Vol. CLIII.] Part 910.
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
HELD JULY 18TH, 1910, AND FOLLOWING DAYS.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.
TAKEN IN SHORTHAND BY
Shorthand Writers to the Court.
POINTS OF LAW AND PRACTICE
R. F. GRAHAM-CAMPBELL, ESQUIRE,
OF THE INNER TEMPLE.
[Published by Annual Subscription.]
THE ARGUS PRINTING COMPANY, LIMITED, 10, TEMPLE AVENUE, 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 Monday, July 18th, 1910, and following days.
Before the Right Hon. Sir JOHN KNILL , Baronet, LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Hon. Sir EDWARD RIDLEY , one of the Justices of His Majesty's High Court; Sir HENRY E. KNIGHT, Knight; Sir HORATIO DAVIES , K. C. M. G.; Sir JOHN POUND , Bart.; Sir T. VESEY STRONG , Knight; Sir T. VANSITTART BOWATER, Knight; and CHARLES 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. TENTH SESSION.
LONDON AND MIDDLESEX CASES.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Monday, July 18.)
Dr. Clement Gatley prosecuted; Mr. E. H. Coumbe defended.
The evidence given at the trial last session, at which the jury disagreed (see page 342), was repeated.
Verdict, Not guilty. The Recorder, remarking on prisoner's previous convictions, warned him to be careful as to his future conduct.
BURFORD, Joseph Henry (31, postman), pleaded guilty of stealing one postal packet containing a banker's cheque for £150, the goods of His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he being an officer of the Post Office.
Mr. Curtis Bennett said he had been instructed by Mr. Markham, to whom the letter that prisoner had stolen had been addressed, to appear for prisoner, who had been in the service of the Post Office for six years, having before that been in the Army. He bore an exemplary character. This was an isolated case, and the reason he stole the letter containing the cheque was that he had some months ago unfortunately given way to betting, with the result that he lost the savings of his lifetime. Mr. Markham, who gave evidence, took the view that prisoner was really a victim in the matter, and said that he would provide him with employment at the end of his sentence.
Sentence, Six months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Tuesday, July 19.)
GANDERTON, William George (34, shoemaker), pleaded guilty of stealing one postal packet containing a postal order, certain postage Stamps, and one pair of gloves, the goods of His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he being an officer of the Post Office.
Sentence, Six months' hard labour.
Sentence, Six months' hard labour.
EADE, Joseph (34, assistant postman), pleaded guilty of stealing one postal packet containing two florins, the property of His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he being an officer of the Post Office; stealing one postal letter containing one postal order for the payment of 3s. 6d., the property of His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he being an officer of the Post Office.
Sentence, Six months' hard labour.
Sentence, 15 months' hard labour.
Prisoner confessed to having been convicted at the Guildhall on November 4, 1907, receiving three months' hard labour for stealing overcoats. 12 other convictions since 1903 for stealing were proved.
Sentence, Twelve months' hard labour.
GORNALL, Sidney James (26, bookbinder), pleaded guilty of breaking and entering the shop of the Crown Emporium Company, Limited, and stealing therein three trays, 124 rings, and three brace-lets, their goods.
Prisoner confessed to having been convicted at the London Sessions on April 6,1909, receiving 18 months' hard labour for burglary. Other convictions proved: November 20, 1906, North London, six months for stealing; August 20, 1907, Mansion House, as a rogue and vagabond, two months: North London Sessions, November 5, 1907, shop breaking, nine months.
Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.
SMITH, William (36, joiner), pleaded guilty of forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain authority and request for the payment of money, to wit, a letter to Elizabeth Johnson authorising and requesting the payment of a weekly sum of 5s., with intent to defraud; obtaining by false pretences from Elizabeth Johnson four several sums of 5s., and from Elizabeth Saunders four several sums of 8s., with intent to defraud; obtaining by false pretences from Jacob Smith and another 40 cans of varnish, with intent to defraud.
Convictions proved: April 2, 1906, at this Court four years' penal servitude for obtaining money by false pretences, after two previous convictions.
Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.
AVIS, John, otherwise Frederick George Cooper (22, engineer), pleaded guilty of stealing one suit case, the goods of Julius Jacobson; stealing two pairs of binocular glasses and other articles, the goods of Sir John Pound and another.
Prisoner confessed to having been convicted on October 23, 1909, at Lincoln, receiving nine months' hard labour, for obtaining by false pretences. Other convictions proved: December 2, 1908, Guildhall, six months, obtaining goods by false pretences; May 25, 1908, Winchester, six months' hard labour for forgery.
Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.
NEVILLE, Charles (38, labourer) , being found by night having in his possession, without lawful excuse, a certain implement of house-breaking, to wit, one file jemmy; being found in a certain public place under such circumstances as to show that he was about to commit an offence punishable on indictment. (Prevention of Crimes Act, 1871, Sec. 7.)
Mr. Ernest Walsh prosecuted.
Police-constable CHARLES COLE , 88 C. On July 2, 1910, at 1.20 a.m., I was on duty in Leadenhall Street, when I saw prisoner loitering by Pound's Buildings; he then went into the court way, remained there for about three minutes, came out, and crossed the road. I then noticed he had something up his sleeve, stopped him, and said, "What did you go into the buildings for?" He said he had gone to pass urine. I said, "What have you got up your sleeve?" He said, "Nothing, what is that to do with you?" I then took jimmy (produced) from his coat sleeve, and said, "What are you doing with this?" He said, "I use that in my work. I am looking for work." I took him to Minories Police Station, where he was charged with loitering and being in possession by night of house-breaking implements. At the Mansion House prisoner elected to be tried by a jury under the Prevention of Crimes Act.
Police-constable ARTHUR HUMPLEDON , 156 B, proved that prisoner was sentenced at this Court on December 11, 1907, to nine months' hard labour for attempted warehouse-breaking and possessing house-breaking instruments by night; also to 14 days' hard labour on February 3, 1903, for stealing boots.
Sentence, Six months' hard labour.
Prisoner was stated to have become addicted to drink.
Sentence postponed till next Sessions, the Court missionary, Mr. Scott-France, undertaking to find a home for prisoner.
The first husband was stated also to have committed bigamy.
Sentence, Two days' imprisonment.
Mr. Blake Odgers prosecuted.
Police-constable FREDERICK SMITH , 388 C. On May 31, 1910, at 7.10 p.m., I saw prisoner in Aldgate High Street walking slowly towards me holding razor (produced) closed in his left hand, followed by a number of men, who said, "That is him; he has cut the man's throat." Immediately behind prisoner was prosecutor, who pointed to his cheek, on which was a large wound eight inches long, extending to the neck. I placed a pad on the wound and bandaged it, put prosecutor in a cab, and took him to the London Hospital after handing prisoner over to another constable. I found prisoner at Bishops-gate Police Station and charged him. He said, "This man has caused a number of children to follow me in the streets."
MICHAEL NATHAN , 25, Bradborne Buildings, dealer. On May 31 prosecutor, who is a friend of mine, was with me at Aldgate talking about a boxing match, when prisoner came up with the razor and attacked him. The police-constable took him in custody.
HENRY BROWNLOW ELTHAM , house surgeon, London Hospital. On May 31 prosecutor was brought in. He had a cut on the left side of the neck, starting from the cheek and extending to the neck. The facial artery and the jugular vein were both cut; there was great loss of blood, and but for the first aid assistance which had been given he would have bled to death. The wound might have been caused by razor (produced). He was an in-patient from May 31 to June 28.
WILLIAM NORWOOD EAST , deputy medical officer, Brixton Prison. I have had prisoner under my observation since June 1. I consider he was insane at the time the act was committed, and that he is insane at the present time; he has delusions; he has been placed in the padded cell.
in the statement I have given are perfectly true. I had not the slightest idea of hurting this man. I have no recollection of the circumstances.
