not recognise the man on the stairs, as he had a bowler hat on and was looking down as though he was studying the treads of the stairs. The man in the passage was standing in the first place in the middle of the passage. When the man was coming down the stairs he was at the foot of the stairs looking towards the man coming down. When the other man came into the passage they went towards the head of the basement staircase. I saw Ross side-face when he was standing towards the staircase. I had an opportunity of identifying him when he was arrested.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purcell. There is a garden in front of the house and steps up to the door. The letter-box is a little higher than midway up the door. It would be level with my eye as I was going up the steps. It was defective. The aperture was clear. As Thompson was coming down the stairs his head was bowed and his
face was covered by the brim of his hat. I could not see enough of him to recognise him. The next opportunity of observing was when the two men came out of the door. Thompson was behind. At that time there was a policeman in front of the house. Thompson ran back into the house pretty quickly. I had long enough opportunity of seeing him even then, a good many seconds. One prisoner was arrested three or four steps down. The man that came down stairs did not stay there very long. He turned down to the basement. He stood there for some seconds. When I went to the police station to identify there were fair and dark men. I could not say whether there were more fair than dark. I said I was sure of my man when I touched Thompson. The officer in charge did not tell the men to take their hats off.
Police-constable RHODES, 234 M. On the evening of February 24 I was in Furlong Road. At No. 16 I was spoken to by last witness. I got on to the back gate overlooking the garden. I saw Ross standing in the area doorway. When he saw me he rushed back into the house. I then ran to the front doorway. When half way up the steps I saw both prisoners come out of the premises. Rose opened the door and the other followed him. The door was left open. Ross whispered to Thompson, who rushed back into the house and slammed the door. Ross was left outside. The postman, Hayes, said, "That is one of the men." Ross said, "I do not know what you mean." I cautioned prisoner. He then said, "I live here." Another constable was then there. Prosecutor's wife was looking out of the area window. She shouted, "Help, there is a man in my house." She let us in. In Ross's presence I asked her if she knew the man and whether he resided there. She said, "I do not know the man. He does not reside here." He was afterwards taken to Caledonian Road Police Station. I did not lose sight of him after I arrested him on the steps. On March 8 I was at Caledonian Road Station and picked out Thompson, not-withstanding he had put on a different coat, changed his tie and altered his appearance as much as possible. I recognised him entirely by his features.
Cross-examined by Mr. Turrell. The night was dark, but it was a light road. There was a lamp on the opposite side of the road. I was not aware until afterwards that Ross lives in Gibson Square. Furlong Road is not in the least on the way from the "Nag's Head" to Gibson Square. I arrested Ross about 8 ft. from the gate on the third step from the top. There were a few people collecting there as I arrested him. It is not possible Ross was the first man of the crowd that came up. I saw him in the area and then on the third step as he was coming out of the premises. The other man went through the premises and escaped at the back. I am positive Ross was the man that was standing there; that he rushed through the house and came to the front of the premises, and also that Thompson was on the step, and before the man escaped at the rear of the premises got away I had Ross in custody.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purcell. It was about a second after Thompson saw me that he ran back and slammed the door. I saw his face quite plain, his tie, and his coat. I did not say when I saw Thompson in the row of men that he had a different tie and coat. The coat collar and tie did not assist me in the recognition. When the man was on the stairs I had not time to see the colour and description of the tie. When I identified him at the station he had a muffler on which he had not on the steps of the house. I recognised him by his features.
GEORGE D'ALBERT , 16, Furlong Road, Holloway, music-hall artist. On February 24 I left home about 5.45 p.m. to keep an engagement and returned soon after midnight. I found the hall door had been forcibly entered. I missed three diamond rings, two diamond scarf pins, and two gold bracelets value £150. I charged prisoner Ross next day.
Mrs. RUNY D'ALBERT. I remember my husband going out about 5.45 p.m. on February 24. I lay down on a couch in the basement. I heard a whisper, the dog barked, and then I heard footsteps. Then I heard someone shout, "Joe, the police." I got quickly up, opened the door, and then a man rushed quickly past me, opened the garden door, and ran down the garden. I ran down the garden and shouted for help. I went back to the house and found Ross in the hall in custody of the police.
Detective-sergeant POWELL. I was in Furlong Road on February 24 at 9.40 p.m. I found the front door of No. 16 had been forced open. Ross was then at the station under arrest. I saw Thompson on March 7 at King's Cross Road Police Station. I told him I was a police officer and should arrest him on suspicion of being concerned with a man named Ross, who was arrested on February 24, for breaking into 16, Furlong Road. He made no reply.
On the 8th he was placed with eight other men at the Caledonian Road Police Station, and after about twenty minutes, to see if we could find men near his stature and colour, he was picked out by the witness Hayes and police-constable 262. Before he was put with the other men Thompson said to the inspector in charge of the station, "I want no one here but you." The inspector told me to go into his office. As soon as I left I saw through the glass window he took off the coat he is now wearing and borrowed a coat from a clerk. He also put on a muffler to cover up his collar and tie. After the identification he was charged. He made no reply to the charge in my hearing. I found a skeleton key on him.
Cross-examined. Thompson complained of being placed among so many fair men. There were six dark men and three fair. I could see the identification through the window of the office.
Police-constable BACKER, 779 N. I was at 16, Furlong Road at 7.45 p.m. on February 24. There was a crowd outside the gate. Police-constable Rhodes was on the steps. He had prisoner Ross. I heard Ross say to him, "I live here." Mrs. D'Albert was at the area window. She shouted, "There is a man in my house." She opened the door at my request. I took Ross into the hall. I asked Mrs.
D'Albert if she knew the man. She said, "I do not know the man; he does not live here."
Cross-examined. When I first saw Ross he was in custody on the steps. They are eight or nine feet from the gate. I am sure Ross did not say he lived near there; he said, "I live here."
HARRY ROSS (prisoner, on oath). On February 24 I was coming from the "Nag's Head." I had a call to make at Drayton Park. I looked in at a restaurant there, which is right alongside Furlong Road. Gibson Square is in Liverpool Road, and by going through Furlong Road you cut off a big corner. I went through that road that night. As I was approaching the house where the burglary was committed I saw the constable walk across the road and enter the gate. The postman was standing at the gate and, naturally enough, I stood there. There were six or seven people outside the house then. Others came along; there were perhaps 30 or 40. The postman explained it was a burglary. I was arrested on the footpath. The front of this house has shrubs all along, so that you had to be in front of the crowd to get a view of the door. Perhaps 20 or 30 people were endeavouring to see what would happen. When I was arrested I had my hand right on the gate. As I stood there I saw the front door open. I saw a man come as far as the gate. The constable was on the side fence. He came off the fence towards the front gate where the postman was standing. The postman practically arrested me. He said, "This is one of them," and the constable got hold of me. I said, "What do you mean? You have made a mistake." I did not say I lived there. It was on the way to the station I said, "I live close here." I said, "The idea of my entertaining such a thing as this close to where I live. I would not do such a thing."
Cross-examined. I heard the postman and constable give their evidence. It is untrue. I heard the constable ask Mrs. D'Albert if she knew me and if I lived there. She said, "I have never seen him before." I do not know why he asked the question. I am not supposed to know the constable's reason for asking. In my opinion the police would not have arrested me if the postman had not pointed me out. I was one of the first 12 or 15 people to arrive outside the gate on the footpath. I was taken into the house by the police. I did not pass the gate before that. I was there two or three minutes before I was arrested. I knew no one in the crowd. I only wish I had some friends among the crowd. I did not see a man come out of the house. I did not say anything to my counsel about seeing a man come out of the house. I saw somebody open the door and go back into the house. I could not give any description of him. I have known Thompson many years.
WILLIAM THOMPSON (prisoner, on oath). I live at 51, Risinghill Street, N. I was arrested opposite the premises of Mr. Abrahams, a furniture dealer. I was not at the house which was broken into. I have known Ross for years. I expect the reason why I have been apprehended is that the police know me as a companion of Ross.
The key found on me is my street door key. On the day of the burglary I was at a matinee at Collins' Music Hall. I left there at 5.30; went home, had tea and a wash, and came out again at 7.5 or 7.10 p.m., went over to Abrahams to see if he wanted me. From 7.30 to 8 I was outside his shop. The postman and policeman are mistaken in their identification.
Cross-examined. On February 24 I was outside Mr. Abrahams' shop from 7.10 to 8 p.m. He is my father-in-law. I am outside there nearly every night. I do not remember seeing Ross on February 24. I cannot say I know Furlong Road. I have not been in it to my knowledge. I had not been with Ross since February 24. I did not know he was under arrest. I did not get a fair chance at the identification. There was not one dark man among the lot. I put the muffler round my neck and changed my coat because I was the only dark man. When I objected the Inspector said, "If you want to get dark people you will have to wait a twelvemonth." I did not know if the man who committed the robbery was fair or dark.
Numerous convictions were proved against both prisoners; Ross is known in the district where he lives as the King of Housebreakers.
Sentences: Thompson, Four years' penal servitude; Ross, Three years' penal servitude.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Thursday, April 7.)
READ, Herbert Shenton (28, carpenter), pleaded guilty of stealing 10 halfpenny stamps, the goods of Moser, Limited, his employers; stealing 82 gross and two hack saw blades and other articles, the goods of Moser, Limited, his employers.
Mr. Bodkin prosecuted; Mr. Daniel Warde defended.
Prisoner was stated to have been stealing goods from his employers, Moser, Limited, for a period of two years. He had made restitution to the amount of £475 in cash and £171 worth of goods had been recovered on his arrest.
Sentence, Nine months' imprisonment, second division.
Mr. H. Cassie Holden prosecuted.
HENRY MATTHEW BERESFORD , secretary of Oastler, Palmer and Company, Limited, Market Street, Bermondsey, tanners and leather merchants. The bill of exchange (produced) was drawn by me on my firm's printed form, filled up on March 12, and dated March 14, 1910, for £435 at four months upon Smith, Culpeck and Company, Limited, High Street, Homerton. It was not signed by one of our
directors, and was handed by me to Mr. James Smith, our managing director, for the purpose of its being presented to Smith, Culpeck and Company, and obtaining their acceptance. Ordinarily tills would be sent to Smith, Culpeck and Company by post, and returned accepted. This bill was forwarded on March 12, and has not been received back by my firm. It is now altered in date from March 14, 1910, to November 14, 1909; the signature of "J. Caradine, Director," has been added. We have no director named Caradine. In respect of the date and the signature of Caradine the bill is a forgery. It has been accepted by Smith, Culpeck and Company—the acceptance is genuine.
SIDNEY HERBERT SIMTH , 6, Osborn Mansions, Northumberland Street, W., director of Smith, Culpeck and Company, High Street, Homerton. On March 14 I received bill of exchange (produced) from one of the directors of Oastler, Palmer and Company, Limited; it was then dated March 14, 1910. I wrote the acceptance over our rubber stamp, "Payable at the West Smithfield branch of the London City and Midland Bank." When I received it there was no name of a director of Oastler, Palmer and Company inserted. When I accepted it I put the bill with a cheque for £21 and a formal letter of advice in an envelope and gave it out to be posted in the usual way. I heard nothing more about it until I was called to the bank. I have never seen the prisoner, and know no one of the name of J. Caradine.
ELIZABETH HORN , clerk to Smith, Culpeck and Company, Limited. I keep the postage-book (produced) of my firm. On March 14 I find an entry of a postage of a letter to Oastler, Palmer and Company, Limited. I handed the letter to Laura Hassall, messenger, employed by my firm.
THOMAS BAILEY SMITH , cashier, West Smithfield branch, London City and Midland Bank. Smith, Culpeck and Company, Limited, have an account at my bank. On March 16 prisoner presented at my bank bill produced. I asked prisoner how he would take it, when he said, "I want £90 in gold and the remainder in small Bank of England notes." I examined it and noticed the date had been altered, and that it was unendorsed. On holding it to the light I saw very plainly somebody had been tampering with the date. I said to prisoner, "The date has been altered—where did you get it from." He said that it was given to him by Mr. Oastler, who lived at Market Street, Bermondsey. I communicated with my manager. A police officer was sent for, and prisoner was given into custody. The bill being dated November 14, 1909, would not be payable until March 17, 1910. The bill required endorsement. It has not been endorsed. Prisoner was dressed fairly respectably—he had a collar, tie and overcoat on.
Cross-examined by prisoner. You were detained about an hour and a half while we were making inquiries. You came to the bank at about 2.50 p.m., and were immediately given into custody.
Inspector HERBERT HINE, City. On March 16, in company with Detective-sergeant Stewart, I went to the London City and Midland Bank, West Smithfield, where I saw the prisoner. I said, "We are police officers; I am given to understand that you presented this bill of exchange for £435, the date of which I am told has been altered." He said, "Yes, I presented it." I said, "Where did you get it?" He said, "A bookmaker sent me with it from the 'Provence' public house, Leicester Square; he said he lived at 24 or 26 Market Street, Bermondsey. His pitch is between Chancery Lane and the next turning in Holborn towards Oxford Circus. He told me if I was asked who it was for to say 'Mr. Oastler,' and I was to take the money back to him at the 'Provence' public house. I have met him seven or eight times, and have had a bet with him. I saw him first about eighteen months ago, and have seen him about twice since." I said, What is your name?"; he said "William Smith"; I said, "Where do you live?"; he said, "I decline to say." I then said, "I shall take you into custody, and you will be charged with forging and uttering this bill of exchange, and probably later with stealing and receiving the bill of exchange together with a letter and a cheque." On the way to the police station he said, "I did not know it was stolen." I have made inquiries at 24 and 26 Market Street.
Held that the result of the inquiries could not be given unless asked for by the prisoner. I have endeavoured to find the bookmaker referred to but have been unsuccessful. Prisoner was dressed much as he is now—he had a black hard felt hat on.
To prisoner. You did not say that you had seen the bookmaker several times two weeks ago; you said you had known him 18 months. You did not say you had had two bets with him.
Prisoner's statement before the magistrate: I would not have gone with it, but this bookmaker what I see in the "Provence" told me it was sent to him for a racing debt, and said he took it into his bank there where he had his banking account, and said he asked one of the clerks there if that was a genuine bill and the clerk said, "Yes; I cannot see nothing wrong with it; as long as you present it at that date everything will be there waiting for it." That is the reason I took it when he said that.
WILLIAM SMITH (prisoner, not on oath). I was passing along Holborn on March 16; just when I got three doors beyond Chancery Lane by a bookshop I heard somebody call. I turned round and saw this man. I first saw him 18 months ago up at Muswell Hill Road at a boxing competition. We got talking to one another; I have seen him several times since. Three weeks before this happened I had two bets with him. I took him to be a straightforward man. When I saw him he said, "What are you doing; are you doing any work?" I said, "No;" so he said, "See me at two o'clock outside the 'Provence 'Hotel. I will be able to offer you a job." I said, "All
right." I went to the "Provence" Hotel at 2 p.m. He said, "Will you have a drink?" I said, "Yes"; we went into the private bar, he paid for a drink and said, "Look here, I have had this bill sent to me for a racing debt; I took it into my bank yesterday morning and asked the clerk if it was genuine, and the clerk said it was genuine"—as long as he presented it at that certain date at the Smithfield branch of the London City and Midland Bank—"the money will be there waiting for you." I thought it sounded alright. He said, "I have got to stop here to see a friend, if it is paid bring it here." I had had nothing to do all the week, my boots were hanging off my feet, and I thought I knew the man to be alright. I said, "What is the good of my going to get £400—what name shall I give—do you think I will get it." He said, "It has only to be paid—it is all right. This is a genuine thing, I have had it sent to me for a racing debt. When you get the money ask for £90 in gold and the rest in small notes." I said, "They are sure to ask for your name. What name shall I give? I do not know where you live." He said, "My name is Oastler—I live at 24 or 26"—(I am not sure which)—"Market Street, Bermondsey. I will wait here for you till you come back."
Prisoner confessed to having been convicted on July 2, 1909, at Winchester Assizes of stealing and forging a banker's cheque for £17 19s. 9d., and sentenced to nine months' hard labour, after several other convictions.
Sentence-, 12 months' hard labour.
Mr. Samuel prosecuted; Mr. Kent defended.
PATRICK MAHER . On February 18 I was living at Smith's Buildings, Flower and Dean Street, Spitalfields, with Alice Maher, whom I have lived with for eight years. About 12 p.m. I went upstairs to my land-lady about a package in the room. I heard a bustling at the bottom of the staircase—it was quite dark—and I received a stab in my chin. I turned and ran out, and I received another stab in my thigh near the groin; it tore the trousers. I went to the door, when I saw a man running away towards Whitechapel Road, whom I identify as the prisoner by his build, and by a mackintosh I have seen him wear—I do not know the colour of it. I have known the prisoner for several years, and am sure he is the man. I went into the room, lost a lot of blood, and fainted, and was then assisted to the London Hospital by two young women. It was about half a mile; I fell down three times on the road. Six stitches were put in my chin and two in my thigh. I came home, the stitches burst, and I was taken to the police-station, where the wounds were dressed by the divisional surgeon, and I remained in the station till the following morning. I made and signed a statement at the station. I was then sent to the Whitechapel Infirmary as an in-patient, and remained there a fortnight. I next saw the prisoner on March 6, at 3.55 p.m.; he came into the infirmary
to see me. He looked in the door, and said, "I am sorry for what happened to you." I said, "I have got it, and I suppose I must put up with it." There were a number of other people in the room, and prisoner asked if they were all right; were they straight people. I said as far as I knew they were all right. He then went out in a hurry. He came in looking frightened as if he thought he might be apprehended.
Cross-examined. I made the charge against prisoner at the police-court at seven o'clock the morning after I was stabbed. I told the policeman there it was Tommy Taylor, but that I would not charge him. I had had on February 18 quite sufficient drink. I cannot recollect telling the policeman that I did not know who stabbed me; I knew it was the prisoner; I am a street trader, and have worked all over England. I have been a licensed pedlar, but I now sell in the gutter. I have stood outside the Empire at Shepherd's Bush for two years by permission of the police. I have also worked the Holloway Road and Seven Sisters Road, and Old Street, selling postcards and pirated music. I live with Alice Maher; I give her money averaging £1 a week, sometimes more, sometimes less. A few weeks before this happened I lived with Alice at 4, Queensland Road, Holloway. She did not go out at night. I did not see the prisoner stab me; I saw him running away afterwards—I did not see his face; I saw his back; I say it is the prisoner. I did not tell the constable I did not know who did it; I could recognise the prisoner.
Mr. Kent tendered in evidence the statement made by prosecutor at the police-station. Held not to be evidence.
Dr. FRITZ ASHBURGER, Receiving-room Officer at the London Hospital. Prosecutor was brought to me on the morning of February 18. He had an incised wound on the left side of the lower part of his face and a shorter but rather deeper wound on the outer side of the right thigh, apparently caused by a sharp instrument. I attended to his injuries. He appeared to be sober.
Cross-examined. I only saw prosecutor once in the receiving-room; he was there about ten minutes, and I gave him a letter as an out-patient; he did not attend the hospital afterwards. I formed the opinion that he had had two or three drinks, but he was not drunk; he was in rather an excitable condition. The wounds were not serious; he had lost a certain amount of blood.
ALBERT EDWARD TWINE , Assistant Medical Officer, Whitechapel Infirmary. Prosecutor was admitted to the infirmary on February 23. He had an incised wound on the left side of the jaw and a punctured wound on the right side of the thigh; he needed rest and treatment. On February 26 he took his discharge against my advice, returned on February 28, and remained in the infirmary till March 9, when both wounds were healed, and he was able to walk. I have not examined him since.
ALICE MAHER . I have been living with prosecutor for the last eight years. On February 18 we had just moved into 25, Brick Lane. On February 19, at about 12.45 a.m., prosecutor went out to see the landlady. He was not drunk; he had had about two drinks. He
called out, "Oh! I am stabbed; there is a knife in my leg." I got him upstairs into the first floor front room; no one was on the stairs, but I heard a voice which I recognised as the prisoner's, whom I have known for about two years. He called out, "Patsy, Patsy, come dawn, you bastard." I looked out of the window and saw prisoner running up the street; I only saw his back. I recognised him by the mackintosh he was wearing; it was fawn colour; I have seen him wearing it several times when he has come to Flower and Dean Street. On February 21 I went with a girl friend to the "Woodin's Shades" public-house, when prisoner, with three other friends, came in, one of whom, named May, whom I know, paid for a drink. Prisoner asked me where Patsy was. I said I did not know. He said, "I am sorry for what I did; I did not mean it for Patsy; it was meant for Wolfy." I know Wolfy is living in Flower and Dean Street. Prisoner's wife then came in, and he was talking to her. He afterwards said to me, "If you prosecute me we shall do for you." On the night of the occurrence I made a statement at the police-station.
Cross-examined. I was a few minutes getting prosecutor into the front room. I then saw prisoner about 50 yards away standing in the middle of the road. There were several people at the corner of Flower and Dean Street. I cannot swear that prisoner did not say, "I am sorry for what has happened to Patsy; it was meant for Wolfy."
Sergeant JOHN CAVAN, H Division. On March 18, with Detective Smart, I saw prisoner at 15, Spring Gardens, King Edward Street, If he End, in bed. I woke him and told him that I would take him into custody for feloniously cutting and wounding Patrick Maher. He said, "I know Patsy Maher. That is not my game—chivvying; I believe in a fair fight; he ought to come copper" (meaning become a policeman) "he is only a ponce." Prisoner was taken to Commercial Street Police Station, where the charge was read over to him, and he made no reply. I arrested him in consequence of information given by the prosecutor, Alice Maher, and Lily Smith, at Commercial Street Police Station on February 18, between 4 and 5 a.m. (To the Judge.) I did not arrest him before March 18 because we could not find him.
Mr. Kent submitted that there was no case to answer. The Recorder said there was very little in the case, and asked the jury if they required the prisoner to answer the charge, upon which the jury returned a verdict of Not guilty.
Mr. Campbell prosecuted.
Newton pleaded Guilty.
Detective FREDERICK GUNNER, City Police. On March 14, at 2.30 p.m., I was on duty in plain clothes in Lime Street in company with Detective O'Meara, when I saw the three prisoners walking together. We suspected them, and followed them to Ship Tavern Passage, where the three stood talking for several minutes, separated, and mixed amongst a number of persons who were looking into a shop window.
Newton placed himself near the prosecutor, while Nash and White stood immediately behind, covering his movements. Newton then took watch (produced) from prosecutor's left waistcoat pocket, and attempted to take it from the chain. Failing to do so he used both hands, and forced the watch from the chain by breaking the bow. He was then in the act of passing it to Nash, who was standing behind, when I placed my hand down by his side, and he put the watch into my hand. I put the watch into my pocket, and the three prisoners were arrested. White commenced to struggle. They were taken to the Minories Police Station, when they were charged. Newton and Nash made no reply. White said, "I do not know these two men; you have made a great mistake, and I will make it hot for you in the morning." From the time I first saw them to the taking of the watch was about eight to ten minutes.
Cross-examined. I saw Nash light his pipe; he had his hands in his pocket, but when he entered the crowd he took them out. Nash and White stood about a yard behind Newton. (To White.) There were 20 or 30 people round the window.
Detective EDMUND O'MEARA, City Police, corroborated the last witness.
HAROLD JAMES WALTER SCOTT , clerk to the Deutsche Bank, George Yard, Lombard Street. On March 14, at about 2.30 p.m., I was in Ship Tavern Passage, looking in a shop window amongst a crowd, and wearing a silver watch (produced). I heard a click in the neighbourhood of my waistcoat, and found my watch was gone. I saw prisoner Newton by my side, but before I could make any movement the detective said, "I have got your watch in my pocket." The three prisoners were taken into custody. I did not see the other prisoners until they were arrested.
THOMAS WHITE (prisoner, not on oath.) How could I be implicated if I was a yard behind Newton? If I had wanted to cover his movements I should be close up to him. It is ridiculous to charge me. I am just taken on suspicion because I happened to be close where the robbery took place. This man is a perfect stranger to me; I never saw him in my life before. It is ridiculous to implicate me.
Verdict (Nash and White), Guilty.
Newton confessed to having been convicted of felony on February 15, 1905, at Newington Sessions in the name of of Thomas Murphy; Nash to having been convicted of felony at Knutsford, Cheshire, on July 4, 1900, in the name of John Carr; White to having been convicted of felony on October 16, 1905, at Durham Quarter Sessions in the name of William Brown.
The three prisoners pleaded not guilty to being habitual criminals.
Detective-sergeant JAMES BROWN, City Police. Newton's first conviction was in 1865, when he was sentenced to 18 months' hard labour at this court; in 1868 he had seven years' penal servitude; in 1877 he was sentenced to ten years' penal servitude and five years' police supervision at Middlesex Sessions. Sentences of three months, three months, six weeks, etc., followed. In 1888 he had 12 months; in 1890 months; in 1893 20 months; in 1899 five years' penal servitude; then license revoked; 21 months at South London Sessions under the Prevention of Grimes Act; three months' at Ascot Racecourse; three months at the Mansion House; there were also 13 summary convictions, making 32 convictions in all. Nash first came under the notice of the police in 1887, when he received 21 days' hard labour at Sheffield, followed by a number of short sentences; in 1897, 12 months hard labour; in 1900, three years' penal servitude, and afterwards 18 months' hard labour. White has had 28 convictions in all, commencing in 1872 with six months' hard labour at Birmingham; then 18 months' hard labour; seven years' penal servitude, and five years' police supervision; in 1882 at Dublin, five years' penal servitude; in 1902, at North London Sessions, three years' penal servitude.
The Recorder stated' that he should not deal with the prisoners as habitual criminals on the present charge.
Sentence, Newton, 12 months' hard labour; Nash and White (each), 20 months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Thursday, April 7.)
HOWARD, Charles, otherwise HARLEY (27, sign writer), pleaded guilty of embezzling and stealing £1 5s. 7d. received by him for and on account of Edward Arthur Good and another, his masters; to a further indictment for uttering counterfeit coin twice on the same day; he pleaded not guilty.
Mr. Pickersgill, M. P., prosecuted; Mr. Daniel Warde defended (at the request of the Court).
ALEXANDER ROSE , tobacconist, 798, Goswell Road. At 3.30 p.m., on March 10, prisoner came in and asked for a twopenny cigar, tendering a florin in payment. I put his florin with a sixpence on one side of the scale and a good florin on the other side, to show that his was bad, since they balanced. I then took two good florins and rubbed the millings together, and then rubbed his bad florin against a good florin, and showed him the difference in the sound. He took it into his hand and looked at it. He then gave me a half-crown, and I gave him in change a florin and fourpence in coppers. I do not think it was the same florin as I had weighed that I gave him, but it was one of the two florins I had been rubbing together. Two men named Wilsdon and Cable were in the shop all the time. Prisoner left, and
about 30 minutes later he came back, and said that the florin I had given him was a bad one. He handed me a bad florin, and I said it was not the one I had given him. We then walked across the road to a constable just opposite. I told him all that had occurred. I cannot remember exactly what prisoner said, but he must have said something to the effect that the bad florin was the one I had given him. The constable said the best thing to do was for all of us to go to the station, and we went. I gave him the bad florin the prisoner had given me.
Cross-examined. I have had three or four bad coins passed to me within the last three or four months besides this one. I told that to the inspector at the station, and that I was very careful now, and that I always broke them up. I do not know why I did not break up prisoner's bad florin. I do not remember whether or not I said at the police-court that I weighed it. I may have spoken to Wilsdon about this case since prisoner has been in custody. Wilsdon never mentioned anything to me about weighing the bad florin with a sixpence. He has been a regular customer, but I had not seen him for three months. I cannot say that Cable is a regular customer. The reason I did not call a policeman when prisoner tendered the bad florin was because I did not suspect him; he told me that he had got it in change from a paper-shop. I did not see anybody outside the shop; I was behind the counter. I had not seen prisoner before that day. I suspected him after he left my shop because Cable said, "This looks rather fishy; I have seen those gentlemen for the last three or four hours walking from shop to shop watching prisoner." He was referring to two young fellows outside who were watching prisoner. I cannot say why Cable did not send for a policeman. There is no policeman on point duty just outside; he happened to be there when prisoner and I went out to look for one. Cable came in because he wanted me to do some printing for him; I carry on a printing business as well. As soon as Cable said this I went out of the shop and saw the two men watching where prisoner was going. Sometimes Goswell Road is a busy street and sometimes not. I cannot tell you whether there were a lot of people walking about at this time. While holding the bad florin and a good florin in his hand I believe prisoner did say, "How am I going to know whether I shall make another mistake." The florin I gave him in change I took out of the till. I am very careful about taking bad money. I have an assistant whose duty it is to take money as well as myself; I am not always in the shop. When prisoner came back I was not in the shop, and he asked my assistant for me. The assistant is not going to be called. I could not say whether prisoner led the way to the policeman; we both went together. I do not remember who spoke first to him, because I was so excited. When we got to the station the inspector asked me if I had any witnesses, and then I went back for Cable and Wilsdon. Prisoner gave a bad florin to the officer, and told him that he had had one, and I had given him the other. On the first occasion prisoner handed the bad florin to Wilsdon to look at it. I do not know whether Wilsdon or Cable saw where I took the florin from that I gave the prisoner in change.
ERNEST ADOLPHUS WILSDON , jeweller's assistant, 8, Upper Charles Street, Goswell Road. Between 3 and 4 p.m. on March 10 I went into Rose's shop, where I found him behind the counter and prisoner in the shop. No one else was there at the time. Rose had a florin in one part of the scale and a florin and a sixpence in the other, and he was weighing them, showing that the florin and the sixpence balanced with the other florin. He then handed the florin to prisoner, saying that he could see it was a bad one, as there was a difference in the weight. Prisoner then tendered a half-crown to pay for the cigar he had purchased, and Rose gave him a florin and 4d. in coppers in change, remarking on the difference between that and the florin that prisoner had tendered. He took a coin from his pocket, and rubbed the edge of it with the edge of the florin he was giving in change to show that it was a good one. Prisoner then took the good florin and the bad florin in his hand, and said, "Which is the good and which is the bad between these two?" I was standing by his side, and I said, "Well, there is no doubt about which is the bad one. Anyone can see that is the good one." He took it back and sounded it. I had the good one in my hand and gave it back to him. Cable came in very shortly after I entered the shop and stood behind us. He would be able to see all I saw. I cannot remember anything else being said."
Cross-examined. We do not have a shop where I work, and casual customers do not come in. I stayed for a few moments after prisoner left; I used the telephone. I could not see into the shop from the passage where the telephone was, and I did not see Cable go out. I may have said a few words to Rose about the bad florin before I went to the telephone. I did not see anybody out in the street watching prisoner; he came in and out like an ordinary customer. I cannot say whether there was any conversation between Rose and Cable. I said to prisoner that it was rather an unfortunate thing he should have got hold of this bad florin. There was no talk of going for a policeman while he was in the shop. As I left the shop Rose said that he thought it was rather suspicious, and that if I saw a policeman I might ask him to keep his eyes open. To the best of my belief Cable was there when he said that. This was after I had been to the telephone. I heard nothing more until I was called to the station.
JAMES CABLE , printer, 28, Gayhurst Road, Dalston. Between 3 and 4 p.m. on March 10 I went to Rose's shop, when I saw him behind the counter and prisoner and Wilsdon in the shop. Rose was in the act of rubbing the two florins together. I then saw prisoner with the two coins in his hand just previous to his going out, and he asked Wilsdon as to which was the good one and which was the bad one, or something to that effect. Wilsdon said, "You can see which is the good and which is the bad." Previous to entering the shop my attention was attracted by two men standing at the corner of a turning just by Rose's shop, because they were rather smartly dressed. A little previous to this, about 3.30 p.m., I was at work in the factory when I noticed a man coming along Old Street. I thought "What a smart-looking fellow," and then thought no more of it, and went on with my work. I had occasion some time after to go into Rose's shop,
when I stopped to look at a motor which was being backed down a gateway in Lever Street. I happened to turn round, and I saw this man that I had seen in Old Street standing at the corner of Lever Street. I happened to look round a second time, and I saw another man just walk away from the first one. The next time I turned round to look at these men prisoner was standing there, making three people. He was in the act of leaving them, and was coming towards me. I would not say he was with the other men. This was before I entered the shop.
Cross-examined. I waited there two or three minutes after prisoner had left the men. I could not say if he was looking at the motor as well as I. There are a lot of workshops in Goswell Road, and there are lots of workpeople about there at this time of day. I had never seen these men before. I had no suspicions at all in the matter until I saw prisoner in the shop. I am a journeyman printer; Rose works for us. I know from the papers that during the last four or five months there has been a sum of bad money passed in North London. I heard prisoner say, "How shall I be able to tell the difference between the good one and the bad one." I would not say that statement made me feel suspicious. I stopped three to five minutes after prisoner left Wilsdon, Wilsdon left before I did. Rose said he felt suspicious of prisoner. I said, "Well, on top of what I have seen I feel suspicious." I then went back to my business.
Police-constable CHARLES COOPER, 149 G. About 4.20 p.m., on March 10, I was in Goswell Road, near Rose's shop, when prisoner and Rose came to me together. Prisoner spoke first. He said he had been to Rose's shop for a cigar, and had changed a half-crown, and that Rose had given him a bad florin with the change. He gave me this bad florin (produced), and Rose, who was close behind, gave me another bad florin (produced). Rose said that prisoner had come into his shop, and had tendered a bad florin which he had refused to take, and returned it; that prisoner had gone away, and after a half an hour or so he had come back, and had said that the florin in his change was a bad one, and that he had given prisoner a good one. I took them both to the station. I searched prisoner, and found he had only 8d. in coppers on him. He said nothing when charged.
Cross-examined. Prisoner made no attempt to get away when I took them to the station.
Cross-examined. In my experience I very often find a man dealing with counterfeit coins deal with coins of different dates; they would rather do so.
Prisoner's statement before the magistrate: "Are the coins of the same date and of the same make. The prosecutor says he always breaks coins. He did not break the one I gave him. I found the coin he gave me was bad and I came back with it."
CHARLES HOWARD (prisoner, on oath.) I am lodging at 7, Temple Street, St. George's Row. About 3.30 p.m., on March 10, I went into Rose's shop for a 2d. cigar, and' tendered a florin. He said, "I don't think this is good." I said, "I wish you would make sure," and he said that he would weigh it. He did so, and found that the coin was a bad one. I gave him a half-crown when he gave me the florin back, and he handed me fourpence in coppers and a King's head florin, the same as the bad one I had previously given him. Before he gave me the change he rubbed two coins together. I should say the florin he gave me he got from the till. I left the shop, and about six or seven minutes afterwards, on my way to the Old Street Tube Station to get back to the Elephant and Castle, I compared the florin he had given me with the florin that was bad, so that I should not make a mistake again and give the florin to anybody else, when I found the florin he had given me had a scratch across the face of it as if it had been tested. I see the mark on it now. I thought Rose or somebody had been testing it and that, therefore, it was bad. I thought it looked very funny, and I took it back. When I got to the shop another person came, and I said I wished to see the gentleman who served me first, and he said, "He is out." I should say this was 20 minutes after I first went away. The assistant seemed to hum and ha, and I said again I wished to see Mr. Rose. Then he immediately called him from inside the shop, where he was standing. I explained it to him, and he seemed rather funny. He said, "That is not the coin I gave you; the one I gave you was a good one. Is there a policeman about, here?" I had previously noticed a policeman on point duty, and I went over to him, Rose following me. I explained to the policeman, and showed him the bad florin which I had in my hand. He said, "Both of you had better come down to the police-station and see the inspector and give an explanation." I did not go to any other shop after leaving Rose's shop; I turned back when I got as far as City Road, just near the bridge; there are no shops that way. I heard Rose tell the inspector at the station that he had taken four or five bad coins, and that he had always made it practice of breaking them. I asked him why he did not break mine up. He did not seem to answer at all. I do not know whether there was any motive in that.
Cross-examined. As far as I remember I have lodged at 7, Temple Street, for three weeks. I cannot remember the name of the landlady. I am not sure of the number of the rooms. There were other lodgers, including a commercial traveller, who offered to share a room with me and my little boy. I know a man named Harrison; I have not to my knowledge seen him at Temple Street. I do not know what he is; he is only a casual acquaintance. I did not speak to anybody when I left Rose's shop, and I did not receive any money. I had 4d. in coppers on me when I went into Rose's shop, as well as the other money. I have often tendered silver when I have had sufficient money in copper to pay. Wilsdon never had in his hand the florin that Rose gave me in change; it is not true, if he said so.
To the Judge: When I came out of the shop I had two bad florins and 8d. in bronze. They found on me the 8d. in bronze and two bad florins, one being the florin that prosecutor gave me and the other which I gave unintentionally in the first place.
With regard to the indictment for embezzling, of which prisoner had pleaded guilty, it was stated that the £13 17s. represented two days' takings, for which, as a carman, he had failed to account.
Prisoner confessed to having been convicted at the North London Sessions on November 8, 1904, where he was sentenced to 15 months' hard labour for stealing a tricycle, in the name of Charles Harley. Five previous convictions were proved against him. He was released from the last in December, 1905.
The Common Serjeant said that, as prisoner had spent four years and a half apparently leading an honest life, and this was his first conviction for a coining offence, he would pass the lenient sentence of six months' hard labour on each indictment, to run concurrently.
Mr. Pickersgill, M. P., prosecuted.
Inspector ARTHUR NEAL, Y Division. About 7.40 p.m. on March 26, I was with Sergeant Powell in Kentish Town Road, when I saw prisoner, who was joined by another man. Prisoner went a little way down a turning by the side of a public-house and close to a urinal in the dark. The other man followed him, and something transpired between them; I could not say what. When they returned the other man went into the public house and prisoner walked a little way up the road, when the other man joined him. They walked to the corner of another turning where there was a public-house, and they went together a little way down in the dark. On coming back again they walked up to the corner of Holmes Road, where the other man went into the side bar and prisoner into the public bar. After a few minutes prisoner came out and stood at the corner. Shortly after he was joined by the other man. Sergeant Powell, by my directions, had gone round behind prisoner and I closed up in front. As Powell took hold of him by the arms I closed up about the same time, and he threw up his left hand, and some coins dropped to the ground. I succeeded in taking two coins from his hand, and they turned out to be two counterfeit half-crowns, dated 1888 (produced). There was a violent struggle between prisoner and Powell. I assisted to restrain prisoner, and succeeded also in picking up from the ground three more counterfeit half-crowns, which were dated 1888 (produced). Detective Reed, who had come from the direction of the station, went in pursuit of the other man, but lost him in the crowd. When Reed returned he handed me two more half-crowns dated 1888. Prisoner was taken to the station, and on the way he said, "I did not throw those coins away; it was the other man." When charged at the station he said, "No, not with intent to utter. The other man came up and asked me to hold them." I afterwards returned to the spot where the
coins had fallen, and just over a grating of one of the gutters I found this other counterfeit half-crown, dated 1888. I could not keep separate the two half-crowns that I took from his hand and the three half-crowns that I picked up from the ground, but apparently they are from the same mould and of the same date. On searching prisoner I found this little brush (produced) which might be used for dusting the coins after a certain powder has been put over them; this piece of wire (produced) on which a coin may be fixed in order to put it into a battery, or to dip it in liquid silver; a return half ticket from Poplar to Highbury, and 1 1/2 d. in money. He gave his address as 48, Acre Lane, Brixton, which is some miles away from where he was found with these coins.
Sergeant THOMAS POWELL, T Division, corroborated the previous witness, and added that on March 28, at the police-court, prisoner said, "I was hard up or I should not have done this; I was only carrying it for another man, and we did not put any down"—meaning that they did not pass any coins.
Detective HAROLD REED, Y Division, also gave corroborative evidence.
WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , Inspector of Coins, H. M. Mint. All these eight half-crowns are counterfeit, and from the same mould. The brush shown me is an ordinary paint brush, and this piece of copper wire is part of a coin leader.
Prisoner's statement before the magistrate: "I reserve my defence." Prisoner, called on for his defence, handed in a written statement, which he asked the Judge to read, saying, "I do not wish the public to know what I have to say."
Prisoner confessed to having been convicted at this court upon January 8, 1906, in the name of William Griffiths, of coining, when he received five years' penal servitude. It was' stated that his sentence would expire on January 11, 1911, he having been liberated on license on October 22, 1909.
Sentence, Four years' penal servitude.
EVANS, William (23, porter) , breaking and entering St. Mary's Church, Paddington, and stealing therein two silver patens, one cup, and other articles, the goods of the Rev. Alfred Lilley, and one bunch of keys, one bottle of wine, and 3s. in money, the goods and moneys of the churchwardens of the said church.
Mr. H. H. Lawless prosecuted.
WILLIAM THURGATE , Clerk to St. Mary's Church, Paddington Green. At about 7.45 a.m., on March 21; I found the west door of the church, which I had left locked at 8.50 the previous night, open. I could not get into the vestry as the key was gone. Thinking I had left the key in my pocket I went home, but could not find it I then went back, and the door was forced open. I could not get to the cupboard where the Communion vessels were kept, as the keys were out of their place. They were afterwards found in the corner door; we opened the safe, and went on with the service. On searching afterwards we found this
silver patten, this little patten, this cup, these offertory keys, belonging to the vicar, a bottle of wine similar to this, without any brand on it (produced), and 3s. in bronze, the "Magazine" money, were missing.
Police-constable FRANK WILLIAM, 100 F. At 10.45 p.m., on March 22, I saw prisoner in Edgware Road. He was drunk, but he knew what he was doing. He had this empty bottle (produced) flourishing it in people's faces. I arrested him and took him to the station. This Sacramental cup and this patten (produced) were found upon him. When charged, he said, "I went to the church and drunk the port wine and it got into my head."
Detective-sergeant ARTHUR ALLEN, F Division. About 11 p.m., on March 22, I saw prisoner at the station. I told him the charge, and he said, "Do you call it sacred wine? If you do, it has made me drunk." I searched him, and in his right-hand coat pocket I found this patten (produced) in the chamois leather bag (produced). The keys were also found in his pocket. He said, "I met a man at Marble Arch, and he gave me the wine and silver things. I knew he stole them. I gave him sixpence. I knew I had some keys of some sort. I know nothing about a church."
Sentence, Four years' penal servitude.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Thursday, April 7.)
KAPPS, Peter (44, carman), ADDISON, Charles (27, rag merchant), and SYTHERS, George (45, warehouseman); Kapps and Sythers pleaded guilty of stealing 1 cwt. of solder, the goods of James Gibb and Company, Limited, the employers of the said George Sythers; Addison pleaded guilty of feloniously receiving the same, well knowing the same to have been stolen.
Prisoners were released each on his own and two other recognisances in £10 to come up for judgment if called upon.
SPICER, John (40, butcher) 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 £60 14s., with intent to defraud.
Mr. Rooth prosecuted; Mr. Huntly Jenkins defended.
Mrs. GRIFFITHS, Lymington, Hants. I have a banking account with Thomas Cook and Son. In January this year I owed a small account of 14s. to Hamley Brothers, Regent Street, and drew a cheque for the amount. This is the cheque, signed by me. It is now made out for £60 14s. I did not authorise or make the alteration. I
received a communication from Cooks, and wired immediately to stop the cheque, but it had been honoured.
RICHARD DENLY , cashier, Thomas Cook and Son, Ludgate Circus. This cheque was presented on January 10 and cashed by me. I gave 12 £5 notes and 14s. silver. I took the numbers of the notes. I do not recognise the prisoner as the man who cashed the cheque. The firm communicated with Mrs. Griffiths. We received a communication from the Bank of England after we heard the notes had been cashed.
THOMAS MUTCH , licensed victualler, "Three Johns," 73, White Lion Street, N. I have known prisoner over 12 months. On January 15 he asked me to cash a £5 note. I jokingly remarked, "Is it a good one." He said, "Of course it is. I will put my name on." He wrote his name and address on it with my indelible pencil. He was alone. I did not ask how he came possessed of it.
Cross-examined. I did not think there was anything wrong about the note, or I should not have taken it. A fortnight afterwards prisoner came into my house after inquiries had been made. He was in and out my place several times.
FREDERICK BLACKLOCK , "Spanish Patriot" public house, 14, White Lion Street, N. I have known prisoner as a customer about 10 months. He asked me to cash a £5 note on January 15. I gave him £5 in gold.
Cross-examined. I knew him as a customer. He came only once after I cashed the note.
JAMES STEDDFORD , "White Horse" public-house, Liverpool Road, N., EDWARD CRAWFORD, "William the Fourth" public house, 84, Thornhill Road, N., CHARLES HIBBERT, "Royal Oak" Offord Road, N., and LOUISA CLOUDE, manageress, "Cloudesley Arms," Cloudesley Street, N., gave similar evidence.
ARTHUR SELLS , manager, "King's Arms," 64, Barnsbury Road. On January 15 prisoner came in, called for a glass of beer and asked for change of a £5 note. I told him the governor had the keys, and if he cared to wait a quarter of an hour he could have the change. He waited and got the change.
CHARLES FAIST , "Crown" public-house, Cloudesley Road, N. I know prisoner as a customer. On January 15 I cashed a £5 note for him. He said he wanted the change for a friend. There was somebody with him.
Detective-inspector THOMPSON, City Police. On March 5 I saw prisoner at the Caledonian Road Police Station. I told him I was a police officer, and that he answered the description of a man who had changed a cheque I had in my hand for £60 14s., which was a forgery, at Thomas Cook and Sons Bank, Ludgate Circus, on January 10. I also told him he answered the description of a man who had changed twelve £5 notes, the proceeds of the forgery, at various public houses in Barnsbury and Islington, and that he would be taken to the station and charged with the offence. He replied, "Yes, sir." On the way to the station he said, "I admit changing the notes one Saturday several weeks ago. I could not say whether there were 10 or 12. As you go from one public house to the other you lose count." He also said he was in Caledonian Market the day before, where he met a rabbit hawker, named Joe, selling his pony and cart. "The man who purchased the pony and cart paid Joe six £5 notes. The three of us then went into a public house, where Joe and the other man started tossing for money, and the other man won six £5 notes from him. I met Joe at the 'Three Johns' at two o'clock, on Saturday, by appointment, when he asked me to change the notes for him, which I did. He gave me £5 for my trouble. About three weeks ago the the landlord of the 'Three Johns' told me there was something wrong with the note he changed for me, and ever since I have been trying to find Joe, but cannot." I said to prisoner can you tell me where Joe is to be found. He said, No; I first met him in White Cross Street 18 months ago." I have made every possible inquiry, but cannot find Joe. The houses at which these notes were changed are all practically in a straight line, and within half a mile.
Previous convictions proved: November 23, 1899, North London, attempting to steal from the person, six months' hard labour; April 22, 1905, Clerkenwell Police Court, assisting in managing a brothel, three months' hard labour.
Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE PICKFORD.
(Thursday, April 7.)
RUSSELL, Thomas (52, dealer), WALTON, John (39, solicitor), and WALTERS, Harry. Edward (32, clerk). All feloniously demanding and obtaining £246 15s. 9d. upon and by virtue of a certain forged instrument, to wit, a forged authority to receive the said sum, knowing the same to be forged, with intent to defraud. (Forgery Act, 1861, 24 and 25 Vic, c. 98, s. 38.)
Walton pleaded guilty.
Mr. Muir, Mr. Leycester, and Mr. Forster Boulton prosecuted; Mr. Beaufoi Moore defended Russell; Mr. Turrell and Mr. Stephens defended Walters; Mr. George Elliott, K. C., and Mr. Guy Lushington appeared for Walton.