Verdict, Guilty, but insane at the time of committing the offence, Ordered to be detained during His Majesty's pleasure.
SMITH, Frederick (30, porter), CLARK, Frederick (21, hawker), and JOHNSON, Alfred (26, tinsmith) , all being found by night having in their possession without lawful excuse certain implements of housebreaking, to wit, two jemmies.
Mr. Gerald F. Carter prosecuted.
Detective ISAAC DENNISON , Y Division. On July 8, at 8.15 p.m., with Detective Kimber, I was keeping observation on the "Rising Sun" public-house, Euston Road, when I saw the three prisoners with another man not in custody leave. I followed them through various roads to King's Road, Somers Town; at 9.15 p.m. two of the men went to some waste land at the rear of Tanner's Engineering Works, stayed there about five minutes, and rejoined the other two. Then the four entered the "Constitution" public-house, and at 9.30 p.m. returned to the rear of Tanner's Works. I arrested Smith and Jackson and handed Smith to another officer. Johnson wrenched himself away, threw a jemmy at Inspector Neal, and ran off. I knew Johnson, and the next day at 11.30 a.m. I found him at 16, Little Drummond Street, under the bed. I said, "Come on, Johnson, I want you for being in possession of housebreaking tools by night." He said, "I suppose this is another put-up job for me." When charged he made no reply.
Detective FREDERICK KIMBER , Y Division. On July 8 I kept obser vation on the "Rising Sun" public-house, saw the prisoners with a fourth man leave and followed them to the back of Tanner's factory. I telephoned to Inspector Neal and Sergeant Butters. The four men went into the "Constitution" public-house and returned to the rear of Tanner's factory, where they remained about ten or fifteen minutes. I seized Clark and the fourth man, who broke away, and is still at large. Sergeant Butters assisted me. On the way to the station Clark drew jemmy (produced) from his coat and threw it at Inspector Neal, hitting his hat. On the way to the station Clark said, "You can't say we were in the show. You were a bit too quick." Johnson was arrested at 16, Little Drummond Street.
(Wednesday, July 20.)
Divisional-inspector ARTHUR NEAL , Y Division. On July 8 at 9.15 p.m. I received a telephone message, and went to the "Constitutional" public-house, where I met Sergeant Butter. We went to King's Road, and saw Dennison and Kimber. The three prisoners and another man came from some unused land at the back of Tanner's Engineering Works. I caught hold of Smith, who immediately began to struggle. Johnson, who was two yards off, threw a jemmy at me, which caught the rim of my hat; it was picked up and carried off by a lad who ran away. Smith was struggling very violently, and he
struck at me with jemmy (produced). I put up my umbrella, the jemmy struck the handle and fell on the ground. I succeeded in getting Smith to the ground. Clark was then struggling with Butters and Kimber; jemmy (produced) dropped from him on to the pavement. Johnson ran down King's Road, followed by Dennison, who failed to catch him, and came back to my assistance. Clark and Smith were taken to Somers Town Police Station and charged with loitering and being in possession of housebreaking instruments by night. Smith said, "You are clever. I would have bashed your brains in. It is all right for me—only just come home." Clark said, "I did not have one of these on me," pointing to the jemmies. The two implements (produced) are jemmies, one very well made. I distinctly saw Johnson, whom I have known for several years. Bunch of keys (produced) was found on Smith.
FREDERICK SMITH (prisoner, not on oath), denied having a jimmy upon him, and stated that he was attacked by Neal; that he said at the station, "You think you are clever, but you have made a mistake this time. I had only just come out of the public-house, and was going home when two men pounced upon me and tried to knock my brains out"; and that he said to the inspector that he wished to charge Neal with assault.
ALFRED JOHNSON (prisoner, not on oath) stated that the jemmies (produced) belonged to the fourth man, who was not in custody, who was a decoy in the employ of Neal and Butters, and who had given the jemmies to one of the prisoners.
Smith confessed to having been convicted at Marylebone on October 20, 1908, receiving four months' hard labour for stealing a bag, Several other convictions were proved, commencing in 1896, and including 18 months' hard labour in 1897.
Clark confessed to having been convicted at Newington, receiving two sentences of nine months, concurrent, on October 27, 1908, for larceny, and under the Prevention of Crimes Act. On December 18, 1898, he was sent to an industrial school, and had since received a number of sentences, including 23 months in 1908 for housebreaking; said to have been a well-known associate of a notorious gang of house-breakers.
Johnson confessed to having been convicted July 28, 1908, at Winchester, receiving 12 months' hard labour for stealing, after a number of convictions commencing in 1899.
Sentence: Johnson, Five years' penal servitude; Clark, Three years' penal servitude; Smith, Four years' penal servitude.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Tuesday, July 19).
Mr. Beaumont Morice prosecuted.
Detective-sergeant HENRY HANDCOCK , R Division. On June 9 I served prisoner with the statutory notice, and asked him whether he could give me any information as to where he had been living and as to whether he had been endeavouring to lead an honest life. He said, "I cannot tell you anything. I must put up with it."
Sergeant ERNEST HOOK , 6 Division. I was present on May 29, 1901, at the Salisbury Sessions when prisoner received six months' hard labour for housebreaking in the name of Thomas Williams, and at Kingston Sessions on June 30, 1903, when he received three years' penal servitude in the name of Arthur Bennett for housebreaking. Several previous convictions were proved against him on that occasion. After he was released from the Salisbury conviction I used to see him at Mare Street, Hackney, in the company of thieves. I have never known him do any honest work, although I have known him a number of years; he has always associated with the most dangerous thieves frequenting Hoxton. He was released on December 12, 1908, from the sentence he received in 1906.
Cross-examined by prisoner. I did not see you between the time you were released in 1901 and when I saw you in custody at Wimbledon in 1903. I did not see you since your last discharge. You never reported yourself. You left the East-End and went to Greenwich or Woolwich.
Inspector THOMAS RELF , G Division. On March 12, 1909, I was on duty at the Old Street Police Station, at which prisoner should have made his monthly report, but he failed to do so, and I reported that fact to the Commissioner. His time expired on November 16, 1909; he had some remnant to serve.
Sentence, Three Years' penal servitude and five years' preventive detention.
MURRAY, William (22, carman), PATTEN, Thomas (25, hawker), and JONES, Arthur Thomas (25, labourer) , uttering counterfeit coin twice on the same day. (Second count.) Possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter same.
Murray and Patten pleaded guilty.
Mr. Wilkinson prosecuted; Mr. St. John Macdonald appeared for Murray and Patten.
LILIAN FREESNER , barmaid, "Boar's Head," Cannon Street. In the afternoon on June 23 Murray and one of the other prisoners, whom I do not recognise, came in. Two glasses of ale were called for, and a florin was given in payment, which I put in the till; several others were there, but this was the only new one. I gave them the change, and they called for a pennyworth of tobacco, which I gave them. They drank up and went out. A police officer came in and told me something. I took the florin that had been given me from the till, tried it with acid, and it turned black. I showed it to the guv'nor, who told me to mark it, which I did. When the officer came back again I gave it to him.
Cross-examined by Jones. I said at the police court that Murray and Patten came in. I can only recognise Murray.
ROBERT FARRELL , barman, "Cow and Calf" public house, East-cheap. I was serving on the afternoon of June 23 when I heard some ale called for. I went to the counter and served it. I found a florin on the counter, and I gave 1s. 10d. change. I do not know who picked up the ale and who put down the florin. They went out. Immediately afterwards a police officer came in and said something to me. I found this bad florin (produced) that I received in the till, and marked it. I afterwards handed it to the officer. There were no other florins in the till.