JAMES NEW , storeman at Woolwich Arsenal. I had an uncle named Harry New, who passed as Harry Cole; he died in 1873. After the death of my father in 1882 we found among his papers a P. O. Savings Bank book in the name of Harry Cole (Exhibit 1). On my mother's death in 1905 I took the book to the Post Office authorities, to with-draw the balance of £246 15s. 9d.; I was told that I must take out Letters of Administration. I was recommended to engage Walton as solicitor for this purpose; I went to Walton; he told me there would be no difficulty about the matter; and I left the book with him. From time to time he told me that the matter was proceeding satisfactorily, and I paid him £10 on account of costs. The authority (Exhibit 6) is signed "James New"; that signature is not mine; I never authorised anyone to sign the document or to receive the money on my behalf. I never went before a Mr. Edgley to acknowledge that document; Mr. Edgley is a total stranger to me. I have never received the money.
WALTER EDGLEY , solicitor and commissioner for oaths, 10, Trinity Street, Southwark. Exhibit 6 was acknowledged in my presence on July 9, 1908, by a man who represented himself as the "James New," whose signature the document bears; I am not able to recognise the man; I think another man came with him.
THOMAS M. PLUCKNETT , Superintendent P. O. Savings Bank Department. On July 7 Walters called on me with another man, who I cannot identify: he handed me a card with the name "Walton and Co., Solicitors"; he produced Exhibit 1 and the Letters of Administration of Harry Cole's estate, and asked for the necessary form to enable him to draw out the balance due on the book on behalf of his client. I handed him the form, Exhibit 6, to have filled up, and I authorised Finch to issue a warrant for payment of the balance of £246 15s. 9d.
Cross-examined by Mr. Stephens. Walters made it clear to me that he was acting on behalf of Walton and Co.
STAPLETON F. GREVILLE , Accountant's Banknote Office, Bank of England, produced twenty-one banknotes, one for £100, one for £50, and nineteen £5 notes; they had been paid in by different banks. One of the £5 notes, paid in on July 13, has on it "H. E. Walters, 39, Lower Kennington Lane."
HARRIETT MARY LEE , assistant at Newington Butts Post Office, said that two men called at her office and produced Exhibits 1, 6, and 13, upon which she paid the money. She could not now recognise the men. She identified the twenty-one notes produced by the last witness as those she paid (having taken note of the numbers at the time).
EDWARD T. ELLIS . In August last I entered the service of Walton at 29, Thomas Street, Woolwich, and remained till early in October. Walton lived on the premises; he also had an office at Lower Kennington Lane, which was looked after by Walters, and an office at Chichester Rents, Chancery Lane, looked after by Charles Taplin. On leaving the Woolwich office in October I went to the Chichester Rents office, and was there till December. Walton and Walters spoke to me about New's claim on the post office. Walters told me that he went with Norris to the post office and got the money and handed it to Walton; he said that Walton gave about £45 of the money to Norris; Walton himself also told me that. I am acquainted with Walton's and Walters's hand-writing. On Exhibit 6 the signature "John Walton" is in Walters's writing; the signature "J. New" is in a writing I do not know. On Exhibit 13 the signature opposite the words "I hereby acknowledge the receipt of the above-named sum" is in Walters's writing.
Cross-examined by Mr. Turrell. I and other clerks have frequently signed Walton's name to documents. Walters never conceded his part in this matter.
CHARLES TAPLIN . From August, 1907, to the date of his arrest last February I was employed by Walton as a clerk at the Chichester Rents office. I knew about the New business. On July 9 I called at the Lower Kennington Lane office and saw Walters; he told me he had an appointment with Walton that morning for the purpose of receiving the New money from the post office. Some days afterwards I saw Walters and spoke about the New matter; he said, "I completed that matter with Mr. Walton; the money was received from the post office, and I handed the proceeds to Mr. Walton, and he paid money which he owed to a Mr. Martin Norris, which I learned for the first time was about £46, and also £27 or so to a Mr. Neal on account of moneys due to him; I received £5 for my services and Russell received £5." Later on I asked Russell, "Is it a fact that you went to a commissioner in Trinity Street and made a declaration?" he emphatically denied it, and also denied that he had received £5 from Walton; he said that at that time he and Walton were going about to race meetings together, and that if he had received a £5 note it would be in respect of some race.
Cross-examined by Mr. Moore. I have known Russell many years; he is a respectable man. He has always denied that he made the declaration or signed the warrant. He made no secret of having received the money from the post office. Clerks in Walton's employment often signed his name to documents; assuming that Walters was authorised to go to the post office and collect the money, there would be nothing irregular in his signing Walton's name. Walton was not very much in the office.
MARTIN NORRIS , 80, The Grove, Hammersmith. On May 22 I advanced £15 to Walton on the security of the book (Exhibit 1) (which was left with me), on another date £6, and on June 16 (in the presence of Russell) £10. On July 7 I went to the post office at West Kensington with Walton and Walters. Walton waited in a public house; Walters and I went into the office and I produced the
book; I advanced to Walton a further £5. On July 9 I met Walton, Walters, and Russell in Newington Butts. Walters and I went to the post office, and Walters drew the money. We then joined Walton and Russell in a public house; Walters handed the money to Walton; Walton gave Walters a £5 note, and gave me £36 borrowed and £5 for interest, also £26 5s. to pay to Neill, which I did next day. (Witness identified some of the bank notes.)
Cross-examined by Mr. Turrell. On the morning of February 11 two plain clothes officers called on me and invited me to go to the General Post Office; I went, and was detained there for fourteen hours. Mr. Drummond, after cautioning me, asked me if I cared to make a statement, and I said "Yes." He put questions to me, and my statement was taken down in writing. No charge was made against me.
Cross-examined by Mr. Moore. Walton did not give Russell £5 in my presence.
JOHN DRUMMOND , clerk in the Secretary's office, G. P. O. On February 16 I saw Walton in my office. He said he preferred not to make a statement, but he replied to a number of questions by me. I also saw Walters; I cautioned him and asked whether he cared to make a statement; he said "Yes." His statement was taken down, and he signed it. (Walters's statement was read; as to the events of July 7 and 9 it did not materially differ from Norris's evidence; Walters stated that he and Russell went to Edgley's office; and that there Russell, in answer to Edgley, said that he was J. New, and that the signature on the form was his; Walters declared that all that he did was under the instructions of Walton.) I also saw Russell and questioned him. He declined to make a statement, saying that he knew nothing of the matter; he denied going to Edgley's office; he denied going to the Newington Butts post office, saying that he did not know that office; he denied being in the public house when Walters handed over this money to Walton. On my showing him the £5 note, with his name and address on the back, he stated that he got it from a bookmaker at Newmarket on the first day of the July Meeting. I showed him Exhibit 6, and he said that the signature, "J. New," was not in his writing. At 11,35 p.m. I gave the three prisoners into custody. I also took statements from Norris and Taplin.
Cross-examined by Mr. Turrell. I did not, when Walton and Russell declined to make statements, proceed to cross-examine them. When they declined to answer a particular question I went on to another matter. These men were not "under arrest" when I took their statements; I consider they were perfectly free agents until I gave them into custody. We question many people who are never given into custody.
Cross-examined by Mr. Moore. Some weeks before February 16 an officer called at Russell's house; he was not at home, but the fallowing day he called at the G. P. O. and stated that he had got the £5 note from a bookmaker at Newmarket, in payment of a bet. From
first to last all he has said has been "I know nothing about the matter."
Detective CALDICOTT. I received prisoners into custody about 11.35 p.m. on February 16.
Detective ALFRED WILTSHIRE. I charged the three prisoners on February 17; they made no reply.
This closed the case for the prosecution.
Mr. Moore submitted that there wag no evidence against Russell.
Mr. Muir. There is evidence that Russell was present on June 16, when Norris advanced £10 to Walters, that he was outside the Post Office when Norris and Walters obtained the money, and was present when Walters handed the money to Walton. He was also found in possession of a £5 note, part of the proceeds of the warrant. And it is for the Jury to say whether they can credit his denials given in answer to Drummond's questions.
Mr. Justice Pickford. Is there evidence that he knew the money was obtained fraudulently?
Mr. Muir. I submit that there is enough to go to the Jury. Then, a very important point arises here—namely, at what point must the Judge decide whether or no to let the case go to the Jury? In a case in this Court (not reported) Mr. Justice Wills at the close of the case for the prosecution asked prisoner's counsel whether he intended to call his client; counsel said he did; Mr. Justice Wills then refused to give a ruling until the whole of the evidence was before the Court.
Mr. Justice Pickford said the point was discussed in the Court of Criminal Appeal in R. v. Joiner (Cr. App. R. vol. 4, p. 64); the headnote in that case is, "If at the end of the case for the prosecution there is no case to go to the Jury, the Court, on a submission, ought to withdraw it from them."
Mr. Muir referred to two other cases before the Court of Criminal Appeal—R. v. George (Cr. App. R. vol. 1, p. 168; R. v. Leach (Cr. App. R. vol. 2, p. 72.)
Mr. Justice Pickford. I certainly should not ask counsel for a prisoner to say whether he is going to call his client before I ruled one way or the other; but it is a most important question whether, where you have several prisoners, you must decide with regard to the case of one before the whole case has been heard.
Mr. Muir. It came out incidentally this morning that it was intended to call one of the prisoners.
Mr. Moore. It is for the prosecution to prove their case; and if they cannot prove their case without something got out in cross-examination, that is no foundation for an argument against there being no case to go to the Jury.
Mr. Justice Pickford. I have a great deal of sympathy with that, but this is a point that it is most desirable to have settled once for all by the Court of Criminal Appeal. I am by no means clear that there is absolutely no evidence, but, without deciding that, I shall do what is analogous to the old practice—(allowing the case to go to the jury and then stating a case for the C. C. C. R.)—I shall not stop the case now; if I am wrong I can be put right by the Court of Criminal Appeal.
Mr. Moore. Then, my lord, I shall not call Russell.
HARRY EDWARD WALTERS (prisoner, on oath). I am a solicitor's clerk, and was for eighteen months in Walton's employ. I was in charge of the Lower Kennington Lane office. In July, 1909, Walton spoke to me about the case of New. We obtained the necessary letters of administration. On Walton's instructions I attended at the post
office with Norris to receive the money, and obtained the form Exhibit 6. I filled in the signature "J. Walton," as I was authorised to do; the signature "J. New "I did not fill in, and I do not know whose writing it is. I did not attend before Edgley and acknowledged that document; I never went to Edgley with Russell; I have been to Edgley occasionally to swear affidavits, but I never went to him with that document. After I had drew out the £246 on July 9 Russell, Norris and I went to a public-house and saw Walton; I handed him all the money; he gave me a banknote for £5 and gave Norris £67. Except that £5 I have never had a penny out of this transaction. The £5 was for office stationery and rates that I had paid. I heard nothing more of the matter until February 16, when about 7.30 p.m. Wiltshire and another officer called on me and asked me to go to the G.P.O. I had been out since seven in the morning; I had had nothing to eat, and a fair quantity of drink. We got to the G.P.O. about 8.15; after waiting an hour I was taken in to Drummond. He asked me what I knew about this matter and I told him the facts that I have just given in evidence. In the statement as taken by Drummond I appear to have said that I did go to Edgley's office; I now say that I did not go there; statements of Taplin and others were read to me by Drummond and I was asked generally whether they were true, and I suppose I answered generally, "Yes," and one of them contained this about my going to Edgley's office. When I signed the statement it was nearly midnight, I was tired and half asleep; at any rate, what I now say is the truth, that I did not go to Edgley's with this document.
Cross-examined. The only explanation I can give for telling Drummond what was untrue is that I was flurried and worried and tired, and I did not pay the attention I ought to have done.
At the close of Walters's evidence,
Mr. Justice Pickford, reverting to the case of Russell, said that there was nothing to show that he went to Edgley's except Walters's statement to Drummond, and Walters had now sworn that what he then said was untrue. Even if the Jury disbelieved Walters's evidence, there would only remain the statement, which was not made in Russell's presence. His Lordship accordingly directed the Jury to find Russell Not guilty. On a further indictment for conspiracy Mr. Muir offered no evidence, and a verdict of Not guilty was returned.
(Friday, April 8.)
Mr. Justice Pickford summed up the case as it affected Walters.
Verdict (Walters) Guilty, the Jury strongly recommending him to mercy because they believed that he was acting under the influence of his employer.
Walters confessed to having been convicted of felony (embezzlement) at Lambeth Police Court on October 17, 1901.
On an indictment against Walton alone for fraudulent conversion and obtaining money by false pretences, to which he pleaded not guilty, the prosecution offered no evidence; the indictment remains on the file.
Mr. GEORGE ELLIOTT, addressing the Court on behalf of Walton, said he was at one time in good practice at Shrewsbury, was secretary of a political organisation, a candidate for municipal honours, and highly
respected. Thinking to get more work, he was tempted to come to London, and lost £800 which he paid for a partnership.
The Rev. EDWARD WILLIAM LEWIS, minister of King's Weigh House Chapel, a schoolfellow of Walton's, said that he and a group of gentlemen had made arrangements to provide Walton with a position when he was released from any sentence the Court might pass upon him.
Sentence, Walton fifteen months' imprisonment, second division; Walters, six months' hard labour.
Mr. George Elliott, K. C., Mr. Curtis Bennett, and Mr. Duke prosecuted; Mr. Turrell defended.
Mr. Elliott, K. C., said that prisoner's counsel had informed him that prisoner wished to withdraw the statements of which the prosecutor complained, and to say that he had never made any allegations against him. Prosecutor's only desire in instituting the prosecution was to protect his character and reputation, and, as prisoner was prepared to say that there was not one word of truth in the statements, Mr. Staniforth would be willing to let the proceedings drop.
Mr. Turrell said that prisoner always persisted in denying that he had ever made any threat whatever. He wished to withdraw the statements and express his regret for having made them. Mr. Staniforth might rest assured that there would be no repetition of them.
Mr. Elliott in those circumstances offered no evidence, and a verdict of Not guilty was returned.
Mr. Tully-Christie and Mr. Kent prosecuted.
Police-sergeant Robert MCDONALD, C Division. On March 15, at 9.15 a.m., I was called to 46, Old Compton Street, where I, on the ground floor, found a woman bleeding from the head and neck. Prisoner came down from upstairs; when he saw the woman he said, "Let me kiss her before she goes." I arrested him, and handed him to another officer. I took the woman to the hospital and returned to the house; I there found on the bed, in the apartment which the woman had occupied, the poker produced.
MABEL RICHMOND . I knew prisoner for six years at Sunderland, where I lived with him. I came up to London last Easter twelve-month; prisoner followed me and we lived together for a little while. On Sunday, March 13, about 11 at night, he came to my flat
in Old Compton Street; I told him I did not want to see him, but he stayed till the following morning. Prisoner knew that some gentleman was making me an allowance. When I got back to my flat on the night of the 14th prisoner was waiting for me; he said he had nowhere to go, and I let him stay. At 7.30 in the morning he got up and dressed. He accused me of living with some one, and I denied it; he said, "Well, the first one that comes into this door I will strike him with the poker "; he had got a poker from the kitchen. He was very excited. A knock came at the door, and he said, "That's him"; he struck me with the poker and I screamed. I told him to open the door, it was only the caretaker. He then had a knife in his hand; he said he would stick it through the man who was coming in at the door. He threw me on the bed; and stuck the knife at the back of my neck. The caretaker was outside the door knocking and trying to burst it in. I do not remember much after that. Prisoner had never threatened me before. When I knew him in Sunderland he worked at some engineering works; I do not think he had had any regular employment in London.
Cross-examined by prisoner. I did tell you that, besides the man who was making me an allowance, there was another man I used to see. You were very excited and unsettled.
HAROLD F. L. HUGO , house surgeon at Charing Cross Hospital, who attended prosecutrix on her admission, said that she had a scalp wound on the right side of the head, a stab in the neck and a bruise on the right shoulder; the injuries might have been caused with the poker and knife produced.
ANNIE BRAMWELL , caretaker at 46, Old Compton Street. Hearing prosecutrix's screams I went to her flat; the door was locked; as I was trying to force it open the prisoner opened it; I said, "What are you doing with the woman, you beast?" He said, "What is it to do with you? I mean to do for her." He appeared to have been drinking, and was very excited; he had nothing in his hand.
Prisoner. I never said that I meant to do for her.
Police-sergeant THOMAS PEEL, 39 C Division. When I took charge of prisoner he said, "I have been away from her six months, and when I came back I found she had had another man there; I done it in the heat of the moment."
Detective FRANCIS PEARCE, C Division. On March 15 I saw prisoner at the police station; he said he wished to tell me all about it; after I had cautioned him he made this statement, which I took down and he signed: "I went with her last night and asked her if she would come home to Sunderland with me; she said, 'No, I will see '; she afterwards said, 'I will never go back to Sunderland.' This morning, at nine o'clock, I again asked her to come back to Sunderland with me; she said, 'No, I won't go; I am going to meet George.' As I know George Robinson, and he would get her into trouble, as he has others, I lost my temper and struck her with a poker and a knife. It is all through Robinson this has happened. I have been a friend to him, and this is how he has treated me." I went to prosecutrix's
flat and found the knife (produced) at the back of the stove; it was smeared with blood.
This concluding the case for the prosecution, prisoner handed in a written statement. After reading it, Mr. Justice Pickford recalled.
MABEL RICHMOND It is not true that on the morning of the 15th I told prisoner to get up as I was expecting someone coming. I was going out to meet another man with a woman friend of mine. Prisoner did ask me to go back with him to Sunderland and I refused. I may have said to him that I knew I had done wrong, but that as I had made my bed I would lie on it. He did say that he would forgive me and get me another home if I would give up this man and go back to Sunderland; I said that all the people there knew what I had done and I would not go back.
Prisoner's statement was then read; its purport may be gathered from the questions put by the Court to prosecutrix. Prisoner declared that just as he was trying to persuade the woman to go back with him a knock came at the door, and he must have been mad. Murder was never in his mind: he loved the girl too much to hurt her. He picked up the knife to frighten her, and in the struggle caught her neck; he was truly sorry, and very pleased to see that she was all right again.
Verdict, Guilty of unlawful wounding.
Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.
Prisoner had a good character apart from this offence, but a serious feature of the case was that the child had been affected with gonorrhea. Prisoner said that he did not know the seriousness of the disease he had.
Sentence, Three months' imprisonment, second division.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Friday, April 8.)
DAVIS, William (32, labourer), MARSH, Albert (30, bricklayer), and HARWOOD, George (29, seaman) , all being unlawfully found by night having in their possession, without lawful excuse, a certain implement of housebreaking, to wit, one box-opener.
Mr. Herman Cohen prosecuted.
Police-constable JOHN COLES, 800 N. On March 1 About 10.50 p.m. I was on duty with Police-constable Simpson in plain clothes in Wood-berry Down, Finsbury Park, a good residential neighbourhood, when I saw the prisoners stop, look at a house and walk on again together along Seven Sisters Road and into Amhurst Park, when Harwood entered the front garden of a house, the other two remaining on the footway. After a minute he rejoined the others and they walked on. All three then went into the front garden of No. 39, remained
about four minutes, left hurriedly, crossed the road and went into the booking hall of Stamford Hill Railway Station, about 150 yards from No. 39. I followed them, went up to Harwood, and in the presence of the others said I was a police-officer and I should arrest them as being suspected persons. Harwood said, "All right." The others made no reply. A uniformed officer was there, who took Davis. Police-constable Simpson took Marsh and I Harwood. On the way to the station they went quietly for about 300 yards, when Davis became very violent, drew jemmy or case-opener (produced) from the front of his coat and attempted to use it upon the police-constable. I drew my truncheon, when Davis said, "All right, governor, I will come quiet," which he did. Harwood said, "If you use that stick I will stop you with something quicker than a stick." We procured further assistance and they were taken to the station. The jemmy was afterwards picked up in the roadway. A candle was afterwards also found near the scene of the struggle and brought to the station. Mr. Alabaster lives at 54, Amhurst Road, opposite to where the prisoners were seen. I searched Harwood and found a handkerchief and one woollen glove upon him.
Cross-examined. We were watching the prisoners from 10.50 to 11.40 p.m., at first at a distance of fifty yards. I could see it was the man whom I now know as Harwood who entered the garden in the first instance. Afterwards we were at a distance of a hundred yards. The distance I followed could be walked in, about twenty minutes. Harwood in threatening me was endeavouring to bluff me. I did not attempt to arrest the prisoners at first because I considered that there was not sufficient grounds. When I saw them all enter the second garden I arrested them as soon as I got the necessary assistance.
Police-constable ALBERT SIMPSON,697 N, corroborated the last witness. All three prisoners struggled violently. I drew my truncheon, but it was not necessary to use it. The three prisoners were conveyed to Stoke Newington Police-station. I searched Marsh and found cigarette paper produced with writing upon it, "Mr. Alabaster, Amhurst Park, N."
Cross-examined. We were following about ninety to a hundred yards on the other side of the road. I could distinguish prisoners and know that it was Harwood who entered the garden. It took about half an hour going from Finsbury Park to Stamford Hill Railway Station. We were following about fifty minutes. All the prisoners struggled violently.
Sergeant GEORGE PRIDE, N Division. On March 2 at 12.10 p.m. I found that Harwood was charged with possession of a housebreaking instrument by night and all prisoners as being suspected persons. I then directed that the charge should be altered accusing all three of possessing a housebreaking instrument. They were brought before a magistrate and after two remands were committed for trial.
WILLIAM DAVIS (prisoner, not on oath). The implement just produced is not a jemmy—it is a case or box opener, and would be of no use to a burglar to force a door, as it would snap directly—it is only a common bit of iron. I work at the fish market and use it for opening boxes.
GEORGE HARWOOD (prisoner, not on oath). On the evening of March 1 I went for a walk, met Marsh with a young lady and accompanied her home. At the corner of Seven Sisters Road we had a drink, met Davis, and walked to Stamford Hill Railway Station to go home. As Marsh was getting the tickets the constable arrested us as suspected persons.
Verdict, (all) Guilty.
Prisoners confessed to having been convicted of felony: Davis on June 27, 1905, at Cardiff in the name of William Cartwright, otherwise Jno. Carter ; Harwood and Marsh (together) on October 22, 1907, at Clerkenwell in the name of George Williams and Henry Marsh.
The three prisoners were then tried and convicted of being habitual criminals.
Davis was proved to have been convicted at this Court on October 22, 1894, and sentenced to seven years' penal servitude for highway robbery with violence in the name of William Cartwright; on September 11, 1900, at this Court, three years' penal servitude and license revoked for burglary; June 22, 1905, Cardiff Quarter Sessions, three years' penal servitude for warehouse breaking; other convictions were proved, commencing in 1889. Harwood, on October 22, 1907, at North London Sessions and sentenced to three years' penal servitude for burglary; May 9, 1905, North London Sessions, 21 months' hard labour for attempted burglary and possessing house-breaking implements by night; September 15, 1903, North London Sessions, 18 months' hard labour, stealing a watch chain; stated to have done no work since his last release. Marsh, October 22, 1907, North London Sessions, three years' penal servitude for burglary; May 9, 1905, North London Sessions, 15 months' hard labour for attempted burglary and possessing housebreaking implements by night; April 18, 1900, North London Sessions, 12 months' hard labour for stealing a watch and brooch from the person. Stated to be an associate of thieves, and to have done no work since his last release.
Sentence (each prisoner), Three years' penal servitude, to be followed by five years' preventive detention.
Mr. Herman Cohen prosecuted.
ANGELIQUE RIGGS , The Retreat, High Beech, Loughton. On January 13 I drew a cheque for £8 10s. 7d. in favour of Owens and Company, 88, Newman Street, Oxford Street, put it in an envelope with the invoice, and posted it myself. I got no acknowledgment, and was afterwards informed by Owens and Company that the cheque had not been received. The cheque (produced) now purports to be endorsed by Owens and Company, and to have been changed at the London City and Midland Bank, Tottenham Court Road.
£8 10s. 7d. for goods supplied. My company have not received cheque produced, nor is it endorsed by my firm or by our authority.
NATHANIEL FOLEY , landlord, "Yorkshire Grey," Fitzroy Street, W. On January 15, between 12 and 1 p.m., prisoner, whom I knew as a customer, asked me to cash cheque produced. He said he came from Newman Street, and wanted to pay his men. I said I had not the change, but I would write my name on it and "Exchange" and my bank, the London City and Midland, would cash it. I did so, and prisoner left. He afterwards returned, thanked me for enabling him to cash the cheque, and stood me a drink.
JOHN WILLIAM KORTRIGHT , branch accountant, London City and Midland Bank, Tottenham Court Road. On Saturday, January 15, about 12 noon, prisoner presented cheque produced at my bank. He was paid by the cashier, who is ill.
CISSIE ROBERSON . I have known prisoner for the last two years, and in January was living at 38, Newman Street, in the same house as the prisoner, occupying one of his rooms. Letters delivered were put through the door. On a Saturday, soon after Christmas, at about 1 p.m., the prisoner came in, produced £8 and some silver, said counted it out to Mary Neusinger, with whom he was living. He said, "There is £4 10s. for you," and gave it her. On the following Monday Neusinger, prisoner, and myself moved to 15, Fitzroy Street. Two or three weeks afterwards Foley passed the window, when prisoner said to me, "There goes old Foley, whatever you do, do not let on that I have changed the cheque in his house." I knew Foley as the landlord of the "Yorkshire Grey."
Cross-examined. Prisoner was away for two or three weeks after he had the £8. I have been in trouble with the police for being drunk, but have never been convicted of it. I was taken into custody because a person came round and interfered with Neusinger and myself. I was in custody for 10 days in Ostend, and was deported to England.
Sergeant HARRY TARRENT, D Division. On March 1 I arrested prisoner at his rooms at 15, Fitzroy Street. I said, "I am a police officer, and shall arrest you on a charge of forging an endorsement on a banker's cheque, uttering the same at the London City and Midland Bank on or about January 5 last, and obtaining the sum of £8 10s. 7d., thereby defrauding Nathaniel Foley, of the 'Yorkshire Grey," Fitzroy Street.' He said, "Not me. I know nothing about it." I took him to the station, and at 4 p.m. that day he was placed with eight other men and identified by Foley and his manager, Horton. He was then charged, when he said, "Very good."
Prisoner's statement before the magistrate: "I reserve my defence."
drunk. I absolutely deny giving Neusinger £4 10s. on January 15. On the following Monday she had to pawn things to pay the moving expenses.
MARY NEUSINGER , 15, Fitzroy Street. I have been living with prisoner. He did not give me £4 10s. on January 15. On January 17 I moved from 38, Newman Street, to 15, Fitzroy Street, and had to pawn a ring and other articles to pay for moving. I produce pawn tickets.
Cross-examined. I have lived with prisoner about nine years. He has often been away. He was not with me when I moved to Fitzroy Street, and he was away for some time after. Roberson has been living with me six or eight weeks; she has been leading a bad life. Prisoner is a tailor, and gave me money that he earned in that way and also that he made by betting, in good times amounting to £2 a week. It is false that he counted out £8 10s. in gold and silver before me; it is pure malice on the part of Roberson to say so. I have often been in the "Yorkshire Grey," know Foley, the landlord, and have seen him pass my window.
Prisoner confessed to having been convicted on September 9, 1909, at North London Sessions, receiving 15 months' hard labour for stealing a bicycle after three previous convictions. He was stated to be a good workman as a tailor, to have been given to drink, and to have associated with convicted thieves.
Sentence, 20 months' hard labour.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Friday, April 8.)
KELLY, Edward (36, commission agent) , forging the endorsement of an order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for £8 10s. 7d., with intent to defraud; uttering the said cheque, knowing the endorsement thereon to be forged, with intent to defraud.
Mr. Macrae Diggle prosecuted.
HARRY BELCHAM , pawnbroker, 131, Woodpecker Road, New Cross. Prisoner called on me on February 23 and asked if I would take his piano in pledge. I told him yes, and I would come and view it in the evening. I agreed to lend £8 on it, and asked him for a receipt. He showed me the instalment card, which seemed in order. He brought the piano round next day and I advanced the £8. This is the instalment card. It shows the piano as being wholly paid for. On March 1 a representative of Messrs. Wheatlands called on me respecting the piano. I told him we had it, and he gave me notice it belonged to them; that it was on hire and not paid for.
book handed to witness.) The monthly payments have been altered from 12s. 6d. to 22s. 6d. He has paid altogether £3 4s. out of £26 5s., 26s. 3d. of which is credit for commission to prisoner for introducing a customer. The signatures to the other amounts purported to be paid are not those of anybody connected with the firm.
Detective-sergeant GEORGE MELVILLE. I arrested prisoner on March 8. I told him I should take him into custody for forging a receipt for the payment of £26 5s., and obtaining the sum of £8 from Mr. Belcham. He said, "I know I done wrong, but I did not intend to defraud Belcham. What I done was done by starvation." When taken to the station he said, "I did not intend to defraud Mr. Belcham."
Sentence, Six months' hard labour.
Irish pleaded guilty.
Verdict (Lambert), Guilty.
Sentence (Lambert), Three months' imprisonment, second division, Irish was released on his own recognisances in £5 to come up for judgment if called upon.
MOORE, Charles Thomas (34, agent) , obtaining by false pretences from Henry George Parr 9s. 8d., 9s. 3d., 4s. 7 1/2 d. and 18s. 6d. respectively, the moneys of the Royal London Mutual Insurance Society, Limited, with intent to defraud; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a proposal for assurance purporting to be a proposal by Edward Holland upon his own life with the London Mutual Insurance Society, Limited, with intent to defraud.
Mr. Lawless prosecuted.
HENRY GEORGE PARR , a superintendent for the Royal London Mutual Insurance Society, Limited. Prisoner was appointed agent to my society on June 3, 1909. He signed the application form in the name of Arthur Clayton. His remuneration was ten times the amount of the first premium and 25 per cent, on subsequent premiums collected. He had to report to me every Friday the result of his week's takings and bring in his new business. (Return sheet handed to witness.) On the back of this are the lives of people who insure, including two lives, Benjamin and Elizabeth Holland. At the time he handed this in he also handed in two proposal forms. The amount of the insurance on Benjamin Holland was £19 16s. and the premium 6d. per week; he is described as a veterinary surgeon of 95, Marlborough Road, Holloway, age fifty. The amount due to him on that would be 10s. procuration fee and 3d. oh the premium for collecting. He having received 1s. premium I paid him 9s. 3d., believing it to be a bona fide insurance.
On July 9 he brought another return sheet and a proposal form for the life of Edward Holland purporting to be signed by Edward Holland. The amount insured is £28 16s., premium 6d. per week, and he is described as a veterinary surgeon, age forty-one, address 95, Marlborough Road, Holloway. For that business I paid prisoner 4s. 7 1/2 d. On July 16 he brought another proposal to insure two lives, Edward and Alice Holland. Edward Holland purporting to propose to insure the lives of his parents, age eighty-seven. On that business I paid prisoner 8s. 6d. At the end of August there was some difficulty with prisoner about the insurance of another person. Inquiries were made, prisoner was taxed with it, and finally he refunded what I had paid him on that business; he gave an explanation and I gave him the benefit of the doubt. After that he absented himself and a warrant was issued in November and he was arrested on March 10.
Cross-examined by prisoner. When an agent takes a proposal he should leave a premium book with the proposer showing the premiums received. It is my duty to make inquiries to see that the particulars given are correct. I see the premium book and initial it. I have been to see Mrs. Holland two or three times; I cannot say for certain. I did not go on each occasion when you brought a proposal because there being other business in the family I took it to be a guarantee that the business was genuine. I asked Mrs. Holland questions and she answered them to my satisfaction. That was why I paid you for the business. If the member does not pay the premiums the agent has to refund it less 25 per cent. If the member had only paid 10s. out of 30s. on the tenth week it would prove that the business introduced by the canvasser was very bad, and the canvasser would have to pay the 20s. out of his own pocket, but he would have a net gain of 3s. as commission. I was an agent ten years before becoming superintendent. There has been rare cases of an agent signing a proposal form for another. When it comes to our knowledge we dismiss them.
ELIZABETH HOLLAND , sister-in-law of last witness. Prisoner effected an insurance on my mother's life; her name is Frances Peach. She is alive. I could not say if she insured my life—prisoner collected the premium. I did not sign or authorise prisoner to sign these proposal forms.
Cross-examined by prisoner. (The witness wrote her name at prisoner's request and it was handed to the jury for comparison with the signatures on the proposals.) I signed only one proposal form; that was for my mother. Mr. Parr called upon me once. I answered his questions truthfully. I showed him the premium book; I do not know that he initialled it. I do not remember him asking my husband's correct name and age; he asked me about mother. I cannot say he asked anything else.
Sergeant TOM TANNER, N DIVISION. I arrested prisoner on March 10. When he was charged he said: "Very well; I understand."
CHARLES THOMAS MOORE (prisoner, not on oath). I am going to ask you to look at this case as a matter of account. You have heard the evidence of the superintendent to the effect that they advance ten times the amount of the business introduced by the agent. You also heard that the agent has to pay back the amount in ten consecutive weeks, whether or not he collects it. It is very much like a loan. The agent is not given an opportunity of repaying; it is simply deducted. When he renders his account he thinks he is going away with a few shillings, instead of which he may go away with nothing. As to the signatures, I was unfortunately not in a position to prove that it is a common thing for agents to oblige one another, owing to the fact that they would get into bad repute with their companies. It is an everyday occurrence for an agent to give a signature for another. It is not so much the signature the company cares for; it is the business and the premiums they receive on the business. Really, the basis of the contract is accepting the policy and pacing the premiums upon same. You could not verify those signatures of Mrs. Holland. As regards Edward Holland, he knew nothing at all about it, of course, but Mrs. Holland did. I had that week a very bad collection. I had to pay in a certain amount, I think it was 27s. 7d.; I believe I collected 12s. Being a married man with no salary I do not see how they can expect you to be in a position to pay that money which you do not collect, hence it is somewhat of a temptation, I might put it, to put. it what I suppose you would call it, a fictitious proposal. The money has been paid back. It has been admitted. I ask for a verdict of not guilty.
Sentence, One month's imprisonment, second division.
GIBSON, William (23, draughtsman) and EAST, Richard (23, bricklayer) , both breaking and entering a Baptist Church at Mondania Road, with intent to commit a felony therein; both breaking and entering a school-house at Mondania Road, and stealing therein one sewing machine and other articles the goods of the Rev. H. D. Mackie and others, and breaking out of the said school-house; both breaking and entering the warehouse of Frank Squibb and stealing therein seven rackets and other articles, his goods; both breaking and entering the warehouse of Charles Edward Gozna and stealing therein one cricket bag, his goods.
Mr. F. A. Henderson prosecuted.
East pleaded guilty.
EDWARD GOZNA , ground man, Times Cricket Club Ground, Forest Hill. I left everything secure when I left the ground at 5.30 on March 26. On the 28th I was fetched to identify the cricket bag. From there I went to the field and found No. 8 pavilion smashed into. The bag is the only thing I can swear to as being missing.
remember a duplicate key. I am not aware of anything else being missing.
ALFRED HACKETT , caretaker of Baptist Church, Mondania Road. At 7.15 a.m. on March 28 I found the school had been entered by the window. A machine and a bag of work was missing from the crockery cupboard. They were found in the lavatory outside, also a bag and tennis rackets and shoes.
JOHN HENRY HACKETTS , son of the last witness. On the morning of March 28 I went to the school-room. I saw East sitting in the vestry. I came out and saw Gibson coming down the road. I said to him, "There is a man in the church." He went in, came out again and went down the road. I saw him again with East. East went down the road and spoke to Gibson. I followed them as far as Hill Street, Peckham. A policeman came along and arrested Gibson; East ran away; he was arrested afterwards. They had not been together all the time.
Cross-examined by Gibson. When I told you there was a man in the church you said you would go in and see to him. You said the man could not get through the window as it was awfully small.
ERNEST NICHOLL , 180, Dunstons Road, East Dulwich. At about 7 a.m. on May 28 I was at the corner of Mondania Road, where the Baptist Church is. Gibson came up; I did not see where from. He went into the church ground, came out and went down the road. John Hackett told me he went into the church. I saw East come out of the church and climb over the railings. East and Gibson went down the road; they joined at the Ivy Cricket and Tennis ground. I identified Gibson at the police station; he was not put in a row with other men.
Judge Rentoul: There is no identification here.
WALTER HACKETT , brother of last witness. On March 28, about 6.45, about 30 yards from the chapel I saw a man with a green cap going down Forest Hill Road. Gibson came up to him and went along with him from the "King's Arms" to the Rye pond. They were talking to one another. I saw them again at Rye Lane Station. East was the man with the green cap.
Police-constable WILLIAM HUTTON, 503 P. About 7.40 on March 28, the last witness spoke to me at the bottom of Rye Lane. Gibson was just in front with East. I followed them. In Hill Street East turned round and saw me, and ran away. I arrested Gibson. He said, "What is this for? What have I done?" I said I should take him to the station and charge him with breaking into Honor Oak Baptist Chapel. I asked who was the man that ran away; he said, "I do not now; I have not seen him until a few minutes before; he spoke to me on the Rye." When charged he made no reply. I searched him; a key and fountain pen were found. The key produced is the key found on him; it fits the cricket bag.
Verdict (Gibson), Not guilty.
Numerous convictions were proved against East.
Sentence, One month's imprisonment (prisoner having to serve 219 days of an unexpired term).
BEFORE THE RECORDER
(Saturday, April 9.)
MACK, Philip (27, carpenter) , breaking and entering, a shop of the Home and Colonial Stores, Limited, and stealing therein a quantity of tea and other articles and £1 13s. 3d., their goods and moneys and feloniously receiving the same; stealing a quantity of tools and other articles, the goods of Joseph Davey and feloniously receiving the same; stealing one pencil case and other articles and £15 or there-abouts, the goods and moneys of Carl Lange, and feloniously receiving the same.
Prisoner was tried in the case of Lange.
Mr. N. G. Fleming prosecuted.
CARL LANGE , 2-6, Boswell Court, Holborn, bag frame manufacturer. On Saturday, November 27, 1909, about 3 p.m., I left my ware-house secure. The next morning, at 8 a.m., I received information and found the place had been entered by breaking the glass panel in the back door. The place was in confusion; over £15 in gold and silver had been taken from two desks which had been forced; postal orders for £1 and 16s., a small looking-glass, a comb, soap box, pencil-case, and a silver-gilt chain, value 7s. 6d. in all. Chain, looking-glass, comb, and pencil-case produced I identify as my property—they were brought to me in February by Detective Steggles.
Cross-examined. The soap box has been replated. The looking-glass is exactly similar to the one taken, and has a piece of leather on the back which I identify. The pencil was defective and I put it aside; it has the same defect now.
Detective PERCY CRAWLEY, E Division. On March 8 I went to the prisoner's lodgings at 20, Gloucester Street, Theobalds Road, and searched in reference to another 'matter. I found looking-glass, box, comb, and pencil-case produced, which were identified by prosecutor. There was also a pawnticket for a chain pawned on December 3, 1909, for 2s. 6d., at R. Pockett, 62, Exmouth Street. The prisoner's lodgings are a tenement house, where he occupies one room in the basement.
CHARLES MONK , assistant to Richard Pockett, 62, Exmouth Street, Clerkenwell, pawnbroker. On December 3, 1909, chain produced was pawned with me for 2s. 6d. by the prisoner in the name of James Wheeler. I could not swear to the prisoner as the pawner, but I know him as a customer.
FREDERICK WILLIAMS (prisoner, not on oath). Since my last release from 18 months' hard labour for a similar charge I have not been able to obtain regular employment, and have been engaged as a dealer.
I bought these trifling articles in the ordinary way of business for 5s.; I replated the box at a cost of 1s. 6d. and I pawned the chain for 2s. 6d. I have already had a month at Brixton through it; and it has been a very bad deal for me. I had no knowledge that they were stolen property.
Verdict, Guilty of feloniously receiving.
Prisoner confessed to having been convicted on October 21, 1907, at this Court, in the name of James Edwards, when he was sentenced to 18 months' hard labour for counting-house breaking, after previous convictions; at North London Sessions on May 7, 1901, for burglary; and on January 11, 1904, 18 months' hard labour for warehouse-breaking. It was stated that a quantity of stolen property from other burglaries was found at prisoner's lodging, and that he had been associated with several men who are now in penal servitude.
Sentence, Three years' penal servitude.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Saturday, April 9.)
COHEN, Edward (40, musician) and SMITH, Addie (45, laundress) , Smith being occupier of certain premises feloniously suffering Ellen Schooling, a girl under the age of 13 years, to be in and upon said premises for the purpose of being carnally known and Cohen aiding Smith to commit the said felony; both being persons having the management and control of certain premises feloniously suffering the said girl to be in and upon the said premises for the purpose of being carnally known; Cohen indecently assaulting Ellen Schooling and attempting to carnally know her, she being a girl under the age of 13 years, and Smith aiding Cohen to commit the said offence; both conspiring together and with others unknown to procure Ellen Schooling, then being a virgin aged 10 years and 10 months to have unlawful carnal connection with Cohen and that he should feloniously carnally now the said Ellen Schooling, a girl under 13 years.
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Travers Humphreys prosecuted.
Mr. Marshall Hall, K. C., M. P., and Mr. Huntly Jenkins defended Cohen.
At the close of the case for the prosecution Cohen pleaded guilty to an indecent assault. (Sentence postponed till next Sessions.)
The charges against Smith were not proceeded with, and she was discharged.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Friday, April 8.)
ANDREWS, John William (53, agent), SCHOTZ, Oscar Harold (19, clerk), and LUGGAR, John Arthur James (41, clerk), together with H. CULLERNE-BOWN , unlawfully keeping and using a certain office for the purposes of money and other valuable things being received by and on their behalf as and for the consideration of undertakings and premises by H. Cullerne-Bown to pay thereafter money and valuable things on events and contingencies of and relating to certain horse races to the common nuisance of all the subjects of the King (Betting Houses Act, 1853, 16 and 17 Vict., c. 119, s. 1); second count, keeping a common gaming house (same statute, s. 2); third count, aiding, abetting, counselling, and procuring H. Cullerne-Bown to commit a misdemeanour, namely, keeping the said office as a common gaming house (Accessories and Abettors Act, 1861, 24 and 25 Vict., c. 94, s. 2).
Mr. Muir and Mr. Leycester prosecuted; Mr. C. F. Gill, K. C., and Mr. Frampton defended Andrews; Mr. Curtis Bennett and Mr. Roome defended Schotz; Mr. Huntly Jenkins defended Luggar.
ROBERT MCLAREN , 5, Beaufort Mansions, Coldharbour Lane, Brixton. I have no occupation. During the latter part of last year I was employed at Flushing by the Totalisator Company; I entered their employ at the end of August and left on December 12 or 14. The business was conducted mainly by H. Cullerne-Bown. It was a betting business with an office and he employed twelve people. Telegrams, letters, and postcards came and I should say anything from 1,000 to 2,000 people sent money every week; it varied very much, and I was not in a position to know what exactly did come in. My duties were general clerical work, accounts, shorthand writing, and typewriting; a part of the correspondence passed through my hands. There were a thousand to 2,000 who had deposit accounts. Amounts varying from 5s. to £10 or more used to be sent, mostly by postal order, sometimes by cheque. A regular printed form of acknowledgment was sent, which was generally filled up at Flushing, but sometimes in the office of Andrews and Company, Fleet Street. I filled some up myself. Sometimes these would be sent from the Flushing office and sometimes they would be sent in envelopes to Andrews' office with instructions to be posted from there; these were sent in fives or tens or hundreds at a time. If the receipts were not filled up in Flushing, a list would be made of the names, addresses, and amounts, and this would be sent to Andrews with instructions to send the usual receipts. The accounts for winning would be made up every Friday or Saturday; these would be for races run up to the Friday. By this time the starting prices were known in Holland. Rule 8 of the Totalisator Book of Rules says, "To arrive at the odds 90 per cent, of the total amount received for each pool is divided by the amount subscribed on each horse." I took no part in this calculation because there was nothing to take part in. A. large sheet was ruled out in columns, one column for each horse in a race, and in the respective columns were entered in pencil the amounts received
as bets on each horse. At the time of the closing of the pool and at the time of the race that sheet was handed to Bown and nobody in the office ever saw it again, except perhaps Schotz. Winnings were sent out sometimes by cheque and sometimes by postal order. I wrote cheques myself. Sometimes they were sent direct when they were closing up the accounts I wrote a long list of people who had deposit accounts and the amounts that were due, and I wrote to Andrews and Company asking them to purchase postal orders. I gave the list to Bown and to the best of my belief it was posted to Andrews. Sometimes a batch of addressed envelopes containing winners' money would be sent to Andrews. For the most part the people with whom we had dealings were in England. When I came over here in December I had not left Bown's employ; his business closed down and he kept me in his employ until it reopened on February 1. I did nothing till about February 12, when Bown wrote asking me to meet him at Andrews' office. I worked for two days there filling these books of rules and subscription forms for the purpose of betting in, addressed envelopes, sealing them and posting them. Bown came in sometimes to see that the work was being done and sometimes to see Andrews; he took no part in the work. Luggar was also doing the work I was doing. On the day following these two days I was at the office of Polsue's, Ltd., printers, checking the envelopes. I was dismissed from Bown's service about February 21. I also saw Schotz at Andrews' office while I was working there; he was only there a few moments; he took out some of these envelopes to post. The first time I knew him was at Flushing; I left him there when I left in December, clearing up things for Bown. He was at Flushing all the time I was there. He was one of the clerks first and then the chief clerk was dismissed and he took his position. He checked accounts, wrote cheques, and superintended the principal work. I learnt that he was Bown's brother-in-law. I produce a bundle of documents such as were used in the business of the Totalisator Company. Exhibit 5 is called "The Totalisator Subscription Form," and it says "Subscriptions 5s. up to any amount." Then there is a column for the amount to be invested, a column for the name of the race, one for the name of the horse, and one for whether it is being backed to win or for a place. Exhibit 8 is a similar form, but for a double event. Exhibit 14 is a form of acknowledgment of a bet signed, "P. P. Totalisator Company. H. Cullerne-Bown, manager." At the top is "Flushing, Holland." Exhibits 16, 17, and 18 are books of rules of 1909 and 1910; similar to the books which I have spoken of as having been sent out to advertise the system. Exhibit 19 is a blank form headed "The Totalisator, Flushing, Holland. I regret to inform you that your instructions received by (blank) at (blank) to-day arrived too late to be acted upon.
Yours, faithfully, P. P. Totalisator Company. H. Cullerne-Bown, Manager." Exhibit 2 is the subscription form that I put into the envelopes at Andrews' office. We sent out 2,000 during the two days I was there. Visser is a Dutch clerk employed at Flushing. He came to England several times with parcels of addressed envelopes containing the subscription forms and occasionally money to be posted from Andrews' office.
Cross-examined by Mr. Gill. I suppose the only reason for posting in England was to save money, except that if posted in Holland. they might have got stopped in the post by the Dutch authorities. I did not hear the case opened this morning. I know nothing about the Betting Act. I applied for a position that was advertised in the "Daily Telegraph" from Holland, not stating the nature of the business, and I was told a lot of untruths about it. I was engaged by Macdonald; Bown's clerk, Willmot, and I were living together at the time I was dismissed. I cannot answer for him, but I did not want to injure anybody, and I did nothing to injure anybody. I had been injured personally by Bown, but I took no action against him whatever. Taking the whole of the documents used in the business I do not think one of them bore any but the Flushing address and that was the only address sent to customers. The business was extensively advertised in the English papers, and was commenced in 1908 I believe it is going on now. On Exhibit 4 the Totalisator Company publish the odds they paid as contrasted with the starting prices, and I see extracts from Press notices. In consequence of the advertising a great number of people answered and a considerable number opened deposit accounts. The business came to an end for the year at the close of the flat racing season and would commence again shortly before the Lincolnshire Handicap. I wanted to go back to Bown's employ. I did not advise him as to how advertisements could cost less. Willmot and I discussed it." I was not in Bown's employ then, I was writing to him asking him for my wages or a portion of them, and I told him that Willmot had this scheme which he would like to submit to him, and in consequence of that Bown made an appointment with Willmot and discussed it with him, but he did not accept it. The two days I was at Andrews' office were February 17 and 18. While I was there I could not say that Andrews did any part of the business. The money always went to Flushing. As far as I know there was no communication with Bride Court from clients.