Detective ALFRED KIRBY , City Police. On June 23 I saw the three prisoners at the corner of Queen Street, by Queen Victoria Street. They were acting suspiciously, and I kept them under observation. They went towards the Mansion House, and then returned to the corner of Queen Street. Murray and Jones then went into Lock-hart's, and I followed them in and saw Murray go to the changing-desk and change a florin. Then they went to the counter and bought two teas and two cakes, which they paid for in bronze. I then left Lock-hart's and kept Patten under observation. After a couple of minutes Jones and Murray came out and joined him. I followed them as they went towards the Mansion House, and I saw Murray hand Patten some money, some of which he placed in his jacket pocket and some in his trousers pocket. They proceeded to the "Boar's Head," in Cannon Street, where they stopped and looked into the public bar. Murray and Jones then went in, and Murray tendered a silver coin and called for drinks. Miss Freesner gave him the drink and the change. On their leaving I spoke to her, and she produced a florin, which turned out to be bad. I told her to mark it and take care of it. I caught up prisoners in Clement's Lane, where they were in deep conversation. Murray handed Patten more money. They then proceeded to Talbot Court, where Murray and Jones went into the public bar of the "Ship" public house. I spoke to the barman after they left, but could get no satisfactory information. The next time I saw prisoners they were in a doorway by the "Cow and Calf" public house, Eastcheap. Murray and Jones went into the public bar. Murray called for drinks, and tendered a silver
coin. They were served, Murray picked up the change, and they rejoined Patten. I spoke to the barman who produced a florin, which was found to be bad. I then went out and saw Patten by himself. After about ten minutes he was joined by the other two prisoners, and they all went into Eastcheap. Murray gave Patten more money. I spoke to a police-constable, and we arrested the prisoners. When charged they made no reply. On Patten were found 11s. in small silver in his trousers pocket and 3s. 6d. in bronze in his jacket pocket. On Murray was found this bad florin, dated 1903 (Exhibit 4). Nothing was found on Jones.
To Jones. I have never known any of you before. I had been watching you 15 minutes before you and Murray went into the "Boar's Head." I never said to my wife, "There was nothing found on him. I thought he had something on him. If you can get to know from him where these bad coins are made I will get him off." A friend who was with me at the time said it was a pity we could not find the people who made them.
WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , Inspector of Coins, H.M. Mint. This florin uttered at the "Boar's Head" is dated 1903 and is counterfeit, as is also one uttered at the "Cow and Calf," which is dated 1907. Those found at Lockhart's are dated 1903, and are from the same mould as the "Boar's Head" florin, as is also the florin found on Murray.
DAISY MARIAN JONES . To the Court. Prisoner Jones is my husband. Detective Kirby came to my house with a friend, and said to me that if I would tell him where the money was made he would make it better for my husband, and asked me if I had any bad money in the house. I said I had not, and knew nothing of it.
JOHN CHAPMAN , leather goods manufacturer, 154, Lansdown Road, London Fields. To the Court. I have known Jones seven years. For four months from January this year he worked with me, and I always found him honest and trustworthy. I have heard things against him, but I personally have always found him honest.
Cross-examined. As far as I know he has been convicted twice before, the last conviction being about 18 months ago. I believe he got 12 months, but I do not know what for.
Detective ALFRED BUTT , H Division. I was present at the North London Sessions on November 10, 1908, when Jones was sentenced to 12 months' hard labour for purse snatching. Two previous convictions were then proved against him, one on August 20, 1907, for frequenting, and one on November 5, 1907, for stealing a chain.
LYDIA YARROW . To the Court. Prisoner Jones is my brother. Since he has been out of prison he has been working part of the time with Chapman and part of the time with me at Cohen and Co., envelope manufacturers. He was working up to the Monday before he was arrested.
Verdict (Jones), Not guilty.
The Common Sergeant, remarking that they had evidently been led into it by Jones, released them on their own recognisances in £10 each to come up for judgment if called upon.
Mr. Pickersgill, M.P., prosecuted.
EMILY SNELLING , barmaid, "Unicorn" Public House, Princes Road, Notting Hill. About 6 p.m. on June 25 prisoner came in and asked for a pennyworth of shag, and gave me a florin. I handed him the shag and the change, and put the florin on the till. He went away and returned at about 7 p.m. I saw the barman trying a florin. He took it back to prisoner and said, "This is a bad one. Have you got any more like this?" Prisoner said, "No; I did not know this was bad. I have just changed a half-sovereign down the road—I don't know where." The barman gave him the bad florin, and prisoner gave him a good one and went away. About five minutes after he returned and said to me, "I am going back about this two-shilling piece. I have just changed a half-sovereign down the road, and if anyone comes about it my name is Joe Clark." I said to the barman in his hearing, "I took one off him about an hour ago for a pennyworth of shag." After he tried it and found that it was bad the barman went for a policeman.
GEORGE BROWN , barman, "Unicorn" public house. About 7 p.m. on June 25 prisoner came in and asked for a pennyworth of shag, tendering a florin. It looked rather greasy, and on testing it with acid I found it was bad. I gave it back to him, and asked him if he had got any more. He said he did not know that it was bad, that he had just got it in change for a half-sovereign, but he did not know where. He gave me a good florin. He went out. I got over the counter and watched him. He stopped about thirty yards away and rubbed the coin which I had returned to him. It was marked black with the acid. About five minutes after he came in again, and I saw him talking to Shelling. He had previously shown me the florin which he had given her, and I had bent it and found it to be bad. I fetched a constable, and he was given into custody.
Police-constable RICHARD BLACKMAN , 486 F. Shortly after 8 p.m. on June 25 I was called to the "Unicorn" public house. The bar-man said in prisoner's presence, "This man came here about an hour ago and passed a bad two-shilling piece. He went out and he came back and tried to pass another one. In his trousers pocket I found 6s. 11 1/2 d. in good money and a bad florin, which the barmaid tested and found to be bad. When charged at the station he said, "I only 'put down' one bad one." He had been drinking, but he was perfectly sober.
Prisoner's statement before the magistrate: "I only had one. That was the one the barman gave me. I had nine shillings and a ha 'penny. I went in and asked for a packet of Woodbines, and put down the two-shilling piece which the barman brought me back and said it was a bad one. He said, 'Have you any more like this one?' I said 'Not that I am aware of.' I put my hand in my pocket and pulled out my other silver, two two-shilling pieces and three shillings. He handed me back the bad two-shilling piece and I gave him a good one, and I went outside the door and I returned in half a second and said, 'I am very sorry. I came down to see a friend of mine, Arthur Jones, and I shall be back this day next week, and I will let you know about it then.' A young woman came round the side, bolted the door up, and sent for a policeman. As soon as the policeman entered the door the barmaid came up with a two-shilling piece, bent, and said, 'Here's another one.' I said then, 'That don't belong to me.'"
JAMES SMITH (prisoner, on oath). On the morning that this happened I sold two umbrellas to a Jew for 2s. 6d. I gave him 7s. 6d. for a half-sovereign, as he wanted change. I bought some beer and cigarettes at the "Unicorn," Bishopsgate Street, where I changed tie half-sovereign, getting three florins, a half-crown, and 1s. 4d. change. I then went and bought some eels in Shoreditch for 4d. I then went to meet a friend of mine, Arthur Jones, at the "Unicorn," Notting Hill, where I had arranged to meet him. I got there about 6.45 p.m. (Prisoner here repeated the statement he had made before the magistrate.)
Cross-examined. I never told the barman that I had changed the half-sovereign down some street, but I did not know where. I did not rub any coin to try and get the black off. I used to work with Jones at Chingford. I do not know where he lives, and I have not been able to get him; he only gave me the name of the public house to meet him at. At 6 p.m. I was at Notting Hill Station, and it took me about 40 minutes to find the "Unicorn."
Detective-sergeant WILLIAM BARNABY , F Division, proved a previous conviction on May 15, 1904, for larceny at the Stratford Petty Sessions, when prisoner was fined 10s. or seven days' hard labour in the name of James Artus, which appeared to be his real name.