Cross-examined by Mr. Curtis Bennett. Somebody told me that Schotz was 21, and I was always under that impression until I heard in this case that he was 19. He was doing the same clerical work as I did in Flushing. He was filling up envelopes during the two days I was at Andrews' office; he was not addressing them.
Cross-examined by Mr. Huntly Jenkins. I do not know that the odds were calculated by anybody; they could not be calculated according to the method Bown said he adopted. The starting prices were not always mentioned in Bown's advertisements. The odds were published after the final starting prices appeared in the "Sporting Life." Cheques would be made out, and then dispatched from Flushing, or sometimes the winnings would go to increase a deposit account.
Re-examined. So far as I know Schotz did no work at Andrews' office when I was there, except to come in once or twice and take some of the envelopes to post. I put those days as February 17 and 18 because I found at home a letter dated February 22 from Bown, in
which he said he would not want me any more, and I know it was on the previous Thursday, Friday, and Saturday that I was working for him.
CHARLES WILLMOT , clerk, 5, Beaufort Mansion, Brixton. I am not in employment now. I live with McLaren. From July, 1909 to November I was in the employ of the Totalisator Company at Flushing, which carried on a business of betting on horse races. The persons who made bets with the company were mostly in London. Sometimes the correspondence with them would be sent from Flushing direct and sometimes it was brought over by a man from the Flushing office, generally Visser, taken to Andrews' office, and posted from there; everybody in the office knew that. Cheques would be made out on the Saturday, and they would be put in the envelopes that were brought over to London; this happened as regards depositors as well as casual bettors. I do not know whether the envelopes were sealed, but on one occasion I remember the clerk who brought them over said they were not sealed. I have taken the parcels to the station myself sometimes, but I have only seen them when they have been tied up.
Cross-examined by Mr. Gill. Sending the letters to be posted in England would mean a considerable saving in postage—1 1/2 d. a letter. I put a scheme before Bown by which I and McLaren could save the whole of the cost of advertising, and he did not accept that. I and McLaren were living together at the time. It is true that I have said, "I gave information to the Postmaster-General with a view to punishing Bown; I have a grievance against him." I want to say why I have a grievance against him.
Cross-examined by Mr. Roome. I did not see the envelopes actually put in the parcels that were sent by hand to England. I do not know actually what the envelopes contained, but it was common knowledge in the office that circulars and statements were going into them. I wrote some of the envelopes and made up some of the prices for the horses. I myself put circulars and subscription forms in some of the envelopes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Huntly Jenkins. In Flushing Bown gave me £4, and said he understood I wanted to go back' to England, and I could go.
Re-examined. I was not in Bown's service when I put my advertising scheme before him; I left in November, and this was February. (To the Judge.) I was not in London to see that the letters that Visser brought over were posted. I have seen cheques written out in the Flushing office, because they were written out in the outer office Then they were taken in to Bown to be signed. I would not see them put into the envelopes, but they would come to me in the envelopes for me to put circulars in.
FRANK ELCOCK . I am 15 years old, and I live with my parents at 115, Howard Road, Barking. On February 22 I saw a notice on the door of No. 2, Bride Court. I went in and saw Andrews, and he engaged me as office boy, to take messages on the telephone in his absence. Sometimes when they were busy I used to help Luggar and Schotz to close up the envelopes. A rule book, a subscription form, and an envelope of the Totalisator Company were put in the envelopes.
On the Thursday before March 5, the day I made a statement to the police officer, I went out with Mr. Andrews and posted a large parcel of envelopes. Andrews used to be writing at the desk while we were putting these things in the envelopes.
Cross-examined by Mr. Gill. Andrews had his own desk.
Cross-examined by Mr. Roome. Schotz was not there when I was first employed. I think he came on the Monday or Tuesday before the police came.
Detective-sergeant ERNEST NICHOLLS, City Police. On March 3 I was keeping observation on 2, Bride Court, when, at 5.55 p.m., I saw Andrews and Elcock, each carrying a parcel of about 250 envelopes. They took them to the post office at New Bridge Street, where they posted them.
THOMAS CHARLES POLSUE , director of Polsue, Limited, printers, Gough Square, Fleet Street. I produce a list of printing work done by me for the Totalisator Company, Flushing. It shows under date, February 27, 1909, 30,000 booklets of rules, 60,000 subscription forms, 15,000 envelopes at a cost of £56 10s. On the same date a cheque was given me for £50, and on March 3 Bown himself gave me notes and cash for £6 10s. In March, 1909, there are 219 books of rules, 1,850 subscription forms, 11,000, 1,000, and 2,000 books of rules, 2,000 envelopes printed on face, and 1,000 four-page quarto circulars, amounting to £24, which was paid me. From April 30 to November 13 I supplied subscription forms and other things, amounting to £36 16s., which was paid in various sums, the last being on February 3, 1910. I paid to George Smith and Company for stamping, addressing, etc., £4 18s. 4d. and £5 0s. 7d. Exhibit 37 shows further work I did for the Totalisator Company this year, amounting to £59 12s. 9d. The last work done was on March 3. The bulk of the printing work was sent to Bown in Holland, but small quantities were sent to Andrews' office, some was taken by Schotz, and some of the envelopes were sent from our office. I should not think Andrews had more than 4,000 envelopes with the accompanying circulars this year at various times. During the early part of this year Schotz took away a portmanteau full. Luggar used to ring up occasionally, saying that Bown had instructed him by letter to order a thousand booklets or a thousand circulars. I have seen him personally and recognised his voice. Exhibit 38 is a letter of January 29, 1910, I received from Bown with instructions as to work.
Cross-examined by Mr. Gill. I have never had any orders from Andrews. I have seen the advertisements of the company in various papers.
Cross-examined by Mr. Roome. I think Schotz took away the portmanteau some time in February; I have not any way of fixing the exact date; it was not last year. He took a lot back to Holland with him; that is what I was led to believe.
FRANK BERTRAM SANDAVER , secretary, G. S. Smith and Co., Ltd., envelope addressers, Gresham House. I produce a statement of the work done by my firm for the Totalisator Company. The account is made out in this way: "The Totalisator Company, 26, Boulevard
Eversten, Flushing, Holland, H. Cullerne Bown, Manager, Abbey House, Chertsey, and 92, Dora Road, Wimbledon." It shows the supply of envelopes beginning on July 21, 1908, with small quantities, and then lower down there are larger figures, such as 1,280, 4,030, 12,710, 4,470, and 5,580. Then there are charges and affixing stamps. Down to August 1908, our charges amounted to £137. In 1909 there are some small charges, amounting in all to £9 18s. 11d. The address at Wimbledon was given with the order of February 19, 1909. I could not say whom it was given by, but it was in the name of Bown.
Cross-examined by Mr. Gill. All the work was done in the name of the Totalisator Company or Bown.
AUSTEN FREDERICK WILLAIM MEEN , assistant manager, London Joint Stock Bank, Limited, 144, Leadenhall Street, E. C. The Totalisator Company of Flushing, Holland, have an account at our bank; it was opened on July 16, 1908, by Bown. This is a correct extract from the ledger of the bank. The total credits in 1908 amounted to over £4,000, and in 1909 to £23,644 15s. 3d. I produce a certified copy of the account from January 1, 1910, to March 17, 1910, which shows total credits of £5,559 3s. 7d. Before March 1 the total credit was £1,125 6s. 6d., so that the total credit from March 1 to the 17th is £4,433 17s. 1d. I produce extracts from the books of the bank, showing payments made to Andrews between March 11, 1909, and the end of that year, amounting to £1,842 12s. 9d. There are 36 cheques in all payable to him.
Cross-examined by Mr. Gill. I have been told that the Totalisator business was very extensively advertised in the English papers, but I have never seen the advertisements myself. Bown was introduced by a trusted customer of ours of a great many years' standing and of considerable respectability.
Re-examined. When opening the account Bown gave his address at 92, Dora Road, Wimbledon Park.
Detective-inspector HUGH MCLEAN, City Police. At 10.40 a.m. on March 5 I went with Detective-sergeant Nicholls and other officers to the office of Andrews and Co., at 2, Bride Court. It consisted of a single room, in which I found the three prisoners. I said, "Is Mr. Andrews in?" Andrews said, "Yes; I am Mr. Andrews." I said, "Are you the occupier of this office?" He said, "Yes." I said, "I am a police officer and hold a warrant which authorises me to enter and search this office and arrest the persons found here." He said, "What for?" and I read the warrant. Andrews replied, "There is none of that kind of business done here." The others made no reply. They were taken to the station and Andrews was charged with keeping and using this office for the purpose of receiving certain moneys or valuable securities on certain events or contingencies relating to horse racing. Luggar and Schotz, who were charged with aiding and abetting, made no reply. Andrews said, "There is no truth in that." When I arrested Andrews he was standing at a desk. In that desk I found this letter (Exhibit 24). It is on a form with a printed heading, "Memorandum. Telegrams, 'Mutuel,' Flushing. From the
Totalisator, Flushing, Holland. February 27, 1910. To Messrs. Andrews and Co., London, E.C. Dear Mr. Andrews,—I have decided to do more of our office work from London and have therefore decided to send Mr. Schotz over to take charge of my business there. Now this may rather interfere with you, as I want him to have the use of your office; if it does please tell him so, and he will take a small office elsewhere. You need have no fear in letting him have the key as I will answer for him in every way. Yours faithfully, Totalisator Co. H. Cullerne Bown, manager." I found in the same desk a printed betting voucher filled up (Exhibit 25). It is a record of Andrews having backed Vigilance to win in the Lincolnshire Handicap. On a file I found this bundle of letters addressed to Andrews from the Totalisator Company, Flushing, either signed by "H. Cullerne Bown" or else initialled "H. C. B." In one letter appears the passage, "We only want the result of four days at Newmarket this week and on Saturday the London Cup only. Do you think Mr. Luggar will suit us? If not, tell Mr. MacDonald to engage someone else as we must have someone who can study our interests and carry out our instructions to the letter." In another there is this passage: "We have to-day sent a parcel per Zealand Company, addressed to Mr. Luggar, c/o Andrews and Co., enclosing 3,000 single event investment forms, 1,000 double event investment forms, 2,000 special circulars, 1,500 unfilled envelopes. The envelopes are to be filled by Mr. Luggar and Mr. Visser with the same matter as the previous parcel. Am enclosing list of names to whom rules are to be sent: Please tell Mr. Luggar to send each of them a book of rules, one double and one single investment form, printed envelope, and special circular." There are a number of other letters, saying that the Totalisator Company are sending letters to Andrews to be posted. In a letter dated March 1, 1909, beginning "Dear Oscar," there is this passage, "I am sending a list of 670 people to whom you can send rules. The new rules keep for best class people. We are greatly surprised that we have not yet received the 'Evening Standard' as written for several times. You know we want to have it at any cost. When I wire you the word 'advertise' it means in all daily papers. Make up a code so that I can wire the name of any paper we advertise in one word, for example, 'Evening Standard,' Eaton, and send copy. When we wire to you advertise, don't advertise word for word from telegrams, but make the paragraph readable." "Oscar" is Schotz. In another letter there is the passage, "We are getting several of our clients, who should have received code books, etc., writing to say that they have not received same. Will you ask Mr. Luggar to tell me candidly if he saw all the letters posted and, if so, how many—anyway, how many McLaren posted without Luggar seeing them?" In a cupboard in the office I found this book (Exhibit 30), containing a large number of entries of posting receipts, letters, rules, and paper. I found upon Luggar this letter of February 27 (Exhibit 21) addressed to him, "c/o Messrs. Andrews and Co.," on the memorandum form of the Totalisator, Flushing, Holland,. "I have decided to do more of our office work in London, and for this
reason have sent over Mr. Schotz to manage it, so this will relieve you of all responsibilities. I suggest that you continue in ray employment, but revert to the remuneration of 20s. per week on condition that you assist him whenever required, but under this arrangement you will have considerably less to do than I had intended." Upon the file that I have mentioned I found a number of letters from Bown to Luggar, giving instructions as to the sending off of vouchers, rules, etc. A letter dated July 6 runs, "I understand from Mr. Andrews that he does not wish to receive any more of our telegrams on Sundays. I shall therefore require you to be at Mr. Andrews' office on Sundays to receive them, and so hope you will make arrangements for doing so. Will you inform the Postmaster-General at the General Post Office that you require telegrams delivered to you on Sundays at 2, Bride Court, Fleet Street, and see that he takes the necessary steps to ensure the telegrams being delivered to you on Sundays? "In a letter dated July 17 Bown writes, "I confirm telegram asking you to be at Bride Court at 8.30 Sunday morning, bringing 2,000 penny stamps, which I hope you have understood. Mr. Fischer, the bearer of this letter, is bringing 2,152 letters, which I want you to post after stamping them. Mr. Fischer will, of course, help you to stamp and post them; also please send off the inquiries that he is bringing with him." In the office I also found a large number of printed documents, result sheets, subscription forms, acknowledgment forms, and list of names and addresses. In one of the letters dated March 4 I see my own name and address; I had written to the Totalisator Company, Flushing, on March 2, for particulars. There is a note at the bottom, "Please send these off to-morrow." I found in the office a number of documents showing that a genuine advertising business was carried on by Andrews and Co., but it appeared to be generally with racing men.
Cross-examined by Mr. Gill. After inquiring I find that the business of Andrews as advertising agent has been in existence from 30 to 35 years. He is a man of high character. The Totalisator business began in 1908 and I believe it was commenced by extensively advertising it in English papers. A large number of the letters I found had reference to sending over letters for the purpose of their being posted here. This prosecution was the result of information given by the Postmaster-General. Willmott had communicated with him by letter.
Cross-examined by Mr. Curtis Bennett. I have received no complaint as to the management of this business except that of the Post-master-General. Schotz gave his age as 19. I should say that he commenced work in Andrews' office on the Monday before I arrested him. His father is a hairdresser of Orchard Street. I saw him searched and 2s. 0 1/2 d. was found upon him. The only address on the papers in the office was "Flushing, Holland."
Cross-examined by Mr. Huntly Jenkins. No document indicated that money was paid out from the office at Fleet Street direct to the backer. When I went to the office there was another young fellow
who was just going out, and an office boy. I did not arrest the office boy. I know that Luggar is a man of a most excellent character, and I have never taken any proceedings against him before then, either betting or otherwise. Previous to this intimation has never been made to the prisoners that the police had any objection to what they were doing, and as far as I know nobody else has objected.
In an argument which followed on the sufficiency of the evidence Mr. Muir contended that the common nuisance, as alleged in count 1 was, by Statute, an indictable offence, notwithstanding that a summary penalty was also attached to it (R. v. Crawshaw, Bell, 305); that if the office were used as an essential part of the machinery by means of which money was received in Holland, the words of the section were satisfied. In Stoddart v. Hawke (1902, 1 K. B. 353) it was held "That to constitute an offence under that section it is not necessary that the money should be intended to be received at the house itself, nor need the intended place of receipt be within the United Kingdom "; (also cited Lennox v. Stoddart (1902, 2 K. B., 21); McKenzie v. Hawke (1902, 2 K. B.,216); Hawke v. McKenzie (1902, 2 K. B., 225); Rex. v. Oliphant (1905, 2 K. B.); Vogt v. Mortimer (22 T. L. R., 763); that a principal acting through agents in this country is indictable in this country (R. v. De Marny, 1 K. B. 388)
Mr. Gill contended that the only case cited analogous to the present case was McKenzie v. Hawke. The distinction was that in that case the office was a well ascertained and advertised place, whereas in the present case nobody knew of its existence.
The Common Serjeant said the case must go to the Jury.
(Saturday, April 9.)
The Common Serjeant in summing up explained to the Jury that if the office were used "substantially for the purpose of enabling Bown to carry on his betting business," that would amount to an "essential" user.
After deliberation the Jury found that "the office was used by Bown and Schotz and Luggar for the purpose of Bown's business, and that Andrews allowed it to be so used." On this finding the Common Serjeant directed the Jury to find a verdict of Guilty as against all three prisoners.
Sentence, Andrews, fine £50; Schotz and Luggar were released on their own recognisances in £100 each to come up for judgment if called upon.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Monday, April 11.)
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Symmons prosecuted. Mr. Curtis Bennett and Mr. Edward Duke defended.
ALFRED WILLIAM COPE , inspector of Customs and Excise. On January 5, in consequence of information received, I went with Inspector Hine to the office of Babcock and Wilcox, 30, Farringdon Street, and saw prisoner, who was employed there as correspondence clerk. I said to him, "I am an inspector of Customs and Excise, and this gentleman is with me. We are inquiring with reference to certain stamps. Have you in your possession, either on you or in your desk at this office, any stamps that have been wilfully or accidentally torn, any stamps that have been taken from envelopes that have been passed through the post and have been affixed to unaddressed envelopes; or any stamps that have been pieced together? I refer to used and unused stamps." He said "No." I said, "I will repeat it again; I want you to be quite clear that you understand me." I repeated my question again, and he said, "No, I have not." I said, "I am going to look through your desk," and told him to take us to his desk. He proceeded towards the secretary's office, followed by me and Inspector Hine. He went very rapidly, and I asked him not to go so quickly. He then opened one of the drawers of the desk and took from it four envelopes with his right hand and put them behind him. Hine took hold of him and took possession of them; they are exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4, and all contain cancelled stamps and parts of stamps. I handed them to Mr. Stubbs, the analyst, after taking out certain parts of stamps, which are in envelope, exhibit 5. Prisoner produced parcel of Babcock and Wilcox's paper together with four envelopes, exhibits 7, 8, 9, and 10, which bear stamps which I at once saw had been pieced together from portions of stamps. I saw that exhibit 10 bore a Post Office cancellation mark, and said to prisoner, "Where did you get this from?" He said, "I receive stamped addressed envelopes in letters for me to return to certain firms; that stamp is from one of those envelopes. I took it from the envelope and placed it on this one. It is exactly as I received it. It is one stamp." I pointed out to him that the stamp was torn; it appeared to be portions of two stamps. He said, "It is exactly as I received it." I pointed out the cancellation mark upon it, and he said, "I cannot see it." I asked him if he had good sight and he said, "Yes," and again said he could not see the cancellation mark. I said, "What are you going to do with this envelope? "He said, "I am going to use it through the post." He also said he was going to use the three other envelopes, exhibits 7, 8, and 9. He then said, "Just before Christmas I was posting a parcel to my brother in America and placed 12 penny stamps on it. I did not send the parcel, so I removed them by soaking the stamps and brown paper in water. In doing so I tore one or two of the stamps, and the stamps on these envelopes (exhibits 7, 8, and 9) are part of the 12 1d. ones so taken off." I asked him if he made a practice of removing stamps. He said "No; except in one or two cases where I have not sent the letter, I have never removed a stamp in my life." I then said to him, "Did you send a letter to Cirencester last night? "He said, "Yes, to Mr. Sanders." I said,
"Did that bear a pieced stamp or a whole stamp? "He said, "I could not really tell you." Envelope produced directed to R. W. Sanders, Cirencester, bears stamp which has been torn and pieced together. I and Inspector Hine then went with prisoner to his house at Glyn Road, Crofton Park, Catford. He produced from his writing case envelope, exhibit 11, bearing 1/2 d. stamp, which consists of two parts of stamps pieced together. It also bears a cancellation mark. I said to prisoner, "This has been through the post." He said, "No, I took the stamp from one of the return addressed envelopes as I did in the other case (referring to exhibit 10); the stamp is one stamp—I am certain of that." I pointed out to him the cancellation mark. He said he could not see it. I asked him if he was going to use that (exhibit 12) in the same way as the two others. He said "Yes." I asked him why he collected the parcel of used stamps, and he said, "I collect them for a friend of my son Herbert." On January 7 I went again with Hine to his office and saw Miss Blake and Mr. Saunders, two clerks of the firm. I told prisoner that Miss Blake, the telephone operator, had stated that in October, 1909, she had purchased an envelope from him bearing a 1d. stamp which looked grubby, and that "Mr. Saunders saw you about that time pasting two pieces of stamp on blotting paper, and he advised Miss Blake not to buy any more from you." Prisoner said, "Well, I do not think I ought to tell you, but I will tell you. About two years ago I found a bundle of letters—100 or 200—in Lady well Recreation Ground, which is near my house. The envelopes had not been posted, and they were stamped. I took them home, opened one, and found it came from a Mr. Lawrence." At this point Inspector Hine cautioned him that anything he said might be used in evidence against him. Prisoner went on to say that Mr. Lawrence lived in the Wandsworth Road. "I wrote to Mr. Lawrence and I received no reply, so my wife and I soaked the envelopes and removed the stamps. In doing so we may have torn a few. We placed them all in a drawer, and used them from time to time. I may have taken the top of one and the bottom of another of the torn stamps and used them as one stamp." I handed all the stamps to Mr. Stubbs, the Government analyst.
Cross-examined. I made no note of the conversations, but I wrote my report immediately afterwards to the Commissioners of Inland Revenue. I am certain I put the questions I have stated, because I had prepared them before seeing the prisoner. He was not cautioned on January 5. Exhibits 1, 2, 3, and 4 contain only used stamps, except one unused American stamp—there are a great number. I mentioned the letter that had been posted to Cirencester—I had already stopped it. Prisoner produced some genuine stamps from his pocket-book. He did not say that Lawrence lived in a road in Wandsworth—he said "in Wandsworth Road."
Superintendent HERBERT HINE, City Police, corroborated the last witness. On February 17 I arrested the prisoner at his employers' office. I read the warrant to him; he made no reply. Prisoner said that Lawrence lived in the Wandsworth Road. I have made inquiries, have searched the directories, and can find no such person living or carrying on business there. When prisoner was arrested I found
upon him one 1d. and one 1/2 d. stamp good; also four letters from his brother in America and four typed copies of letters written by him to his brother—one of the copies bearing date January 6, 1910, referring to our visit of January 5 and also to a parcel which he had stamped for postage and taken the stamps off; another of the copies refers to the parcel of letters said to have been picked up in the Lady-well Recreation Ground.
Cross-examined. I took a note of what had taken place on January 5 immediately after the interview. The copy letters are typed carbons.
MARION BLAKE , telephone clerk at Babcock and Wilcox, 30, Farringdon Street. Prisoner is correspondence clerk; that does not include the posting of the letters. In October last I bought a penny stamp from prisoner; it was affixed to an envelope. I noticed that it was rather grubby. Another clerk named Sanders said something to me and in consequence I did not buy any more stamps of prisoner.
Cross-examined. I only noticed that the stamp looked a little dirty.
ALFRED HARRY SANDERS , clerk to Babcock and Wilcox. In October, 1909, I saw prisoner applying paste to the back of portions of two stamps. I did not see what he did with them afterwards. Knowing that prisoner had sold a stamp to the last witness I told her what I had seen.
Cross-examined. What the prisoner was pasting may have been the two portions of one stamp.
(Tuesday, April 12.)
GEORGE STUBBS , Government Analyst, Laboratory, Clement's Inn Passage. I have been 23 years Government Analyst, have had 10 years' experience in examining stamps, and have given evidence from time to time. Postage stamps are lithographed on paper which has been previously watermarked with a crown on each stamp and also in the margin of the sheets with lettering. It rarely happens that the watermarked crown comes in the centre of each stamp. The sheets are gummed with pure gum arabic, which is subsequently dusted with refined granulated starch to prevent sticking, the presence of which can be shown by microscopical or chemical examination. After the stamps are printed the sheet is perforated by machinery; owing to the play of the sheet the perforations do not generally come exactly central between the stamps, so that the margins at the side, top, and bottom vary. Exhibit 7 is a 1d. stamp which is made up of two portions of different stamps which have been torn traversely across the middle. The two pieces roughly correspond so that to the ordinary eye they appear to be one stamp. Having removed the portions by soaking I find the watermark on the upper portion of the stamp does not correspond with that on the lower portion; the indentations do not correspond; in the top portion on the left-hand side the margin is wider than on the bottom portion. As delivered to me the two portions are somewhat smaller than the full size of the stamp; having arranged
them in the space occupied by a genuine stamp there is a small gap on the right hand side. The stamp was fixed to the envelope not with Post Office gum, which was absent, but with a starch paste, such as "Gloy or Bulldog" paste. I have no doubt Exhibit 7 is made up of two separate and distinct stamps. Exhibit 8 is also made up of two portions the water marks and marginal indentations do not correspond; it is fastened with starch paste; there is a slight portion of a complete stamp missing; one of the acorns in the flower design round the bottom is wanting. Exhibit 9 is also made up of two pieces, which do not make up the entire size of a stamp. I have removed the lower portion, and fitting it to the size of a stamp there is a gap right across; the water-marks and marginal indentations are distinctly different. The Government adhesive matter is absent, and it was fastened with starch paste. Taking the three Exhibits 7, 8, and 9, the six portions are parts of six different stamps, no part of one forming the counter-part of any other. The Post Office cancellation mark frequently occurs only on a portion of the stamp—particularly in London, Liver-pool, Manchester, and other large towns, where the letters are fed into a machine; in smaller places, where the cancellation is done by a hand stamp, it is not so frequent. When paper is torn, as all these stamps have been, a bevelled edge is formed which is almost universally different in each case, so that a portion of one stamp which has been torn would very rarely fit a torn portion of another. Exhibit 10 bears a 1 d. stamp which has been torn from top to bottom. The two halves do not correspond; the margins are distinctly different. Both portions are parts of a stamp which has been perforated with the names of different private firms. On the right side there is "C. 0." with a portion of a "T" above it; on the left side there is a perforation of a portion of an "N"or "M" That exhibit is undoubtedly made up of two stamps. The right hand portion contains a postal cancellation mark clearly visible—there is part of the ring and the letters "iggs," being the end of a postal office in Glasgow. Exhibit 11 has been torn across transversely; both halves have been perforated, but the perforation does not agree, the upper part containing the letters "J. B.," the lower part is perforated with the letters "S. and B.," which have been perforated from the gummed side, whereas the upper part has been perforated from the printed side; the indentations do not agree. The lower part also bears faint traces of a postal obliteration stamp; here is ink which by a chemical test I find to be postal ink. Exhibit 12 is the letter directed to Sanders, Cirencester. It bears the cancellation mark "London 151. 1.15 a.m., Jan. 5, 1910." The stamp is made up of portions of two stamps; the water-mark and marginal indentations differ; it is stuck with starch paste. Exhibits 1—5 all contain stamps which have been through the post with the exception of two new American stamps. There are 54 1/2 d., 114 1d., 3 1 1/2 d., 5 2 1/2 d., 7 3d., and 7 4d. Portions of 3 1/2 d., 2 1d., and 2 2 1/2 d. have been apparently cut for the purpose of making up stamps. There is a little of the postal mark on the edge of each of them. In all cases the stamps have been torn, not cut, so that when the portions are joined they would appear to have been accidentally torn. With regard to
all the exhibits, they have been very carefully removed without wetting the printed portion of the stamp; certain of the colours would indicate it if subjected to wetting.
Cross-examined. The margin between the stamps is about 1-17 inch; the perforated line may be in the middle or a little to either side. The portions in Exhibits 7, 8, and 9 correspond to the casual eye. They do not appear now on the envelopes in the way they did when first submitted to me." The portions have been torn and not cut; in my opinion they have been torn after being removed from the paper. I have subjected the ink mark on Exhibit 11 to chemical test and find that it is postal ink, which is essentially different from writing fluid, but is somewhat similar to the ink used for making typewriting carbons.
Re-examined. The stamps have been intentionally torn by placing one over another.
HERBERT WILLIAM MARSH (prisoner, on oath). I live at 33, Glyn Road, Crofton Park, and am shorthand clerk to Babcock and Wilcox, in whose employ I have been for 15 years, my salary now being £170 a year. I am married and have four children, and for the past 3 1/2 years have helped to support my widowed mother and invalid sister. I have never had any charge made against me. I have lived at Crofton Park for the past 10 years and am well known in the neighbourhood. Inspector Cope and Inspector Hine saw me on January 5 in the presence of Mr. Coles, secretary of Babcock and Wilcox. Cope said he was an Inland Revenue officer "and this gentleman is with me" (referring to Hine). Cope said, "Have you in your possession any used or defaced stamps—stamps which have been pieced together." I said, "No." He then said, "Have you in your possession any stamps which have been taken from letters or parcels?" I said "Yes." I was then asked if I had any objection to my desk being searched. I said, "No" and walked to the room where my desk was and where there were three or four male clerks and one female, Coles, Cope, and Hine following. I opened my desk and took out envelopes Exhibits 1—4 and 7—10 in order to place them on the right hand side of the desk, when Hine said, "I will search," and took them out of my hand. Exhibits 1—4 contained used stamps which I had collected for a companion of my son's named Charles Budd, who wanted them for the purpose of decorating a screen. I had kept the different descriptions of stamps in separate envelopes because he had asked me to do so. There were two unused American stamps which my brother in America had sent me which I intended to give to Budd. Exhibits 7, 8, 9, and 10 arc envelopes with stamps which I have taken from a parcel stamped to be sent to my brother in America, but which I have not posted as I found it would cost too much to send. They were partly on a white label and partly on the brown paper, were soaked off and afterwards attached to envelopes. In January, 1909, about 9 p.m., I was going through Ladywell Recreation Ground, which is near my home, when
I found a brown paper parcel containing a number of addressed and stamped envelopes. I took it home and carefully opened one or two of the envelopes, when I found they contained lottery circulars with regard to a watch business offering a gold finished watch for a small fee—they were Continental lotteries. There was an address showing that they were sent by Lawrence somewhere in Wandsworth, but I do not remember the address. I wrote to Lawrence explaining what I had found and asking his instructions. I got no reply; my letter was not returned through the dead letter office. Two or three weeks afterwards I looked upon the letters as worthless and burnt them, taking the stamps, with my wife's assistance, off the portions of the envelopes. In taking the stamps off a considerable number were torn. The stamps were put in a wooden box, and I subsequently used the stamps from time to time as occasion required, and as there was not sufficient gum on them I pasted them on to envelopes. I have been giving Budd stamps for his screen for about six months. I mentioned the finding of the parcel in a letter to my brother in America. I usually keep typed copies of letters written by me to my brother as members of my family meet and like to peruse the letters I have written. In addition to the four copies produced I have a number of other copies dating from November, 1905, which I produce. Several such copies have been destroyed. On January 7 I again saw Inspectors Cope and Hine. The only caution given by Hine was that when I mentioned the finding of the parcel of letters in the Ladywell Recreation Ground. Hine said, "You might have been arrested for that." I have never taken portions of used stamps and make up what appeared to be unused stamps out of them. Some of the used stamps which I collected for Budd were torn in removing them from the envelopes. I may very likely have been seen by Saunders to have been pasting two portions of a torn stamp, it being one that I had got off the parcel of circulars. I do not recollect selling a stamp to Miss Blake, but I may have done so. On January 5 Cope asked me when was the last letter I had posted. I said, "Yesterday." He asked me where I had posted it to and I said, "Cirencester."
Cross-examined. I have one brother, "Jim," in America, and three brothers and three sisters in business for themselves in London. I have been eleven years employed as shorthand clerk and typist I deny Cope's evidence as to the question he put to me. Cope did not ask me about the cancellation mark on Exhibit 10—Hine mentioned it. I said it had a stain on it, but it could not be a cancellation mark as I had taken it off an unused envelope. I do not see the letters" iggs" on it now. I have good sight. Looking through a glass there is a mark certainly. I believe that to be a stamp I took off an unposted envelope. It may be portions of two different stamps which I had torn in removing the stamps from unused stamped envelopes sent to my private house. The stamps I removed from the parcel I intended to send to my brother were partly on a white label and partly on brown paper. I do not know that I had mentioned the white paper before, I did not mixed used stamps which I collected for Budd with the unused stamps taken from the circulars or from my
brother's parcel. It may be that the exhibits consist of portions of different stamps; portions of torn stamps may have been mixed. I found the parcel of circulars, containing from 100 to 200 stamped envelopes about 200 yards from my home, I ought to have posted them. I appropriated what did not belong to me. I wrote to Lawrence, and getting no reply considered them worthless, burnt the circulars and envelopes, and kept the stamps. I told Cope that Exhibit 10 had been taken from an unused stamped envelope. On January 5 I did not mention the finding of the parcel of circulars.
AMY MARSH , wife of the prisoner. About 15 or 18 months ago prisoner brought home a parcel containing a large number of circulars in stamped envelopes ready for post. We removed the stamps by soaking them, and they were put in a box. Prisoner was collecting used stamps for Budd, a friend of my son Herbert. I remember prisoner packing a parcel of music in brown paper with a white label and directing it to his brother in America. He afterwards decided not to send it, the stamps were taken off and put in an envelope.
Cross-examined. I should think there were two or three dozen stamps taken off the circulars—perhaps a hundred. Some of the stamps were torn in taking them off; the prisoner used the stamps from time to time.
HERBERT MARSH , son of the prisoner. I collect foreign and English stamps. My father has collected used stamps for Budd, both foreign and English, which Budd arranges on a screen (produced) in design.
Cross-examined. Amongst the stamps I have given Budd have been many torn ones. I saw nothing of the parcel of circulars or the stamps said to have been taken off them.
Cross-examined. I use portions of stamps as well as whole ones for my screen; I do not notice whether they are post marked or not.
WALTER COLES , Secretary to Babcock and Wilcox. Prisoner has been employed by my firm for 15 years, and has always performed his duties satisfactorily. The firm are keeping his post open and paying his wages during these proceedings. On January 5 I was present during the interview of prisoner with Cope and Hine. I believe Mr. Cope said to prisoner, "Have you any defaced or mutilated stamps in your possession." I did not take much notice of the conversation as I was very busy and did not realise the seriousness of the matter.
Verdict, Guilty. "We recommend the prisoner to mercy on account of his former good character."
Sentence, Three months' imprisonment, second division.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
DEBUICHE, Joseph (68, wine merchant), being an adjudged bankrupt, did not to the best of his knowledge and belief, fully and truly discover to the trustees administering his estate for the benefit of his creditors, the goodwill, furniture, fittings and assets of his property, and how, and to whom, and for what consideration, and when he disposed of the same, such parts of his property not having been disposed of in the ordinary way of his trade, nor laid out in the ordinary expense of his family, and omitting in a certain statement relating to his affairs to mention the said part of his property in such statement, and making a certain delivery and transfer of the said property to Auguste Delarue, in each case with intent to defraud.
Mr. Forrest Fulton prosecuted; Mr. Cannot defended.
JAMES MACK , solicitor, 25, Craven Street. I produce an agreement dated January 19, 1909, between Delarue and Monniot. It came into my possession from Monniot; I had nothing to do with the preparation of it.
GEO. INGLIS BOYLE , messenger, Bankruptcy Court. I produce the file in prisoner's bankruptcy. It was a creditors' petition filed January 12, 1909. The receiving order is dated February 9, 1909, and the adjudication was March 30, 1909. The statement of affairs, filed on March 11 and signed by the prisoner, states the liabilities to be £236 2s. 2d. and the assets £10, cash at bankers. Prisoner's public examination was on March 24, 1909, and I produce a transcript of the shorthand notes signed by him.
Cross-examined. So far as I can see from the file there is nothing to show that anybody appeared for prisoner on February 9 when the receiving order was made. The petitioning creditors are the Societe Anonyme des Fourneaux Briffault, and their claim is £119 2s. 8d. There are only three other unsecured creditors who claim small amounts. There is a claim of £50 from Coleman, Evans and Co., solicitors.
LELLO ZEITUM , interpreter, 236, Goldhawk Road, Shepherd's Bush, I acted as interpreter at the public examination of prisoner on March 24, 1909; I correctly interpreted all the questions put to him, and I again interpreted into English the answers he gave. Some days after I went to the Court and translated to prisoner, in the presence of his solicitors, the transcript of the shorthand notes, and he signed it.
Cross-examined. Once prisoner called at Bow Street and asked me to go with him to the Official Receiver to act as interpreter, and I did. I understood that Adolphe Tone Azema, who was with us, was willing to buy the concern from the Official Receiver; I cannot say if he offered £100, but I know he asked the Official Receiver how much he wanted, fie had the money with him. I think this happened between September and October last year. I think it was Mr. Williams whom we saw.
Cross-examined. Sometimes prisoner took me about with him as interpreter. I went with him two or three times to the Bankruptcy Court, but I cannot remember the dates. I think I went with him there on February 10, the date on which he thought the bankruptcy petition was returnable. His solicitor told him in my presence that the case would not be for that day and told him to come back another time; he did not say to when the petition had been adjourned. I knew the prisoner had some money with him, but I cannot say how much. He told me that his solicitor had arranged terms with the petitioning creditor for the payment of the £30 down and £10 a month. I learnt after that the receiving order was made the day before he went there.
ULRICH HUGENTOBLER , interpreter, Marlborough Street Police Court. On November 20, 1909, I went with prisoner, at his request, to call upon the Assistant Official Receiver, Mr. Williams, and interpreted the statement which he made in French into English. Mr. Williams wrote it down in his presence, and I translated it to prisoner and he signed it. This is the statement (produced) which bears his and mine signature. "Bankrupt called with Mr. Hugentobler, interpreter. Wished to know whether Official Receiver was going to do anything in regard to the solicitors who acted for him, viz., Coleman, Evans and Company, and caused him great financial loss. I said Official Receiver did not propose doing anything at present. Bankrupt could act as advised. Bankrupt further stated as follows: With reference to the assignment of 8, Sherwood Street, to Auguste Delarne it is true that the £100 was not actually paid to me by Delarne, but I was told by my solicitors, Messrs. Coleman and Evans and Company, that they would see to everything, and that I had not to concern myself any more with it. The solicitors said that I could safely declare that the money (£100) had been paid because Delarue was going to pay. I am sorry that any mistake should have been made, and now realise the seriousness of the matter. I did not receive the £100 from Delarue in banknotes or otherwise as I stated to Mr. Parke on my private examination. With reference…"
EDWARD PARKE , Examiner, Official Receiver's Department. I took the second part of prisoner's preliminary examination, the first part being taken by the Realisation Clerk in answer to the printed questions. I go through the examination again and add any further matter that has to be added. Prisoner signed his examination on March 20 and I added further notes on March 22 and 23. Prisoner's statement was interpreted to me and when written down was translated to him. It reads as follows: "I commenced business at 8, Sherwood Street, Golden Square, W., in June last, as a restaurant and hotel keeper, trading in my own name, but calling the place the Hotel de France and Restaurant Pallyard. I had about £180 capital and no debts. I owed about £30. I spent about £270, paid out of my capital and
takings, in furnishing and fitting up the premises. I continued for about 2 1/2 months (August, 1908), when, as I had no. capital, I was unable to continue. I consequently sold the business as it stood and assigned the lease to Mr. Auguste Delarue, of 48 Sun Street, Finsbury, for £100. The actual date of the sale to Delarue was September 11, 1908. This I paid to the creditors. The sale to Delarue included the furniture which I held under a hire purchase agreement from Maple and Co., Limited; it included everything I had at 8, Sherwood Street. I subsequently carried on the hotel for Delarue until January 9, 1909, when he sold it to Mr. Monniot, who is now carrying it on. The arrangement between Delarue and Monniot was that the latter should pay Delarue £7 10s. per week until he had paid £300 or £400, and that of the £7 10s., £4 was to be retained by Delarue and £3 10s. was to be devoted by him to paying my liability (£91 1s.) to Maple and Co., Limited, under the hire purchase agreement and my other liabilities in connection with the hotel—total, £168 18s. 10d. These creditors were all aware and were advised of the arrangement, but they did not know of my sale to Delarue until the latter's sale to Monniot. When he and I by word of mouth told them they made no reply. I have not received any money from Monniot myself. I have known him about four or five years. Monniot came to me first and said he wanted to buy the hotel. This was on December 24, 1908. I immediately saw Delarue, with the result that the sale was arranged. I could not make any arrangement with Delarue for payment of my creditors, but it was possible to do so with Monniot because (1) he was willing to pay more than the hotel was actually worth, because he had a good connection and he thought he could work up the business, and (2) he had not to pay any money down, the arrangement being for payment by weekly instalments. I left the hotel on January 9, 1909, the date on which the agreement with Monniot was signed, and have had nothing to do with it since. No part of the money Monniot agreed to pay was to be or has been paid to me. I used the £100 I received to make payments to creditors." In answer to the question, "When did you first become aware that you had not sufficient property to pay all your debts in full?" he said, "In January last" (he afterwards corrected that to "August last ") "when I sold the hotel to Delarue. I thought before this that I might not possibly be able to pay, but did not know it for certain."
Cross-examined. He gave me to understand that the money which was to arise from the sale from Delarue to Monniot was to go partly to his (the prisoner's) debtors; I pressed him as to that. The conclusion I arrived at was that he was not speaking the truth with regard to that. It seemed to me incredible if he had sold the property outright to Delarue, and I asked him if Delarue was a philanthropist.
DANIEL WILLIAMS , assistant Official Receiver, Bankruptcy Court. I have been concerned in investigating prisoner's affairs. His statement of affairs discloses six unsecured creditors and one fully secured creditor
for £91 1s. 8d. He never disclosed any assets arising out of the business at 8, Sherwood Street, either by way of furniture, fixtures, or goodwill. The Official Receiver got possession of the premises in August, 1909. M. Delarue had been privately examined in bankruptcy before that, and the business was sold for the benefit of the creditors to Mr. Stona for £80, subject to his paying the arrears of rent, taxes, and the balance due to Maple's on their hire purchase agreement. The Official Receiver never received from prisoner any money paid by Monniot. On August 24, Delarue made a statement. On one day in November prisoner called with Mr. Hogentobler, an interpreter, and made this statement. (Exhibit 8 produced.) When I was examining Delarue before the Court I had not in my possession the assignment of September 11, 1908, from prisoner to Delarue, of the premises at 8, Sherwood Street, with the goodwill, fittings, and fixtures for £100. I received it from Coleman, Evans and Co. It has an impressed stamp dated October 8, 1908. The signatures are those of prisoner and Delarue.
Cross-examined. Maple's hire purchase agreements contain a clause that the agreement can be determined at any time on non-payment. Prisoner told me that as regards Coleman, Evans and Co.'s claim he had made certain payments to them which were more than sufficient to pay the amount. I think he also said they had collected money from people who owed money to him. I have called upon them for a cash account and their detailed bill of costs; from the information at my disposal I am not at present able to contest their claim. I have the bill of the costs but not the cash account. It is only by forcing them to give me a cash account that I can tell whether or not what prisoner has said is true. If it is the fact that these solicitors owe £84, it is rather an important matter for him and for the estate to see that they are called upon to pay. With the purchase price of this business it would make £160 to help liquidate the debts. I have had notice of a claim from the Saarbuch News Exchange for £11 10s. 7d. for books supplied to a news agency business carried on by prisoner, and from Neilson and Co. for £8; these are not disclosed in the statement of affairs. Coleman, Evans and Co.'s bill of costs is for £97. If a dividend can be declared that bill will be reported upon to see if it can be fairly taxed. It was delivered on November 10, 1909. Prisoner has himself sworn that there is £50 due to them. On the other hand he has told me that they owe him £84, which had been collected by them. He has made many statements. He has given us a statement with particulars of the matters in which they had collected the £84. I have not communicated with the people to find out whether they had made the payments to them. Prisoner brought someone with an interpreter to see me, and an offer was made of £100 for the business, but there were so many conditions attached that I could not accept it. They offered £100, paying £50 down in cash that day, if they could get immediate possession of 8, Sherwood Street, and the prisoner was to be released from his bankruptcy. 1 explained the exact position with regard to the business to the proposed purchaser, and he withdrew his offer.
EUGENE MONNIOT , cellarman and barman, 60, Frith Street. I carried on business for a time at Hotel de France, 8, Sherwood Street. Under this agreement between myself and Delarue, dated January 9, 1909, I agree to buy the business at 8, Sherwood Street for £400, to be paid by weekly instalments of £7 10s. Prisoner asked me to buy it, saying that he was acting for Delarue. He and Mr. Jones, a solicitor, of the firm of Coleman, Evans and Co., signed the agreement as well as myself. I believe there was a duplicate. I started business there, and for about four or five months I paid £7 10s. a week—over £100. Some of it I paid to prisoner or his man, Mr. Perrin, some to Maple's, and some for rates and taxes, and so on. When I left I owed about six weeks. These two receipts (Exhibits 5 and 6) for £7 10s. each are dated January 22, 1909, and February 4, 1909, and are signed by prisoner "pro A. Delarue." These are two out of a few; I believe I had others, but cannot find them. I have a record showing payments of £7 10s. a few times. This is an account prisoner sent to me by Perrin, addressed from the International Library, 8, Moore Street, Cambridge Circus. Perrin handed it to me saying it came from prisoner. It purports to be a receipt for certain sums of money from January 19 to March 27. I have never spoken to the prisoner about it. It was correct at the time it was given me, but I could not pay at the time. It shows £20 188. 6d. as being due on March 27. I paid nothing to prisoner after that; I only paid the landlord, the rates, and the lighting. I remained till September, as far as I can remember, and then I was turned out by Mr. Jones, Mr. Delarue, and prisoner.
Cross-examined. I considered I was making a genuine purchase, and that the business was mine. £400 was the price. I paid prisoner the £7 10s. represented by the receipts (Exhibits 5 and 6), but I cannot say whether I paid the other amounts to him personally; they were made to Delarue. The account of March 27 asked me to settle with Perrin for Delarue.
ALEXANDRE PERRIN (recalled). These receipts (Exhibits 5 and 6) were written by me and signed by prisoner in front of me. I do not know in whose handwriting this account of March 27 is. I do not remember taking it to Monniot. Prisoner sent me to Monniot two or three times, and I received sums of money from him. It is very difficult to remember what I received at a time; it is two years ago. Once I took the money direct to the landlord, Mr. By water, and on the other occasions I think I took it to Maple's to pay the bill. I took the money direct to prisoner perhaps once.
Further cross-examined. I cannot remember whether the date I took the money to prisoner direct was one of the dates on these receipts (Exhibits 5 and 6). At one time payments to the landlord were made by prisoner himself, and after a time Monniot made an arrangement to pay it direct to the landlord on account of prisoner. Prisoner is a very uneducated and illiterate man; if he can sign his ow name that it all he can do. When Monniot could not pay his rent to prisoner, prisoner would tell the landlord that Monniot could
not pay, and therefore he could not pay. The money that was to go to the landlord was included in these amounts of £7 10s. a week.
AUGUSTE DELARUE , 46-48, Sun Street, Finsbury Pavement. I have known prisoner some years, but not intimately. Some time in February, 1909, he came to me at Sun Street and asked me about buying the business at 8, Sherwood Street, and to go with him to the solicitors, Coleman, Evans, and Co. I cannot remember what the date was; I always thought it was in February. On that same day I signed the agreement, which is dated September 11, 1909 (Exhibit 10). At the solicitors' office prisoner said to me that he was in trouble at the time and that he would require £100, which he did not have at the time to get him out of his trouble, and he asked me if I would like to buy a restaurant. I said, "I have not got the money that you require, but I will try." The solicitor read out this agreement rather quickly and said, "That will avoid a lot of trouble to Mr. Debuiche by signing this." He did not exactly say in what way that would save prisoner trouble; I never knew anything of the business. He said, "You can arrange it between him and you about the money matter." I signed the document and left. I tried to get the money, but could not, and five or six days after I met prisoner. He said, "Cannot you get this money?" and I said, "I cannot; I have tried." I never got the money. I never paid it to him in notes at all. All the way through I always thought there was something about the date on the document. At the time I was at the solicitors' office I quite believed that it was ante-dated. I heard Mr. Coleman say, "This paper will stop anyone coming in." I believe it is a company of solicitors. I heard him say it to another man. Coleman and Evans were speaking to one another. I do not know whether he was addressing myself or prisoner at the time; he said it to anyone who could hear it. I did not carry on the business at 8, Sherwood Street. I tried to get the £100 from my wife and people and I could not get it, or I would have carried it on. I did not employ prisoner as my manager; I never had anything to do with the business. I have never seen this agreement purporting to be between myself and Monniot by which I sell the business at Sherwood Street to him for £450. I have never received any money from Monniot under that agreement. I was present at the request of Coleman, Evans when Monniot was ejected from the Sherwood Street premises because had not paid his rent. Prisoner and Coleman, Evans was there. I do not know what happened to the premises after that. I do not know Stroner. I never let them to anybody, nor did I give authority to anybody to do so. I never made any claim for anything at Sherwood Street except for a few pictures which I had lent prisoner to furnish the place.