Sentence, Four months' hard labour.
ROBINSON, Edward (40, clerk), BROWN, Alec (30, waiter), and FIRMER, John (25, commission agent) , uttering counterfeit coin twice on the same day. (Second Count.) Possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter same.
Mr. Pickersgill, M.P., prosecuted; Mr. St. John Macdonald defended Robinson and Brown.
RICHARD JOHN TUCKFIELD , proprietor, "Britannia" public house, Mare Street, Hackney. At 11 p.m. on June 22 Robinson came in, ordered a glass of beer and tendered this (produced) florin to my wife, which I noticed looked rather dull, and which I found to be bad. I spoke to Sergeant Taylor, who was standing close to him, and pierced it three times with a pick. I gave it back to Robinson, telling him it was a bad one. He said, "If it's a 'dud' I don't want it; it's no good to me," but he took it, paid 2d. for the beer and left. Taylor followed him.
Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. Taylor said nothing; I simply told him it was a bad one. Robinson did not know him. This rings very much like a good florin. I did not see Brown at all.
Cross-examined by Firmer. I never saw you in the house that night.
GEORGE HORACE THORNTON , barman, "Railway Tavern," Mare Street, Hackney. Just after 11 p.m. on June 22 Robinson, whom I recognised as a customer, came in, and I served him with a glass of Red Seal whisky, for which he tendered a florin. I put it in the till, gave him the change, and he left. A few minutes afterwards he returned, had another whisky, and again tendered a florin, which I put in the till. I gave him his change and he left. About five minutes later my employer searched the tills and found two counterfeit florins dated 1909, which were given to Sergeant Taylor.
Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. There was no interval between the finding of the two coins. I did not see Brown at all. I did not examine the florins closely, and I did not notice they were bad. Perhaps I could not distinguish between them and good florins; anybody may make mistakes. They are very good copies.
To Firmer. I did not see you there.
Sergeant HERBERT TAYLOR , J Division. I was in the "Britannia" public house at 11 p.m. on June 22 talking to the proprietor, when I saw Robinson, who called for a glass of bitter, and tendered a florin. Tuckfield examined it, and said "This is a dud." He spoke to me, and pierced it three times. Robinson said, "If it is bad, it is no good to me. I don't want it," and paid 2d. for the beer. He then left with a regatta programme which I had noticed in his hand. I followed him. About 20 yards away he met Firmer. They spoke together some time, and then went to the corner of Graham Road. They spoke there a few minutes, and then went to the corner of Amherst Road, where they were joined by Brown, who handed something to Robinson, and left for a few minutes. When he came back they all entered the Hackney Railway Station. On their coming out they stood at the corner, and Robinson and Firmer went across to a dark yard. On their return Robinson left them, and went into the Railway Tavern, where he stayed a few minutes. On coming out he nodded to Brown and Firmer who joined him. I then went into the Railway Tavern where the proprietor, to whom I spoke, searched the till and found and produced to me one counterfeit florin. I hurried out and with assistance the three prisoners were arrested in Graham Road. I took Brown, and told him I should arrest him for being concerned in uttering
counterfeit coin, to which he said nothing. At the station I found on him in good money one florin, 15 shillings and 13 sixpences. He had no regatta programme. On Brown I found in good money 8s. 6d. in silver and 6s. in copper, and nine counterfeit florins, five of which were wrapped in small pieces of tissue paper. Six were dated 1903, two 1909, and one 1907. One of them was pierced in three places. I also found two packets of toffee and a bottle of Cascara tablets unopened. On Firmer I found in good money one florin and nine shillings, and one counterfeit florin dated 1903, a regatta programme similar to the one I had seen in the possession of Robinson, and a letter addressed to Robinson. When charged they made no reply.
Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. The longest time I lost sight of Robinson was when he went into the Railway Tavern. He would not give me any account of himself, although he gave his correct address. I know nothing against him. Nothing suspicious was found on his premises. Brown has a good character; he had been working up to a month ago for five months at the Railway Hotel, Wembley, as a barman. Previous to that he was working at the "Earl of Durham," Havelock Street, Pentonville. He bore a good character at both places. Both were sober when arrested.
To Firmer. You gave me your correct address. You told me you went racing for a living. I found two Ascot racing cards on your mantelpiece. I found nothing suspicious at your premises.
Police-constable HORACE HAYES , 348 J. At 11.30 p.m. on June 22 I was in Mare Street, Hackney, when, in consequence of a communication Sergeant Taylor made to me, I went to Graham Road. where I saw the prisoners walking together. As I approached them Firmer walked towards me. I arrested him and took him to the station. On the way he said, "What's this for?" I said, "You will be informed later."
To Firmer. Sergeant Taylor did not arrest Brown before I arrested you. You did not say when you approached me, "What's all this about?"
Police-constable FREDERICK GREEN , 243 J. At 11.30 p.m. on June 22 I went to Graham Road, where I arrested Robinson. Firmer was the first one arrested. Robinson said, "What's all this for?" I said, "Wait till we get to the station and the sergeant will tell you."
WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , Inspector of Coins, EM. Mint. All the coins that have been produced are counterfeit. It is the common, practice of "smashers" to wrap counterfeit coins in tissue paper. The florins found at the "Britannia" came from the same mould as those found on Brown, which were dated 1909, as also are those found at the "Railway Tavern." The one found on Firmer, dated 1903, comes from the same mould as those of that date found on Brown.
Cross-examined by Mr. McDonald. These coins are about a third lighter than genuine coins. A layman would probably not be able to
tell the difference between a good counterfeit coin and a genuine one. But there are plenty of people, such as barmen, who could tell the difference as quickly as I could. The graining is very different.
EDWARD ROBINSON (prisoner, on oath). I go racing for a living. I have never been convicted before. When charged I described myself as a bookmaker's clerk. On this evening I went to the Lea Regatta, and met Brown by arrangement, and we met Firmer there. We all got on to a tram to come home, when Brown paid me 6s. that he owed me in three florin pieces. At the corner of Mare Street I went into the "Britannia," Brown and Firmer refusing to accompany me, had a drink, and changed one of the florins, which was returned to me. I told Brown, and he said he was sorry, and gave me a good one for it. We went to the station, where we found we had missed the train, so I went into the "Railway Tavern," Brown and Firmer again refusing Co accompany me, and had another drink. I cannot swear to what I changed there. On rejoining the other two we were all arrested.
Cross-examined. This is the first time I have told this story. When charged I was not invited to tell it, and when before the magistrate I understood that I should be sent for trial, and so I thought it was not necessary to explain. I deny that I went into the "Railway Tavern" twice. Sergeant Taylor's account of our movements is fairly accurate. I have known Firmer five or six years and Brown rather longer.
ALEC BROWN (prisoner, on oath). When arrested I gave my correct address and my previous employers. Robinson's account of how I came to meet him at the Lea Regatta is correct. The only way I can account for possessing this counterfeit coin is that I had several side bets there on the different races, and it may have been given to me in my winnings. I got the 6s. worth of coppers in gambling at cards and "under and over," which is a dice game. There was a bit of a fight round the bookmaker, and being afraid that I should not get paid I "grabbed" whatever he gave me—the coins were in a piece of newspaper. I did not count them because it was sufficient for me that they were more than the amount of my bet. I had several bets with, this same man, and the winnings came to 18s., some of which he handed me in paper. I did not know they were in paper until I was at the police station. I owed Robinson 6s., and I gave him three of the florins. (He here corroborated Robinson's account of their movements.)
Cross-examined. I cannot account for the counterfeit florin in Firmer's possession. I daresay some good money was in the trousers pocket into which I put the counterfeit money. I bought the toffee found on me for my children.
JOHN FIRMER (prisoner, on oath.) I had an appointment on the morning of this day with Robinson, and I met him, and then I made an appointment to see him at the Lea Regatta that evening, and went off to the Newbury Races, where he would not come with me. I
arrived at Paddington from Newbury at 6.20 p.m., and went and had drinks with friends. I tendered a sovereign in payment and received 18s. 6d. change. From there I went to Liverpool Street, where, at a Swiss cafe, I had some food, and tendered half a sovereign, and received the change. From there I went to the "Jolly Anglers," at Lea Bridge, where I met Robinson, who was in the company of Brown. We had sundry drinks, and then we took a tram to Mare Street, Hackney. (Here Firmer corroborated Robinson's account of what had happened from that time.) When brought up on remand the magistrate said, "You need not say anything if you don't want to, as I shall commit you for trial." To prove that I go racing for a living Sergeant Taylor found two race cards at my address.
Cross-examined. I knew Brown before this. We were at the regatta about an hour together. I saw nothing of the gambling with pennies. I did not do any myself; I had had enough at Newbury. Brown did not give me any money. I cannot explain the counterfeit florin being found on me of the same date as some of those that were found on him. There are thousands of counterfeit florins about. I may have got it at the "Load of Hay," where I had the drinks with friends or at the Swiss cafe.
(Wednesday, July 20.)
Sentences: Firmer (against-whom two previous convictions were proved), Five months' hard labour; Robinson and Brown, each Three months' hard labour.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Tuesday, July 19.)
KELLNER, Wilhelm (22, photographer), pleaded guilty of maliciously damaging certain photographic chemicals by mixing them up and destroying the labels, the goods of the British Metal Engraving Company, Limited, to an amount exceeding £5, to wit, £30.
Prisoner was released on his own and another's recognisances in £10 to come up for judgment if called upon.
FREEMAN, William George (50, sailor), pleaded guilty of breaking and entering the shop of N. Thierry, Limited, and stealing therein one pair of boots, their goods; maliciously damaging by night a plate-glass window, the property of N. Thierry, Limited, to the amount of £15.
Sentence, Three months' hard labour.
Sentence, Six months' hard labour. A further indictment for assault with intent to resist lawful apprehension was ordered to remain on the file.
Sentence, Six months' hard labour.
CRONIN, Alfred (48, flower-seller), and WOOLCOCK. Arthur , breaking and entering St. Gabriel's Church Wood Green, and stealing therein a bag a chalice cover, and other articles, the goods of Alexander Leopold Gardener and others.
Woolcock pleaded guilty.
Mr. Aubrey Davies prosecuted.
Police-constable ALFRED SHEATH , 351 N. On the evening of July 4 I was on duty near Green Lanes. In consequence of some information I saw Mr. Colwell, who accompanied me to the "Salisbury Hotel," where I saw Cronin and Woolcock. I said to prisoners, "Where did you get that portmanteau from that you sold to Mr. Colwell. Woolcock replied, "I bought it." He then dropped a parcel on the floor in the "Salisbury" which I picked up, and told them they would have to come with me to the shop. With the assistance of Police-constable 688 N I took them to 3, Queen's Parade, Green Lanes, where we were shown the property, that was seized. I then said to prisoners, "Where did you get them?" Woolcock replied, "I bought them." I then took them to the station. On the way there Woolcock said, "I may as well tell you the truth; we broke into St. Gabriel's. I searched Cronin at the station, and found on him the chalice cup, 4s. 10d. in money, a silver wine jug, two towels, and a pawnticket. He said then, "My mate (meaning Woolcock) bought them off a rag and bone man outside the "Wellington" public house.
Cross-examined by Cronin. I did not call Woolcock outside the "Salisbury" away from you. You, Woolcock, and a woman where standing at the bar drinking. I did not say, "You may as well come to the station," and you did not say, "Certainly."
GEORGE COLWELL , curiosity dealer, 3, Queen's Parade, Harringay. I remember the afternoon of July 4. Woolcock offered me certain stuff to purchase of him, or I had suggested that I should purchase certain stuff of him that I had seen. He went out to fetch Cronin, and in he came. Cronin asked me if the stuff was really all right there. I said, "Oh, yes, it is all right here; what do you want for it?" He asked what I would give him. I said I would give him 10s. for it. He hummed and had, and said there was a lot of valuable stuff there and worth considerably more. I did not argue the point. I said that was all I should give him." I put my hand in my have them if you give me 2s. 6d. for a drink." I put my hand in my pocket with the object of getting the 2s. 6d. and found I had only 9d. I handed it to him and said, "That is plenty of money for a drink." I think he said, "Good day, mum's the word; we shall know where to come another time."
To Cronin. I came to the "Salisbury" before the constable. He beckoned you both outside. Woolcock came out first. The constable stood across the door and I stood behind the constable.
SUSAN TURNER , 32, Stanley Road, Bowes Park. On July 4, about 5.45 p.m., I was facing St. Gabriel's Church. I saw two men there One of them was Cronin. I had never seen him before. On July 8 I went to Wood Green Petty Sessional Court and picked him out from a number of men.
To Cronin. I touched another man on the shoulder and said to the inspector, "This man resembles one of the men, the thin man." I picked you out and said, "This is one I am sure of."
Rev. ALFRED ERNEST SNOW identified the stolen articles.
At Cronin's request his statement made at the police court was read: "I am innocent of the charge against me. I know nothing what-ever about it, as God is my Judge. I only know Woolcock by me selling flowers in the streets. I was standing outside the "Jolly Butchers" public house, Wood Green. Two young men from the tramyard and prisoner Woolcock came up with a brown bag. Woolcock stopped when he saw me and asked me to have a drink. As we were both walking along Woolcock said, 'Put these things in your bag till I come out of this second-hand shop, and don't touch them till we have had a drink.' When Woolcock came out of the shop he said, 'Now we can have a drink.' We crossed over the road and met a young woman. The three of us went to the 'Salisbury' public house and called for three drinks. Woolcock put 5s. in my hand and asked me if I was satisfied. Just walking up the road with him I thanked him very much for what he had done. Woolcock said, 'Let's have three more drinks, Cronin, then you can give me those things out of your pocket," which was done up in small packets. Woolcock called for three more drinks. Before he could be served with the second drink a policeman called Woolcock outside and left me and the female. I said, 'Let us go and see what is the matter.' I asked the policeman if he would want me; he said, 'You might as well come,' and therefore I turned out my pockets of the things Woolcock gave me to mind for him. I said to Woolcock while we were having the first drink, 'What are those things you gave me to mind for you?' Woolcock said, 'Don't trouble to undo them yet awhile, leave them to later on. I don't want the trouble of undoing them.' Woolcock began telling me about the parcel, that he could not get any more off Mr. Colwell."
charge. I went to the dealer's shop first. Cronin came in afterwards. Cronin said, "Mum's the word," but nothing more. I do not think he meant anything by it. I take the whole responsibility. I done it myself. He helped me to carry the stuff. He is innocent otherwise.
Verdict (Cronin), Guilty.
Sentence (Cronin) against whom previous convictions were proved, Six months' hard labour.
Woolcock was released on his own recognisances in £5 to come up for judgment if called upon.
The evidence was not reportable.
Verdict, Not guilty.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE RIDLEY.
(Wednesday, July 20.)
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Travers Humphreys prosecuted; Mr. St. John McDonald and Mr. Horace Samuel defended.
CHARLES KEEN , horse-keeper, 155, Buckingham Road, Harlesden I know prisoner as one of the barmen of the "Crown Hotel." Just after 8 p.m. on June 21 I heard him talking to another barman, Lewis, about shooting with revolvers. Prisoner said to me, "I have a revolver that will carry 30 yards." I said, "I have one and I cannot shoot 15 yards with it." Lewis asked me if I would sell it to him, and prisoner said, "Don't sell it to him. Sell it to me. I have one and I also have a license." I went home and fetched this revolver (Exhibit 5 and this pouch, containing cartridges to fit it. Prisoner bought it for 12s. 6d. with the cartridges. Lewis asked me why I wanted to sell it to prisoner and not to him, and I said because I had known prisoner longer. I had had it 10 or 12 years, and it was out of order; after having fired one shot you had to move the trigger forward before you could fire another.