Cross-examined. I knew some time after I signed the agreement that Monniot had purchased the premises. I was not aware that the premises were in my name. I thought that was done away with, as I could not get the £100; I thought that agreement was cancelled. It was not I who turned Monniot out; it was Coleman, Evans. They told me I had better come and I sat down there and they turned him
out. The agreement I signed was a perfectly genuine one; if I had got the £100 I would have bought the business. There was no intention on my part to defraud anybody. I believe prisoner wanted the money to enable him to realise his property and pay his creditors.
Re-examined. The solicitors said in reference to turning Monniot out, "If you can't do the job yourself, we shall have to go ourselves," and they went. They told me it was necessary for me to be there. They sent for me at my address. This was the first time they had communicated with me since I signed the agreement some time before; it may have been more than two months. After he had been ejected they did not say anything to me; they went on their way and I on mine.
To the Judge. I am a fine art printer, not a restaurant keeper. I never went into the business, or managed it, or put anybody in there.
LOUIS JAMES BYWATER , secretary, Acquis Property Company, Limited, 10, Kingly Street, W. My company are the owners of 8, Sherwood Street. They were taken by prisoner in May, 1908, on a little over four years' lease, at a rent of £150. I first heard of the transfer of the lease from prisoner to Delarue in the spring of 1909; we were not parties to it. Prisoner came to my office and said he proposed to dispose of the business to a Mr. Monniot. I am not clear as to how it came out, but the fact was revealed to us that he had transacted a previous assignment.
Cross-examined. I did not know of this assignment of September 8, but I went on receiving rent from that date till March, 1909; it was paid by prisoner and messengers from him. After March Monniot paid it, and it was then that I discovered he was in possession of the premises. From September 8 to March 8 £75 was paid by prisoner, but in addition to that there were arrears. I cannot remember when these arrears first accrued. The rent was payable quarterly.
Verdict, Guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy.
The police knew nothing of prisoner. It was stated that his assets would cover no more than the cost of the bankruptcy proceedings.
Sentence, Three months' imprisonment, second division.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Monday, April 11.)
DOUGLAS, Ernest Francis (39, advertising specialist), FELVUS, John William (35, advertising agent), and GRAHAMSLAW, John Robson (38, journalist) , all conspiring and agreeing together to obtain by false pretences from Richard John Jamieson, William Henry Joy. Ernest Webb, Joseph Snook, Frederick George Starling, Mary Sams, Alfred George Booker, Kate Rawson, George Rushby, Rose French, Helena Smith, Ida Carson and divers other persons, divers of their moneys, with intent to defraud; all obtaining by false pretences from Richard John Jamieson a postal order for 3s. 6d.; from William Henry Joy a postal order for 2s., and the several sums of 1s. 6d. and 6d. respectively; from Ernest Webb a postal order for 3s. 6d.; from Ernest Snook a postal order for 3s. 6d.; from Frederick George Starling a postal order for 3s. 6d.; from Mary Sams a postal order for 3s. 6d.; from Alfred George Booker a postal order for 3s. 6d.; from Kate Rawson a postal order for 3s. 6d.; from George Rush by postal orders for 3s. 6d. and 7s. 6d. respectively; from Rose French postal orders for 3s. 6d. and 8s. 6d. respectively; from Helena Smith a postal order for 3s. 6d. and the sum of 8s. 11d., and from Ida Carson postal orders for 3s. 6d. and 9s. respectively, in each case with intent to defraud.
Mr. Muir, Mr. Travers Humphreys, and Mr. Roland Oliver prosecuted; Mr. Leycester defended Douglas, Mr. J. D. A. Johnson defended Felyus.
RICHARD JOHN JAMIESON junior clerk, employed at Windsor. In June last, reading "Lloyd's News," I saw an advertisement of a picture puzzle competition, £2,000 to be given away in prizes, no entrance fee. The puzzle consisted in cutting out odd fragments of a picture and piecing them together so as to form the head of a "famous British Admiral," the competitor to give the name of the admiral. A prize of £150 was offered to the competitor who properly placed the fragments together and gave the correct name, £100 to the one who accomplished the first condition but failed to give the right name: if there were more than one successful competitor the prizes were to be divided. I sent in my solution, giving Lord Chas. Beresford as the "famous British Admiral." I received a circular printed in imitation of typewriting, congratulating me upon having sent in a correct solution, and stating that the only condition of my sharing in the prize was that I should subscribe or procure a subscriber to a new monthly journal, called "Profit and Pleasure," at 3s. 6d. per annum. Enclosed was a certificate that as a successful competitor I was entitled to share in a prize, and a form of subscription to the paper. I filled up the form and forwarded it with postal order for 3s. 6d. I got the July and August numbers of the paper; in the former my name appeared as one of the successful solvers; in the latter appeared the announcement that the number of winners was so large that the prize money would work out at 4 1/2 d. to each; that as this would not be worth distributing the proprietors had determined to add a further £50 and to set a further competition to decide how the money should be divided; one free trial would be allowed in the new competition, and additional attempts could be sent in at 6d. each. I sent in a solution of this new competition. In "Lloyd's"of September 19 appeared an advertisement: "The following are some of the winners of the one pound, ten shillings, and five shilling prizes "; my name (with my address) appeared second; I thought I was second among the winners of £1. In the September number of "Profit and Pleasure "my name also appeared as second in the list of winners. I wrote applying for
my prize and only received evasive answers. I have never got a penny of prize money. Two other numbers of the paper were issued, one "October as November," the other "Christmas and New Year"; then the publication stopped. I should not have sent my money if I had not believed that the competition was genuine.
Similar evidence (either as to the Lord Chas. Beresford competition or as to another, in which the pieces properly put together formed the head of a "famous British soldier"—Lord Roberts) was given by ERNEST WEBB, a bombardier in the Royal Marine Artillery at Ports-mouth; Joseph Snook, farm labourer, Brimscombe, Gloucestershire; MARY SAMS, of Gillingham, Kent; WM. H. JOY, of Orcheston St. Mary, near Salisbury; ALFRED G. BOOKER, caretaker, Chichester; FK. G. STARLING, brewery labourer, Norwich; KATE RAWSON, wife of a waiter, Gray's Inn Road; GEORGE RUSHBY, farm servant, Pinchbeck, near Spalding; ROSE FRENCH, wife of a labourer at Eastbourne; HEEENA SMITH housemaid, Egham; IDA CARSON, of Dublin.
CHARLES C. GALLAGHER , clerk in the office of the Registrar of Joint Stock Companies, produced the file of the Carlton Publicity Company, Limited; incorporated April 20,1907; registered address in Piccadilly, changed on September 30, 1908, to 161a, Strand. Two of the original subscribers to the memorandum were Ernest Francis Hughes and John Wm. Felvus. Felvus later appears as secretary. Object of the company, to take over as a going concern the business of the Carlton Publicity Company, up to then carried on by Douglas and Loftwood. The company was wound up voluntarily on June 16, 1909. Witness also produced the file of the Premium Press, Limited; incorporated June 17,1909, as a private company, the two subscribers being Mr. Smedley and J. A. Grahamslaw; object to acquire and carry on the magazine called "Profit and Pleasure" heretofore published by Ernest Francis Douglas, the proprietor; capital £2,000, in 500 preference and 1,500 ordinary £1 shares; Douglas receives as consideration £500 cash and 1,000 ordinary shares. Douglas was a life director and Felvus secretary. 37 shares were issued for cash; 1,000 not for cash; of the latter Douglas held 800, Felvus 5, and Grahamslaw 1. The registered offices were at 161a, Strand.
(Tuesday, April 12.)
ARTHUR RICHARDSON , advertisement manager, "Lloyd's News," produced the document relating to the insertion in his paper of advertisements relating to the "Profit and Pleasure" competitions. The orders for them were signed "Carlton Publishing Company, per W. F." They commenced in May and continued till September. Eventually, in consequence of complaints being received from members of the public, witness saw Douglas and told him that the paper could no longer receive his advertisements.
Cross-examined by Mr. Leycester. Before we agreed to insert the advertisements I saw Douglas, and he explained that his scheme was to establish a bona fide journal by means of these prize competitions;
assuming that the prize money would be paid I saw nothing improper in the scheme. The complaints we received from our readers were that they had not had the promised numbers of "Profit and Pleasure." Douglas explained to me that a large number of postal orders for subscriptions had been stolen. I know that some of the people who complained had their money returned to them. All the advertisements we inserted were paid for.
JOHN HANDS . solicitor. I acted for the owners of 161a, Strand. By an agreement of September 24, 1908, five rooms there were let to the Carlton Publicity Company, Limited. In June, 1909, the company went into liquidation, and the agreement was assigned by the liquidator to Ernest F. Douglas. The rent was £150 a year.
DANVERS PITE , printer, 96, Rendlesham Road, Clapton. I was for some years in the employment of George Pite and Co., Limited, printers, at Clarence Road, Hackney. On June 24, 1909, a Mr. Smedley was appointed Receiver on behalf of Debenture holders and the business was carried on by him as Receiver until September 30, I acting as manager. At that date Douglas became proprietor. I continued to act as manager until I left in January. We did a quantity of printing business for the Premium Press, Limited. For this I took instructions from Douglas or Felvus; it consisted of copies of the imitation typewritten circulars, the congratulatory letters, certificates, subscription forms, etc., relating to the puzzle competitions; also imitation typewritten circulars and order forms relating to the business of Lankester and Co., watch manufacturers, etc. On August 11 last I wrote a letter to Matthews, Price, and Co., giving a reference as to Grahamslaw; I did not know Grahamslaw; I wrote on the instructions of somebody at the Premium Press.
Cross-examined by Mr. Leycester. The Carlton Publicity Company were purely advertising agents and had nothing to do with publishing magazines. Besides the work I have mentioned Pite and Co. printed a number of local guides for the Carlton Publicity Company. Douglas gradually built up a very substantial business in connection with the advertising agency and the Premium Press. At the time of his arrest he had plant of the value of about £700 and £200 or £300 of book debts. About May, 1909, Douglas revived a weekly paper called the "Hackney Standard "; it took a prominent part in politics on the Unionist side and was violently attacked by the sitting Liberal member, Mr. Horatio Bottomley, proprietor of "John Bull." The "Advertising World" also attacked Douglas. I cannot say whether these attacks affected the advertisements in "Profit and Pleasure." Such a journal would depend for its commercial success upon the advertisements it could command. At the time of his arrest Douglas had ordered a linotype machine for the printing of "Profit and Pleasure," and the electric power had been installed at Hackney, where it had been arranged the magazine should be printed. Until these attacks upon him Douglas was, so far as I know, a prosperous man.
Cross-examined by Mr. Johnson. The Carlton Publicity and the Premium Press were limited companies. I only knew Felvus as secretary. I did not regard him as my superior or employer.
GEORGE C. CALTHORPE , assistant to Messrs. Colingridge, printers, Aldersgate Street. I produce the documents under which, my firm undertook, in June last, the printing of "Profit and Pleasure" for the Carlton Publicity Company. Our negotiations were with Douglas, Felvus being secretary. We were to be paid in advance. We duly printed the July, August and September numbers; the next was published as the "October as November" number. For the next number we had the "copy" in hand and it was set up, but cash was not forth-coming and it was not printed in December; eventually it was printed and issued (after prisoners' arrest) early in January as the "Christmas, and New Year" number.
Cross-examined by Mr. Leycester. From the commencement the magazine was published very late in the month, and with the third number Douglas decided to date one month ahead; there is nothing unusual in monthly or weekly journals being dated ahead of their actual issue. In my view "Profit and Pleasure" was well got up and contained interesting matter. I should say it would be worth as a magazine 3s. 6d. per year. I do not think my firm have any reason to be ashamed at their connection with the magazine. The financial success of such a journal would depend upon its advertisement revenue; no doubt the attacks-in "John Bull" would affect that revenue.
Evidence was next given as to another competition, in which the winners were promised in return for 7s. 6d. or 8s. 6d. a "Champion" sterling silver or gold watch, or "solid silver simulation" watch chains. This competition was advertised in "Profit and Pleasure" by Lankester and Company. The witnesses who spoke as to this were GEORGE RUSHBY, ROSE FRENCH, HELENA SMITH, and IDA CARSON. In return for their postal orders the witnesses received the watches and chains referred to in the evidence of Coker and Rosenthal.
LOUISA COKER , manager to Messrs. Stahleckers, watch importers, 6, Christopher Street, Finsbury. I know Grahamslaw as Graham. On September 31 I supplied him with three dozen "Champion watches" at 24s. 9d. a dozen; in October I supplied him with a number of ladies and gentlemen's gilt chains at 38s. per gross. I have never known used in the trade the term "solid silver simulation" watches or chains. Grahamslaw gave the address of the Carlton Publicity Company, 161A, Strand.
Cross-examined by Mr. Leycester. The prices these things would fetch retail would vary according to where they were sold; the watch would sell at from 3s. 9d. to 5s.; the chains might fetch 1s. apiece. The "Champion" is a lever watch; we sell large numbers of them. I have not known Douglas at all in reference to this transaction.
ABE ROSENTHAL , buyer to Jacobs and Woolf, fancy goods dealers, Houndsditch. I know Grahamslaw as Graham. In October I sold him a number of watches at 30s. a dozen, some chains at 8s. 6d. a dozen, and some boxes or "cases" at 2s. 9d. a dozen.
Cross-examined by Mr. Leycester. The retail prices vary according to where the goods are sold: one of the watches, a chain, and a box might fetch as much as 7s. 6d.
SAMUEL W. PRICE , of Matthews, Price and Company, owners of 12, Great Queen Street, W. C. In August Grahamslaw applied to me for offices; he gave as references the Carlton Publicity Company and Messrs. Pite and Company. From the first named I received a satisfactory reply, signed "J. W. Felvus, secretary "; from the latter I received the letter spoken to by the witness Pite. Grahamslaw became tenant at £40 per annum; he paid the first quarter in advance; the second quarter's rent not being forthcoming I applied to the Carlton. Publicity Company; they said they would take on the offices at 15s. a week to the end of the year. I agreed, and I used to get cheques for the rent signed by Douglas.
ALBERT VICTOR ENGLAND , manager of the Hounslow branch of Barclay's Bank. On May 22 Douglas opened an account, of which I now produce a certified copy. The total credits paid in are £5,410 18s. 6d.; of this amount £4,825 7s. 1d. was paid in in postal orders, including a number from foreign countries and the colonies. In August Douglas opened another account, "No. 2 account," of which I produce certified copy. It opened with a credit of £250; the only other credits are £300 on September 21, £50 on October 4, and £23 8s. 6d. on February 24 (since arrest); these were amounts transferred from the No. 1 account. We did not know that No. 1 account was the account of the Premium Press and the Carlton Publicity; we regarded both that and the No. 2 account as Douglas's private accounts. On December 7 (when £300 became due as prize money under one of the competitions) the balance to credit on the two accounts was £68. On December 28 (five days after Douglas's arrest) there was a credit balance of £29.
Cross-examined by Mr. Leycester. I deny that Douglas opened the No. 2 account as for the business of the Premium Press; it was distinctly understood that the two accounts should be his private accounts. The accounts have not been closed to this day; so far as we are concerned they have been satisfactory and substantial accounts.
(Wednesday, April 13.)
WM. S. NASH , clerk in the secretary's office, G. P. O., identified a number of postal orders sent by witnesses in respect of the competitions, collected through the Hounslow branch of Barclay's Bank; the name of payee had been filled in either Premium Press or Douglas.
MATHEW S. WILSON , furniture dealer. On September 1 Grahamslaw called on me and selected some furniture, giving the name of Lankester and Co., 12, Great Queen Street. Subsequently Grahamslaw and Douglas came and saw the goods; Douglas gave me his cheque for £7 on Barclay's Hounslow branch; the cheque was met, and the furniture was delivered at Lankester and Co.'s.
REGINALD S. CROOK . In June I was engaged by Douglas as a despatch clerk at 161a, Strand; I remained there till December 31. I had my instructions from Felvus. I sat in the general office, with a clerk named Ellis and some men we used to have in from outside for extra help. Envelopes were sent in to me containing the certificates, subscription forms, etc.; I would take the solutions that had come in, and address the envelopes for those solutions. Douglas and Felvus had separate private rooms. Grahamslaw had no particular room allotted to him. In August, when the Lord Roberts competition was running, I used to open the solutions; if I found the picture and the name correct I would put the solutions on one side for the congratulatory letter to be sent; if they were wrong they would be destroyed. We used to have as many as 500 letters a day.
Cross-examined by Mr. Leycester. I had nothing to do with keeping the books. Books were kept recording the wrong solutions. Very many wrong solutions were sent in—three or four thousand; some of the guesses were quite absurd. For the "famous British admiral," Oliver Cromwell, General Booth, Mr. Bottomley, Admiral Rodjkavenski, Admiral Togo, Lord Nelson; and in a lot of cases the pieces were put together wrongly. For Lord Roberts the names of different generals prominent in the Boer War were given—Kruger, Cronje, De Wet, etc. (This was directed to the contention of the prosecution that the "puzzles" were so obviously easy that fraud was clearly intended.) We were instructed that the congratulatory letter was not to be sent to anyone who rendered wrong solutions; some may have been sent by accident. I had nothing to do with the payment of prizes; to my knowledge some prize money was sent by post, and some people called and got their money. Some applied for and got the 4 1/2 d. on the first competition; others applied for and got their 3s. 6d. returned.
HERBERT A. ELLIS . In June last I was sent with other men by an advertising firm to work at 161A, Strand, addressing envelopes. I took my instructions from Felvus; Grahamslaw acted as a clerk there until he went to Great Queen Street. (Witness confirmed Crook as to the general course of business.) I went to Great Queen Street three times; things there had got rather backward and I went to help to get the orders off. The businesses carried on there were Stewart and Co., drapers; Bissen and Co., jewellers; Palmer and Co., dealers in fancy goods; and Lankester and Co., jewellers, all in one office. All these businesses were advertised in "Profit and Pleasure." In November Grahamslaw met with an accident, and Douglas asked me to take over the Great Queen Street business and work it from 161 A, Strand. The office boy used to go there in the morning and fetch letters and bring them to me; I opened them and executed the orders, taking out the postal orders and handing them to the manager, Felvus.
FLORENCE EDITH HEALY . In August I was engaged at 161a, Strand, as shorthand typist. I took my instructions from Felvus. The accounts of the Carlton Publicity and the Premium Press were kept in one set of books; all the receipts of the two businesses were paid into Douglas's private account at Barclay's Hounslow branch. From the
petty cash account Douglas drew weekly £10, Felvus £4, Grahamslaw £2. The first item on the contra side of the cash book is "E. F. Douglas £500 "; I understood that that amount was paid to Douglas for the business. On the accounts up to the end of November there was a profit shown to the Premium Press of £674 and to the Carlton Publicity of £34.
Cross-examined by Mr. Leycester. With regard to the entry of £500, I cannot say whether Douglas ever had that money; I never saw a cheque for it; it appears nowhere except in the cash book. I cannot say whether Douglas actually drew out £10 every week. There are entries of £148 paid to prize winners in the first Beresford competition; in addition there are entries in the petty cash book of prize money paid to people who called personally.
Detective Inspector GOUGH, G Division. On December 23 I received warrants for the arrest of prisoners. At 6.15 p.m. I saw Douglas in the Strand; I told him I had a warrant and asked him to come back with me to No. 161a; he said, "Is Felvus in this—what has he to do with it?" I said, "If you come back I will read you the warrant." We went to 161a, where there was Felvus; I read the warrant to the two; neither made any reply. On January 15 I arrested Grahamslaw; on my reading the warrant he made no reply. I subsequently searched the offices at 161a, Strand, and found the documents that have been produced at this trial.
Sergeant ALFRED CRUTCHETT and Sergeant JOSEPH GILLARD, G Division, also spoke to searching the offices at 161a, Strand, and described in detail the documents they found there.
In cross-examination by Mr. Leycester, the witnesses produced a large number of wrong "solutions," which were found kept in separate sacks.
(Thursday, April 14.)