Cross-examined. I think it was the previous evening to this that I went in with a coachman named George and asked prisoner for a piece of cheese to bait a rat-trap with. I told him I had seen a large rat in the stable. He did not say, "You ought to buy my revolver and shoot it."
me in the bedroom this revolver (Exhibit 2) in the box. He, Gibbons, and I sleep in the same room. On the night of June 21 I was serving in the bar when I heard a conversation between prisoner and Keen about revolvers. Keen went away and came back with a revolver, which he handed to prisoner. I asked Keen how much he wanted for it, and he said 15s. I said I could not afford that. Prisoner kept it. The house closes at 11 p.m. About 11.45 p.m. the same night Gibbons, prisoner, and myself were in the bedroom when prisoner took this revolver (Exhibit 5) from his locker and asked me what I thought of it, and asked if I could find the "patent" of it to fire it. I took it in my hand and I fired it, and he said, "You've got it, John." I had just pulled the trigger forward. I said, "It's a clumsy thing, it would go through half a brick wall." I also saw some cartridges in this leather bag. I said, "Will you take 5s. for it," and he said, "You won't have it for three five shillings." He then sat on the bed and took six cartridges from the bag and put them in the revolver. I told him to take them out for fear of an accident. He said, "I think I shall," and he did so. Between 11 and 12 p.m. on June 23 I and Gibbons were in bed when prisoner again took this revolver (Exhibit 5) out of the drawer, pulled back the clothes and said, "Look out, John, I will shoot you." I told him to put it away and I would see the guv'nor if he did not do so. He pointed at me, fired, and it went off with a click. Seeing it was not loaded I was satisfied. He said, "John thought I was going to shoot him. He put it away and then went to bed. On the morning of the 24th, so far as I know, the only thing he had to drink in the bar was a drop of rum; this was just before breakfast. The barmen are allowed to take drinks to the dining-room. At 3 p.m. he said to me, "John, I'm going to kick up a disturbance to-night. I don't care for no one." I did not ask whom it was with or what it was for. I took it that he was joking. He went to "rest" between 3.45 p.m. and 5.50, his usual time. I cannot say what he did during that time. Later that evening I was serving in the public bar when he was serving in the Retreat bar, when a little before 11 p.m. he walked round to me and said, "John, I'm going to bed." I saw him go through the dining-room door that would lead up to the bed-room. He returned about three minutes afterwards, still in his shirt sleeves. It was just past closing time, and Armand, who was checking the tills, said to prisoner, "You have had a drink. You had better go to bed." Prisoner said, "You've made a mistake," and Armand said, "I don't make mistakes." They were facing each other, prisoner standing beside the beer engines facing the street and Armand about 3 ft. away from him with his back to the dining-room door. I was about 3 yd. away. Armand caught hold of prisoner, who pulled this revolver (Exhibit 5) out of his right hand trousers' pocket and fired it straight at him, and he fell to the ground. Mrs. Armand then came in through the dining-room, and said to him—he still had the revolver in his right hand—"What have you done, Harry?" and he said, "Is there anyone else who would like one?" I jumped over the counter and got under the table in the tap-room, where I remained until the police
came: I was frightened. I did not notice Holloway in the bar at any time.
Cross-examined. Prisoner was very popular amongst us. He had no grievance against Armand, who treated us all very well. Mr. and Mrs. Armand both liked him. I did not notice whether Keen on the 21st asked prisoner for a piece of cheese. I saw prisoner have another drink in the evening. When Armand spoke to him he was sober; he was not drunk—he had had a drink. I said at the police court that Armand said, "You have been drinking"—that is true. I think it was Miss Richardson, the barmaid, who had supper with him on this night; I did not. I did not have any drink with him on that day except one gin in the evening. That was the drink I was referring to when I said at the police court "He had a drop of rum and milk in the morning and one in the evening." He did not have a half quartern of gin; it was only the usual amount. I said at the inquest, "I heard the click before the revolver went off. I was in such a 'mortal funk' after the shot was fired that I saw nothing." It was after the shot was fired that I got over the counter.
BERTIE GIBBONS , barman, "Crown Hotel." I have been there about four months. I slept in the same room as Lewis and prisoner. On the night of the 24th I saw prisoner point this revolver (Exhibit 5) at Lewis and pull the trigger. I was with prisoner in the bar on the night of the 24th from about 8 p.m. till just before closing time, when he went towards the stairs which would lead to his bedroom. After two or three minutes he returned. It was now closing time and Armand was doing the tills. Holloway was in the bar as well. Armand said to prisoner, "You had better go to bed, Harry. You've been drinking." Prisoner said, "I'm not going to bed," and Armand went on attending to the tills. A few minutes afterwards Armand said to him, "I thought I told you to go to bed," and prisoner said, "I'm not going to bed." I think Holloway said, "Why don't you go up to bed, Harry?" and prisoner said, "What is it to do with you?" They were standing by the beer engines, and prisoner went towards the saloon bar. I did not hear Holloway say anything. He got over the counter and opened the bottle and jug department door. He said to prisoner, "You had better take that revolver out of your pocket." Armand caught hold of him and said, "Have you a revolver on you?" Prisoner broke away, went three feet from him, took the revolver out of his right-hand trousers' pocket, pointed it straight at Armand's face, and fired. Armand fell down. Mrs. Armand then came in and said to him, "What have you done, Harry?' You are not going to shoot me, are you?" I did not hear him say anything to that.
Cross-examined. I did not have any drinks with prisoner that day, and I never saw him have any drink at all. I cannot say whether Armand had any ground for saying he had been drinking. Armand treated us all very well. I said I did not hear Holloway say anything to prisoner because I thought I was being asked about what he had said before he jumped over the counter.
ROBERT EDWARD HOLLOWAY . At this time I was head barman; I had been there six months. On June 20 I had occasion to speak to prisoner about serving customers who I thought were the worse for drink. Previous to this I had been on good terms with him, but from that day he did not speak to me again until the night of the 24th, when at 11 p.m. he came down to me when I was in the cellar, said he was going to bed, and wished me "Good night." I said, "Good night," and he went upstairs. Soon after I followed him, and saw him, Lewis, and Gibbons, and Armand, who was making up the tills, in the bar. Prisoner was standing near the saloon bar against the engines. Armand said something to him about going to bed. I was standing by prisoner, and I said to him, "Why don't you go off to bed. I will see to this stuff here." He said, "Sha'n't." I said it again. He said, "What's that to do with you?" He then walked up to the retreat bar, about eight yards away. I turned round and saw he had a revolver in his hand; I did not see exactly what he was doing with it; he was half turned away from me. His hands were moving. I went to Armand and said, "Look out, sir, Harry has got a revolver." I said this to Armand twice, but he would not take my warning. I got over the counter to fetch a policeman. Prisoner was facing Armand with his back towards me. I did not notice him do anything with his hands. I heard a report, and I went to fetch the police.
Cross-examined. As far as I know prisoner was popular, and Mr. and Mrs. Armand liked him. I cannot say whether Armand had any ground for saying he had been drinking. I cannot remember his making mistakes in matters of that kind; he was a careful man. Prisoner said "Good night" to me in a friendly kind of way. I cannot say whether he returned direct to the bar. The quarrel was supposed to have started between Armand and prisoner before I came up. He did not tell prisoner to go to bed in a threatening manner. I had not seen prisoner drinking that day. The barmen are allowed four drinks a day at meal times; they are not allowed to drink in the bar, but it is possible for them to do so. (To the Court.) When I saw prisoner at the other end of the bar I saw he had a revolver in his hand. When I got over the counter I shouted to him, "Take that revolver out of your pocket." He was standing against the beer engines then. I could not see the revolver then; I suppose he had put it back into his pocket.
ALICE EMILY ARMAND . Deceased, who was my husband, had been manager of the "Crown" for about nine years, and I lived there with him. Prisoner, with whom I got on very well, had been employed there about eleven months. On the night of June 24, between 6 and 11 p.m., I was in and out of the bar. He was serving there. After the house had been closed I assisted my husband to do up the tills. I did not take particular notice of prisoner. My husband spoke to me and then I heard him tell prisoner to go to bed. Prisoner said, "Why? Do you think I am the worse for drink?" My husband said, "Well, I think you have had a little. If you go to bed I will talk to you in the morning." Prisoner then went upstairs and we thought he had gone to bed. He had had just time enough to go up-stairs
and back again when he returned, and my husband said to him, "I thought I told you to go to bed." Prisoner said, "Yes, but I'm not going." I thought he looked very cross about something. I left the bar and was going towards the kitchen when I heard a revolver go off. I returned to find my husband on the floor with prisoner standing a yard away from him in the same position as when I had let him. He had a revolver in his hand, and I said, "Harry, what have you done? You have killed my husband!" He said, "Yes, but he is all right. Would anyone else like one?" He looked all round and then looked at me. I said, "Harry, you are not going to shoot me? Think of my children." He said, "All right, mam, I will not hurt you." I asked him to give me the revolver, but he said he would not do that, but that he would unload it. He was doing so when the police came.
Cross-examined. Prisoner did his work in the usual way; he did his duty. We always thought he was a good boy. I expect I said at the police court that I thought the world of him. My husband on this night remarked to me he thought prisoner had had a drop to drink, and I said I did not think he was the worse for drink. I cannot say whether my husband is a better judge than I of that kind of thing.
Re-examined. I thought he looked cross when my husband spoke to me about him. I should have noticed it if he had been the worse for drink. When my husband told him to go to bed he looked very cross and he looked very white and went upstairs. When he came down again he looked just the same. He stood with his hands behind him (To the Court.) I cannot say that he went upstairs, he went through the door to go there.
Police-sergeant JOSEPH HOCKLEY , 113 X. On the night of June 24 I was, on duty near the "Crown" when I heard a report like a pistol shot. I went towards there and met Holloway. On going into the bar I saw prisoner standing behind the counter with a revolver in his hand. He began to unload it and after having done so he put it with four cartridges on the counter. He said, "I have shot the guv'nor. He accused me of being drunk. The head barman was the cause of it all." I got over the counter and seized him. I saw Armand lying on the floor, and the doctor was sent for. While waiting prisoner said to me, "I have another revolver upstairs and a lot of cartridges. If you come up with me I will give them to you. These are the keys of my box," and he gave me a bunch of keys. At the station I took possession of the revolver. I afterwards found a spent cartridge near where prisoner had stood.
Dr. ALEXANDER CARSON SYMTHE , Divisional Surgeon of Police. At 11.45 p.m. on June 24 I went to the "Crown," where I found Armand suffering from a wound in his head, which had fractured a portion of his skull. The bullet had entered the front of the ear and, passing through, had lacerated the brain. He died before 2 p.m. on the following day. On a post-mortem examination I found a passage right through the brain tissue and a small piece of bullet sticking in the entrance wound. Through the fact of there being no scorching
of the hair. I think the bullet must have been fired from over 3 ft. away. About 1.15 a.m. the same morning I saw prisoner at the station. He seemed quite sensible and rational. He seemed to have had some drink, but I should certainly not say he was drunk.
Cross-examined. It is quite likely that immediately after a man had committed an act of this kind in a fit of homicidal mania for him to become quite cool.
Re-examined. I found no sign of any description to indicate that an hour and a half before I saw him he had had homicidal mania. No such suggestion has been made till this moment. The question was neither asked me at the Coroner's Court nor at the police court.
Inspector FRANK PIKE , X Division. At 1.30 a.m. on June 25 I went to the "Crown," where I found upstairs in prisoner's box this revolver in his cigar box, and in a tin box this leather pouch containing about 30 cartridges. After Armand had died I went to the police station and said to prisoner, "I am a police officer; Mr. Armand is dead, and I am going to charge you with murdering him by shooting him last night with a revolver." He made no reply. When charged he never spoke.
Prisoner's statement before magistrate: "I plead not guilty. I reserve my defence."
RICHARD GATES (recalled, further cross-examined.) Prisoner said to me on June 24 at 10 p.m. when he was in the bar, "To-night, when I go to bed, I am going to have my 'stringer' loaded underneath my pillow, and I am going to do for Bob" (meaning Holloway). I said, "You have no cause to row with Bob." He said, "Bob has not spoken to me for a week. I have had my own back. I have been to the cellar and shaken up a barrel of beer." I did not think he was speaking seriously.
CHARLES BALL . Prisoner is my son. At his birth it was a hard case, the doctor had to bring instruments. He is a full time child. It was reported to me that he had had a fall when he was 12 or 14. I know he has been strange since. I am a marine engineer and have been in the same employment for 27 years. Prisoner has repeatedly walked in his sleep. I caught him once in the cellar misbehaving himself. (The witness here became distressed and had to withdraw.)
CHARLES JOSEPH BALL , engineer. Prisoner is my brother; I am aged 24; he is just over 22. Up till 1906 I lived with him at home. When he was at school at the age of 10 he fell 40 ft., and about the year following he fell 20 ft. On the second occasion he hurt his head and cut his thumb. Since these accidents I have noticed an enormous amount of change in his manner; he has been very strange indeed, and I have continually warned him. On one occasion in 1906 he walked in his sleep. He woke me up one night and said someone was after him. I got out, lit the gas, and he started fighting the wall. I expect it was a nightmare. On another occasion he woke me up trying to choke
me. He is rather of a morose disposition and he has on three occasions tried to burn the house down, the first time at a shop in Baleham Street, the second at Green gate Street, Plaistow, and the third at where my father and my stepmother were living, on which occasion he set some paper alight in the w.c, and sent an evil letter to our step-mother. About 1905 he got kicked below the belt. Once when he and I were walking in Barking Road he rushed from me, and went to throw himself in front of a tram. I brought him back and asked him what was the matter. He laughed at me, and said, "I would like to see what death is like." In 1906 he had a fit; he screamed, stared at me, and then went off in a fit. It did not last very long, and then he was almost himself again. On the night that he was discharged from "The Three Rabbits," he came to my house at 12 o'clock in a terrible state; he had got a knife on a belt round his waist, saying he had got it for father. He cooled down a bit after. He was sober. He had got no reason for threatening father. I have very often seen him misbehaving himself; I have oftened warned him off it.
Cross-examined. Sergeant Chandler came to see me, and asked me to give him some particulars about my brother, and I gave him some, but I was not on oath then, which made a difference—I am on my oath now. I was not lying to him. I was flurried, and I did not know what I was saying. The whole thing has very much upset me. He took what I said down in writing and I signed it. I said that my brother climbed 40 feet up a spout at his school, and fell to the ground, which was concrete, that he got up and walked away, and that he never saw a doctor. I did not say anything about his having fallen on his head on the second occasion when he fell 20 feet because I was flurried. Up to 1906, as far as I know, he was a teetotaler. He never took to excessive drinking after he left home. I was flurried when I told Sergeant Chandler that at the time that he threatened to kill father he was drinking excessively. I am not flurried now, and I say he was sober. He has a bad temper, very easily upset, and takes things to heart very much. It was a large amount of news-paper that he set fire to in the w.c. He has been on his own account for the last four years as barman. The fit that I saw him in was the same as father has had, and the doctor says my father's were epileptic fits. No doctor attended my brother. I do not know that I must say the name of the doctor who said my father's fits were epileptic.