ERNEST FRANCIS DOUGLAS (prisoner, on oath). I am an advertising specialist. Since 1906 I have been in business for myself, at first in Piccadilly. In April, 1907, I became chairman and managing director of the Carlton Publicity Company, Limited, I had previously been trading, as the Carlton Publicity Company. It was an advertising agency and had nothing to do with the publishing of magazines. Felvus was employed by me as an artist a few months before I turned the business into a limited company. I then had a partner, Mr. Aubrey Hopwood, and we sold our business to the limited company. The business prospered until February, 1909; then, principally through making a bad debt of £2,500, the company went into voluntary liquidation. I was also managing director of George Pite and Co., Limited, printers, of Clarence Road, Hackney; I held a large proportion of the nominal capital. In May, 1909, I revived the "Hackney Standard." I was the only person interested in it; it was printed by George Pite and Co., Limited. In June last I, as debenture holder in Pite and Co., put in a Receiver, and eventually I purchased the business from the Receiver. The genesis of "Profit and
Pleasure" was this. For some years I had had the idea of starting a subscription paper; I had had a large experience in the advertising business, and I knew that many advertisers spent vast sums upon papers with inflated circulations. My idea was to start a magazine with a circulation absolutely paid for. It was a scheme that had been run very successfully in America. The permanent commercial success of a magazine depends on the advertisements it can command, and the advertisements are regulated by the bona fide circulation of the magazine. With a view to securing for my magazine an absolutely bona fide circulation I hit upon the idea of attracting such circulation by means of prize competitions. I prepared the puzzle of Lord Charles Beresford myself. When I had the scheme prepared I asked Mr. Richardson, the advertisement manager of "Lloyd's," to call and see me, and I had a conversation with him about it. I explained the scheme to him and he agreed to insert the advertisement. It was inserted first on May 30 and subsequently during June. The Premium Press Company was registered about the beginning of July. The business of that company was carried on at the same premises as the Carlton Publicity Company, 161a, Strand. It was formed for the purpose of taking over "Profit and Pleasure." I anticipated other people joining me in it. The answers to the puzzle began to come in in the first week in June. With regard to the prize money I estimated the figure at £300 or £250, which I based on the expectation of gaining a certain circulation. It was absolutely my intention to pay the prize money. Not many answers came in in the first stage; but about a week or ten days later they began to come in in greater numbers. My instructions were that the solutions were to be carefully examined, and any that were put together wrongly were to be destroyed, and the solutions which were correct except in regard to the name were to be kept separate. The work was entrusted to Mr. Horton and Mr. Felvus and others acting under their superintendence. When the answers came in in larger numbers I took on other men. Crook was one and Ellis another; they came about the same time. I gave no instructions for any mark to be put on any of the solutions. The instructions came from Mr. Felyus or Mr. Horton. So long as the solutions were kept separate that would be sufficient. I believe all the solutions which were wrongly put together were destroyed; there were large numbers of them. My instructions were that the congratulatory letter, etc., should be sent to the senders of the correct and partially correct solutions. I hardly know how many there were, but I should say about 25,000 or 30,000. By partially correct I mean face right and name wrong. It has been stated in evidence that they came in at the rate of about 500 a day, and I should think that is about correct. Copies of the congratulatory letter, certificate, and subscription form were sent to all of them, and 12,000 or 13,000 of them became subscribers, each of whom, I believe, sent 3s. 6d. The subscription forms were filed, and the money was paid into my account. I had then only one account. I started getting the magazine printed early in July or late in June. Before
placing the contract with Collingridge's I got estimates from other printers. I tried to do the work myself at Pite and Company's, but I found it interfered too much with the local work. I gave Collingridge's the contract first for three months and then for another six months, so that I was under contract to publish the magazine for nine months. Collingridge's put the magazines in wrappers and posted them, charging me for the stamps. The first number came out about July 20 or 22. I got some advertisements for that on certain terms, but not many. I had some canvassing done, but got no advertisements through it on account of the attack by the "Advertising World." There was also an attack upon me in the early part of July in "John Bull"—an attack on me personally, and not on the "Profit and Pleasure" scheme. That had some affect on the advertisers, but not so much as the "Advertising World," because in the following week "John Bull" practically retracted their statements. If the 12,000 or 13,000 people who subscribed after the first Beresford competition had each been paid the sum to which he was entitled it would have amounted to a very small sum—somewhere about 4 1/2 d.; and in consequence I launched the second Beresford competition puzzle. It was a copy of the same picture cut up differently, the intention being to make it more difficult than the first. I cannot say how many answers there were to that, but some thousands. The majority of the subscribers sent solutions back—perhaps 7,000 to 10,000. Of these I should say not more than 100 or 150 were absolutely correct. The solutions in these competitions were handled entirely by Mr. Felvus and a clerk in his room. Felvus had to select the prize winners; I had nothing to do with it. Some of the original competitors, instead of entering for the second competition, asked for their pro rata amount; and so far as I know all of them were paid. Thirty thousand copies of the August number of the magazine were printed, but that was by mistake. It was nearly twice as many as we really needed. There were 303 prize winners, I think, in the second competition, and altogether, I think, over a hundred were paid. We have a complete list of them—a typewritten list. Some were paid by cheque and some in cash, altogether £114 10s. was paid by cheque on my account at Barclay's. How much was paid in cash I cannot say; but I paid several myself in cash. A list of those prize winners was published on September 19—before the September number of the magazine was issued. That number was late; it did not appear before September 26. The Roberts competition was not started till August. The object in starting it was to get fresh subscribers. I prepared that puzzle in conjunction with Mr. W. E. Dudeney, a puzzle expert. I told him I required a puzzle which would attract attention—which would look fairly easy but at the same time would be rather difficult. We chose Lord Roberts because he was well known. Mr. Dudeney did not prepare the actual picture used. The letterpress was my own; it was similar to the writing of the first one, but differs in some particulars. This one contains the actual condition that the competitor must become a subscriber. Some of the advertisements differed from others. We had had some letters
from people who complained that they did not understand the first one, so I thought we would make it quite clear. It never struck me that anyone could possibly misunderstand this, or imagine that he would get the whole prize. The answers were dealt with in precisely the same manner as in the first competition, by Felvus and the staff under his instructions. I myself had nothing whatever to do with the handling of them. I was away during the whole of August—at Yarmouth, Boulogne, and elsewhere; and I have not the faintest idea how many replies were received. Apparently we got about the same number of subscribers from them—about 12,000—so that from the two competitions we got about 25,000 subscribers. The money from the Lord Roberts subscribers was also paid into my bank. The second account there was opened on August 21. Up to that time we had not, so far as I am aware, received any complaints about the Beresford competition. I cannot say that we actually received any complaints as to the prizes; there were people who complained that they had not received their magazines; the issues were late. The July number was issued late in July, the August number late in August, and the September number late in September. Everybody who complained and wanted his money back received it back—those were my instructions, any-how. It was impossible for us to get advertisements owing to these attacks. A copy of the "'Advertising World" had been sent to every advertiser with the article marked, so that the canvassing resulted in bringing in no advertisements whatever. There were no attacks by "John Bull" in August; there was one in July, and no more till September 18—just when the competition results were being published. From that time the attacks were continuous. I started an action for libel against Mr. Bottomley, but he had first started one against me for £5,000. I had attacked him first in the "Hackney Standard." Both actions are still pending. The winner of the first prize in the Beresford competition was paid by my solicitors with a cheque of mine for £100, and the third prize winner was also paid. I did not pay Mr. Joy, the winner of the second prize, because the editor of the magazine drew my attention to the fact that "John Bull" had suggested collusion between ourselves and the prize winners; and I was also told that Mr. Joy had sent in two or three solutions, and had written on one of them the suggestion that if he did win the prize he would allow us to deduct so much. We asked him to call and see us. The reason that I did not pay the others was that after the attack by "John Bull "I looked upon the business as absolutely ruined. I had every intention to pay; and at the end of last year or the beginning of this I could have paid all the money without any difficulty, But the whole of my credit was stopped. The paper merchants and other firms would not supply me with anything without cash; and not only the "Profit and Pleasure" scheme but the whole of my business, including the printing business of the local paper, was affected. It took me all my time to keep the business from going down entirely. I went on publishing the magazine. Mr. Dudeney was the editor. The number which appeared with "November" outside and
"October as November" inside appeared about a month after the September number. The Roberts competition was to have closed on November 30, and the advertisement was withdrawn then, but answers continued to come in in very large numbers, chiefly from abroad—the colonies, and all parts of the world. The last of them came in as late as February and March, but of course they dwindled down very much. There was never an absolutely final judging in that competition, but the correct answers were put into a box by Felvus. The number has been estimated at 100; but I think you will find there are nearer 200 than 100. We received subscriptions amounting to over £4,000. The books were not made up till October, because in July, when the company was registered, I was in communication with Mr. C. E. Smedley, chartered accountant, who was going to take up the whole work. There was some delay in coming to terms—fees, and so on—and in the meanwhile we ordered a set of books and proceeded in the usual way to prepare for the work, and the arrangement fell through. Then I was told that Miss Healy was a qualified bookkeeper and would be able to prepare the books properly. The books were ordered in July, but they were not delivered till September; and then there was a further delay because Miss Healy wanted a special book made. The result of all this was that the subscriptions received during June did not appear in the cash book, nor did the expenses incurred in June. I started No. 2 account at Barclay's on August 21. I had an interview with the manager before starting it. I wanted to open an account for the Premium Press, and he would not agree to it, and it was partly on that account that I opened No. 2 account. I wanted to differentiate between the two accounts. I opened No. 2 account with £250 from No. 1 account, and altogether it was credited with £600 from No. 1 account. I really intended that account for the Carlton Publicity Company and Pites, and No. 1 account for the Premium Press; and when drawing cheques I did sometimes, in addition to signing them, add the name of the Carlton Publicity Company by means of a stamp. But the arrangement fell through almost immediately after No. 2 account was opened, and I used them practically as one account. No. 2 account was not in any way confined to my own private account. I never received the £500 for the copyright of "Profit and Pleasure "which I was to receive under the agreement which is on the file. The £600 which was paid into No. 2 account was used for both businesses, the Premium Press and Pites. I was very busy in September in connection with the works at Hackney, and with my guide business, which was growing rapidly. That was a contract I had with corporations all over the country to produce guides—a contract with the Carlton Publicity Company, that is, with myself as proprietor of that company. There were as many as forty or fifty altogether, and they were increasing every week. Guides to Chatham and Barking were actually published; others were being printed—Inverness, Leighton, Blackburn, Epsom; and about forty others were about to be started. I did not myself take any part in seeing that the books of the Premium Press Company were properly written up, as I had not time, nor did I supply materials on which they were written up; but there were my two bank
books and the counterfoils of my cheque books, and the invoices. The reason of the business of Lankester and Co. being started was this. Early in June Grahamslaw, who was out of employment, and who had been known to me for some years, came to me, and I gave him some work addressing envelopes. That continued for a week or two, and for certain reasons we asked him to leave. I was dissatisfied with him. I think he was paid five shillings a day; but at first it was odd sums. I cannot say exactly when he left the first time, but it might be the first week in July. I took him on again about ten days later—some time in July. I do not think he ever drew £2 a week, but I could not swear to it. He remained till about the end of July, still addressing envelopes; but his work was not satisfactory; it was simply that he was irregular in his attendance, that is all. Then he said that his prospects were bad, and knowing the difficulty that we had in getting advertisements he suggested that we might start business and so fill our pages with advertisements. It was then arranged that we should take an office and insert advertisements of the businesses, and by that means create an advertisement connection. The original arrangement was that he should advertise his businesses in "Profit and Pleasure" on his own account, and therefore he would have asked us rent over and above the advertising rates. He had to pay so much for advertising in the paper, £4 12s. a page. That arrangement was not carried out. That was all I or "Profit and Pleasure" would get out of it. We got nothing. I saw his advertisements and approved of them. I did not actually compose the advertisement; I believe it was an old advertisement that had been running for some years. I was not told anything about the wording of the Lankester advertisements or the composing of the puzzles in the Lankester case. Grahamslaw remained at Queen Street till the first week in November, I think. He had an accident. I was not at home when the references were given for him, nor when his first advertisement was inserted in the August number. I did not see the August number till it was actually published, otherwise I should not have ordered 30,000 copies. I had nothing whatever to do with the management of the Queen Street business. The moneys received by the Queen Street business had been brought to my office; we thought it would be safer. They were paid into my account. After Grahamslaw's accident the whole of the things were brought from Queen Street to 161a, Strand, and we closed up the Lankester business as soon as we could. I had nothing to do with entering the moneys received from Queen Street in the books. I made no profit out of the Queen Street business and never got paid for their advertisements. I presume the £4,387 I received in subscriptions does not include the £278 received in June. There is no record of what I received or expended previous to July. The money is all accounted for. £1,112 has been spent in advertising; that is obtained from the passbooks, from a recollection of the names of the newspapers, etc., and from the cash book. That was paid by the Carlton Publicity Company. It would be owing from the Premium Press to the Carlton Publicity Company. The former is debited and the latter credited with £1,011. The effect of that would be to transfer £1,011 from the Premium Company
to the Carlton Publicity Company. That is part of the £1,112 which was spent on advertising. I endeavoured to keep the business going after my arrest.
Cross-examined by Mr. Muir. This class of advertisement is proved to be legitimate. I see no reasonable objection to doing it again. Nearly every publication publishes this class of advertisement. This business was perfectly honest. Queen Street was simply established for the purpose of creating a revenue for "Profit and Pleasure." The necessity for using different names was to create different businesses. If the advertisements had all been under the same name people would not have answered them. The reason of having the address at Queen Street was that I did not wish the business to be conducted from 161A, Strand. I did not wish Grahamslaw to be there, for one thing. I had no objection personally; I had a reason. I did not care about employing him in the office and I thought he might possibly create an adverse advertising business and by that means prejudice our advertisements for "Profit and Pleasure." Originally the businesses were intended to be Grahamslaw's. I will say they were mine; they were Grahamslaw's as a matter of fact. The proceeds went into my banking account. By "closing down Grahamslaw's business as early as I could," I mean that immediately after this business was started at Queen Street I found Grahamslaw was not giving the attention to it that was necessary, and complaints were being received by the editor of the paper, and I sent him in September or October a letter, which is on the file, saying I wished the business to be closed down unless it was conducted in a very different manner. My only complaint was his inattention and things not being dispatched. I did not start a similar class of business from my office. I am not aware of any competitions at 161a, Strand. I have some recollection of the advertisement you read beginning "£500 cash and a superb watch will be given absolutely free to those intelligent persons," but it was never inserted in the paper to my knowledge. I recollect the one beginning "£150 cash in prizes. No entrance fee"; that was for "Profit and Pleasure." On December 7 I was worth £7,000. I think my cash balance at the bank was £100 odd on one account; I had an agreed overdraft of £77 on No. 2 account. I saw it was hopeless to make any money out of "Profit and Pleasure "; we could get subscribers, but at too great an expense. I do not remember the advertisement in "Comic Life "; it is to our address, but we did no business with that whatever. (Parcel of letters found in witness's office handed.) Yes, I had forgotten all about it, and had no recollection of it. The Carlton Publicity Company was wound up in June, 1909, insolvent. It made a bad debt of nearly £3,000 in February, and £1,300 was paid out of our liabilities after that. Up to that time it was looked upon as good and the company was perfectly solvent. I was managing director before the Receiver went in. I held two-thirds of the entire capital and 550 debentures out of 700; Charles Hamston held the rest. I do not know where he is. I put the Receiver in on June 24; from that date the business was carried on in the interest of the debenture holders. For all practical purposes the
business was mine. I cannot say I drew money out of the Premium Press receipts for the purpose of financing Pite and Company's business; I had money besides. Out of the £6,400 that went in there £2,400 was not postal orders. I first became connected with Glyn when he joined me as a shareholder in 1906 in J. Selkirk, Limited. I held some shares in it about three months before it closed up. The next business I was interested in was the Carlton Publicity Company. Felvus was engaged in that about six months after I started; he had nothing to do with the firm. I do not think he had shares in it. I do not think he signed the memorandum. He was secretary when we went to the Strand, not previously. Since then he has been simply acting as a servant. My object in advertising this Beresford competition was to get as many subscribers as possible. The congratulatory circular was only sent to people who were alleged to have been successful. I wanted subscribers. I wanted as many people as possible to be successful. For that purpose I made the competition simple. Some of the people who were successful could barely write. I did not see the solutions. Nobody could have been misled by the circular. The letter beginning "Dear Competitor, Congratulations," was written after the solutions had been received. It was an absolutely true description. Five thousand were ordered from the printers on June 3. We had received comparatively few solutions then, but I thought we should get 5,000. The prize turned out to be worth 4 1/2 d. per winner, but I was not aware of it; I had no idea what the result would be. The letter was not a bait; it was an intimation. They were not told they had won in the first or second competition. I did not want them to believe they were well in for a chance of the first. The object of putting £100 or £150 in the corner of the certificate was simply to make it coincide with the advertisement and the letter. It did not strike me that it might deceive anybody. The words" and we promise to pay him or her the pro rata sum she or he is entitled to "were our own idea. No one has said they did not understand the meaning of "pro rata." The competition closed on July 31. The first payment was made on October 1. I do not know if the lady who received the £100 cheque had a visit from the police on September 25. (Cheque handed.) I think the date of payment is October 1; it is very indistinct. I am not aware that she complained that she had not received her prize. I had no correspondence with the lady. I believe she lives at Weymouth. I have never seen her in my life. I should say about 20,000 people got this congratulatory letter. By June 29 38,200 were ordered. Felvus ordered 5,000 more on July 22 without consulting me. He would not order them unless he wanted them; I ordered 42,500 congratulatory letters from Pite's. We published a list of prize winners. We could have sent prizes to every one of them. The Roberts competition was not on the same lines as the Beresford competitions; there is a considerable difference. They would not get congratulatory letters. They would send 3s. 6d. and get the magazine for twelve months. It states what is the amount offered, and if there are 25,000 subscribers so much would
be allotted to each. Nobody ever did the puzzle correctly. I had no idea how many were entitled to share the first Beresford competition. Felvus told me the share was 4 1/2 d.
Cross-examined by Grahamslaw. I do not say you were at any time sole proprietor of Lankester and Company. I do not deny that I paid the rent and paid for the furniture. I am not going to admit you were not Lankester. I do not admit paying you £2 a week; you were debited with £2 and less. It was so much a day while you were addressing circulars. I am willing to accept the fact that I was responsible for Lankester and Company and that you were only a servant.
JOHN WILLIAM FELVUS (prisoner, on oath). I am an artist and designer. I have been working as an artist 10 years. John Haddon and Company is the only firm I have worked for in London. I became acquainted with Douglas seven years ago when I was working at Selkirk. Mimms and Company. He was traveller to them. Douglas had nothing to do with the Carlton Studios. I came into the Carlton Publicity Company in 1907, I think. That was Douglas's business. That was the first time I was employed by him. I continued with the limited company when it was formed, at first as artist. I was appointed temporary secretary during the last few months of the company, and continued to work as an artist. The Carlton Publicity Company, in addition to its other business, had to do with local guides. I designed the covers, superintended the making of blocks and making up of dummies. I had nothing whatever to do with the advertising schemes except making the necessary drawings to instructions. I was instructed to judge the final Beresford competition, and did so to the best of my ability. I am responsible for the list of winners which was published. That was my sole connection with it. I had no connection with Lankester and Company or any of the companies at Queen Street. I went to Queen Street once, I think. I had nothing to do with the advertisements published by them. The Carlton Publicity Company paid me £3 a week and finally £4. I got no other remuneration. I had no power to sign cheques or deal with the money in the office. No charge has ever been brought against me until this.
Cross-examined. Mr. Haddon was the manager at first; afterwards I was looked to, I suppose. I was not engaged as manager. Douglas acted as manager when he was there, and took entire control. In the early part of the Beresford competition the parties who opened the solutions were responsible. I think the editor made the calculation of 4 1/2 d. as the value of the prize. I may have ordered the congratulatory circulars, but other clerks may have ordered them as they wanted them; sometimes they were ordered by telephone from Pite's.
(Friday, April 15.)
ALBERT VICTOR ENGLAND , recalled, produced corrected figures as to Douglas's banking account. The total amount paid in to December 7 (the balance on July 1 being brought forward) was £1,682 4s. 8d. The No. 1 account was in credit on that date £140 12s. 6d., and No. 2 account £13 9s. 3d. On December 23 No. 1 account was in credit £161 19s. 9d. and No. 2 account in debit £77 3s. 3d., leaving a total credit of £84 16s. 6d.
Cross-examined by Mr. Leycester. Between May 22 and June 2 £1,002 9s. 10d. was paid in, which I have omitted to include in the £5,682 4s. 8d.; that would make £6,413 8s. 4d. When I said that of that sum only £800 was not in postal orders I was mistaken; I was speaking from memory; the correct figure is £1,587 11s. 3d. No. 2 account has been overdrawn since October. I think I saw Douglas before Christmas as to it, and a considerable amount of correspondence took place to it. No arrangement was ever made that he should be entitled to draw cheques upon No. 1 account up to the amount of the balance in No. 1 account. There were a large number of cheques signed by Douglas with "The Carlton Publicity Company" stamped underneath. It was explained that that stamp was used simply as a private stamp. It is true that I said I did not recognise these accounts as being used for business purposes. I knew "The Carlton Publicity Company" must have been the name of a business because he wrote me on notepaper with that name on.
Re-examined. This letter of December 17 is from Douglas to me regretting he could not possibly put his No. 2 account in fund and arranging to call and see me about it. Up to the time I had given him no authority to come to any arrangement that the overdraft should be left over.
GRAHAMSLAW handed in a statement, which was read as follows: In June last year I was out of employment when I heard that Douglas would like to see me. I called at the offices of the Carlton Publicity Company at 161a, Strand, and Douglas engaged me to make myself generally useful on a publication that he had just recently started, namely, "Profit and Pleasure." I was employed on simple office routine, and my salary varied from 30s. to £2 per week. This continued till about the middle of August, when Douglas, for the reasons already mentioned in this Court, found it impossible to utilise his advertising space in "Profit and Pleasure," and decided to use the same for his own benefit. It was accordingly arranged that I should take offices at another address and use the available advertising space in "Profit and Pleasure" to the best possible advantage. The result was the business of Lankester and Co., etc., at 12, Queen Street, which I was deputed to attend to at a salary of £2 a week. It was intended at the time that the business should belong to me personally, provided I could afford to pay an agreed upon scale rate for advertisements inserted in Douglas's magazine and be able to continue to do so, under which circumstances and arrangement there seemed to be no reason why my employer, Douglas, should not be given as a reference. Felvus was acting as his manager in the one instance and Pite in the other, Douglas not being in London at the time the arrangement was taken
in hand by a friend of his, Mr. Arthur Burgin. Burgin inspected and approved of the offices I had selected, drew £10 in gold from Barclay's Bank in the Strand, handed the sum to me, and I passed the money on to Mr. Price, the landlord of 12, Great Queen Street, and rented the premises in my own name. Douglas himself chose the furniture and paid for the same by cheque. The advertisements agreed upon duly appeared in "Profit and Pleasure," and receipts were taken by me daily to 161a, Strand, but these were too small to justify the establishment at 12, Great Queen Street being converted into a permanent business. In the mere ordinary course of events the business would have been closed down as a losing concern, but matters were precipitated by a serious accident that befell me on November 2. This necessitated my confinement to bed. By telegraphic request I sent the keys of Great Queen Street to the offices at 161a, Strand. Douglas immediately stopped all advertisements, cleared up all incoming business, took over the control, and finally the place was closed down. In regard to the goods supplied by Lankester and Company it is only fair to remember that the watches and chains produced in Court did not appear as originally supplied, but had been in the hands of the purchasers for six or eight months; and had possibly during that time been subjected to treatment by no means favourable, either to cheap or expensive goods of this description. From November 2 till I was arrested on or about January 6 I had no further connection with either of the two defendants, except to write a letter realising the furniture at 12, Great Queen Street, which, of course, was necessary as the landlord was naturally looking upon me as the responsible party. I therefore claim, so far as I am concerned, there can be no charge of fraud or conspiracy to defraud: firstly, because "Profit and Pleasure" was a going concern many weeks before I joined the staff or ever knew of the existence of such a paper; secondly, as to Lankester, I never got beyond the stage of acting as Douglas's employee; thirdly, Felvus I only know as cashier and office manager at 161a, Strand. Considering the undisputed fact that I was only three to four months connected with any part of the whole business, that my wages never exceeded £2 a week, and that the total amount paid to me altogether was only £38, and that all through I only acted on instructions, I fail to see how or why any charge of any kind should be preferred against me, and if so preferred, how the same can possibly be upheld. Being at the best in strained circumstances all the time, and further, of obvious necessity, being out of employment from November 2 till the present date I could not, of course, afford counsel and I have, therefore, attempted to state here my exact position as briefly as possible, and I feel confident in being perfectly frank and in being absolutely truthful within the limits of this written statement, the jury will be able to find a verdict favourable to me. In regard to the letter and draft advertisement sent by me to Douglas, this advertisement was written at a time when I was not in Douglas's employ, at which period he offered to pay me for any ideas I might submit and he accepted. I submitted many things that were never accepted and consequently the things were never paid for.
Verdict, Douglas and Felvus Guilty of conspiracy in regard to the "Profit and Pleasure"competitions; Felvus Not guilty on the charge respecting the business of Lankester and Company; Douglas and Grahamslaw Guilty of conspiracy in respect to the business of Lankester and Company; Grahamslaw Not guilty on the charge respecting the "Profit and Pleasure" competitions. The jury recommended Felvus and Grahamslaw to mercy.
Mr. Travers Humphreys said that 900 letters were found from persons complaining of the non-receipt of their prizes, and 360 complaints had been received by the police, in addition to which 50 letters had been received by the Director of Public Prosecutions and other persons connected with the case. If Douglas had put his character in issue, it might have been necessary to go into matters with a view of showing that his general character was not of the highest. He had never been charged with a criminal offence before. As regards Grahamslaw he had carried on a precisely similar business to that of Lankester and Company in the name of Graham.
Judge Rentoul said that if anything he could say would have any effect with the Press he would appeal to newspapers to look as carefully into these prize advertisements as they did into those to which the law of libel might apply. He would earnestly caution newspapers on the point, because an alteration in the law was spoken of in regard to advertisements. He thought that both "John Bull" and the "Advertising World" were to be congratulated on the attitude they had taken up in the matter.
Sentences: Douglas, 18 months' hard labour;Felvus, Two months' imprisonment, second division; Grahamslaw, Nine months' hard labour.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE PICKFORD.
(Thursday, April 7.)
HAY, Martha (45, no occupation), was indicted for feloniously administering to Albert Hay a quantity of poison with intent to murder; further, for attempting to commit suicide. She pleaded guilty to the latter indictment.
Mr. Tully-Christie, who prosecuted, said that after considering the medical evidence he thought he should not be justified in asking for a verdict on the first indictment; upon that a verdict of Not guilty was taken.
Mr. Justice Pickford released prisoner on her own recognisances in £15 to come up for judgment if called upon.
SUICIDE OF A PRISONER—After the rising of the Court, on April 6, a Parsee, named Sasson Shalom Elazar, charged with feloniously shooting with intent to murder,was found in his cell dead by strangling.