Re-examined. It was Dr. Harvey. Chandler has made two or three mistakes in writing down what I said. He took it down in long-hand; it took him about two hours. I have seen a confession that prisoner has made.
CHARLES BALL (recalled, further examined). Prisoner has acted queerly since his mother's death in 1906. He has threatened me with a knife. He has a morose disposition, and is very hot-tempered. When his mother was buried he half-filled in his mother's grave so that she should not get out again, and said he wished he could go with her. He has three times tried to set fire to my house. On one occasion he put a lamp under the table, and the curtains caught fire. After he
set light to the paper in the w.c. in 1906 he sent a letter to my present wife, which I cannot find. (Mr. Macdonald, stating that he had lost this letter, asked that ha might use a copy, which he had made, of it, Mr. Bodkin offered no objection to the admission of the copy.) It was dated February 19, 1907, and was as follows: "No doubt you wondered how all that burnt paper got into the w.c. last night. Well, if you want to know, I will tell you. It was about 11.30 p.m. when I went down the backway and put a match to the paper with the intention of burning the house down, also hoping that you (his stepmother) and father were burnt to death." I should say that he was not answerable for his actions. I saw him kicked once in his privates, which laid him up a day or two. On one occasion he borrowed a bicycle for a run down the street. He was eventually found at South-end three days after. He must have lost his memory. He once wrote me a letter saying he had done a very foolish thing, and I went round and he told me he had tried to commit suicide by taking spirits of salts. About four years ago he had a fit; I have come to the conclusion now that it was a fit. I have had four fits myself, which Dr. Harvey told me were epileptic. I caught him once misbehaving him-self. Once I found all the furniture in the dining-room upside down, and I was told he had done it. He had no cause to threaten my life.
Cross-examined. As far as I know the cause of his ill-feeling against me was because I had married a second time. He left home to shift for himself then, I was away at sea at the time. He has had situations as a barman since, and as far as I know has always borne a good character. I made a statement to the police, which they took down in writing, and which I signed. I then stated that he had no serious illness up to 14 years of age; and that he had taken spirits of salts when an errand boy. I knew that he was keeping company then with some young woman, but I do not know that this was the result of a "tiff" they had had. He continued working on the same day. I said also he never threatened me, that he was a teetotaler (I meant up to the time of my second marriage); that up to the time he left me he showed no signs of insanity and that he was a very clean and well-behaved boy; that there was not sufficient paper in the w.c. to set fire to the house; that he did not like his step-mother; that as far as I knew there was no insanity in my wife's or my families; and that his threats to kill me were all bravado. That is all correct. I have never known him to drink.
Re-examined. I was agitated at the time Chandler took my statement.
CHARLES CHESSON , "Halfway House," 393, Battersea Park Road. The police have subpoenaed me, but I am giving evidence for the defence. Just over three years ago prisoner worked for me about six months. He left me twice, and on the second time he left on his own account. He bore a good character for honesty and sobriety. On two occasions he had fits. I had occasion to speak severely to him, and his face changed colour, and he became violent and we had to hold him down. He was violent in his room that night, but as he was not doing any damage I left him alone. I spoke to him about it after-wards
wards, and he remembered nothing about it. On the second occasion he seemed to lose consciousness for about 15 minutes. I never spoke to him about that afterwards.
Cross-examined. I came to the conclusion they were ordinary kind of fits. I had to speak to him severely about familiarity with the servants. The statement I gave to the police says: He seemed overcome, but I do not not know whether it was with remorse or passion. I cannot say whether on the second occasion it was a faint; it seemed to be. He was all right next day.
FLORRY HYNES , maid-servant. I have known prisoner for four years; he is my sweetheart. On February 28, 1909, he wrote me this letter from "The Three Rabbits," Manor Park. (A letter was read in which prisoner described a "fit" that he had had in which he assaulted a barmaid, the head barman, and the manager.) "When I came to I found myself walking up and down the concert-room with the 'boss'; I was in a fit of madness. I have had no drink since last Tuesday week, so it was not that." I received another letter from him at the same address on July 4, 1909: "What with me being queer, and father talking about my dear mother who has gone for ever, I am nearly out of my mind, and I swear to God that the very first time I see father I will see if he can talk about one who cannot defend themselves. I will kill him stone dead or he must kill me. There is no one I hate more than my coward of a father. I will swing for him yet. Nothing will compel me to repeat what I have heard. I hardly know how to write this letter being nearly off my head."
Cross-examined. I have been engaged to prisoner three years. He has given way to drink for the last two years, but not in my presence. I have written to him frequently to advise him to give it up. In January, 1907, we were both employed at Hardgrove's, an oil shop, and I told him I would have to give him up because he would drink. He was very calm at first, but when he realised it he took some spirits of salts. He said to me, "I have poisoned myself," and I sent for the doctor. Before he came prisoner went away and the doctor never saw him. He was very queer, but he continued work next day. As far as I know his father never came to see him and it would not be correct to say that the doctor told him that the prisoner had taken spirits of salts. To smooth matters over, I was friendly with him again. I still mean to be engaged to him. For the last two years I have noticed that at times he has been strange, but I cannot say whether it was from drink. I did not notice what an extraordinary recollection he had of what he had done during his illness that he wrote me about.
SAMUEL NORTON . I am employed at Messrs. Johnston's, smelters. I have known prisoner about six years. He worked with me at my firm five years ago. He had rather an impulsive nature. On one occasion we were on the roof of the building, and I cautioned him about getting too near the parapet. He immediately stepped on to the parapet and ran the full length of the building, which was a hare-brained
thing to do, and which I should not have expected a man in his ordinary senses to have done. It was about a foot wide and 60 feet from the ground.
Cross-examined. He would be about 16 years old then, and he was a healthy young fellow.
JAMES WARD MUSTO , barman, "Three Rabbits Hotel," Romford Road. Prisoner was a barman about a year ago with me at this place. The night before he left we went up to the bedroom and he was "larking" about outside. I shut the door and he pushed it open and struck me without any cause. He seemed to be in a very violent temper. It seemed very strange to me. He may have had a drink, but I do not suppose he was drunk. I fainted at the time for a few seconds.
Cross-examined. This happened in July. He had been larking about with the barmaids. I suppose he was angry because I shut the door against him. He had been drinking, but he was not drunk. He afterwards got maudlin and he wanted to kiss me. After this occasion he went to Woolwich, when he got on the drink; he smashed all the gas mantles in a room in a public-house.
ELIZABETH GEORGE , 7, Fairview Terrace, Barking Road. Prisoner has made his home with me and my husband for the past four years; he has called us "mother" and "father"; he has come to us when be has been out of a job. He has been very strange in his manner for the last twelve months or more. When shaving he has taken the razor up and said, "I cannot do it. I am afraid in case I cut my throat. Then I would feel like death." He wandered about all night on the night he left "The Three Rabbits," and came home at 4 a.m. He had this knife (produced) with him and said he was going to stab his father with it. He began screaming and had a fit. He frothed at the mouth. I bathed his face, and in about half an hour he came round. He seemed to be perfectly sober, but said he had lost his memory and did not know where he was when he got to Bow Street. I do not remember his having any other fits. He has complained very much of pains in the head and that he could not sleep well.
Cross-examined. He told me that he had had a disturbance at "The Three Rabbits"; he knew what he had done. He stayed with me a month before he went to "The Crown." I did not know he had been drinking excessively at the time that he said he would kill his father. I have never seen him drunk. We did not call in a doctor for this fit. He was quite a good-tempered boy; he was very pleasant and never sulked, although he was a bit quick tempered.
FREDERICK GEORGE , carpenter. I am the husband of last witness. (Witness corroborated his wife's statements and added). For the last two years prisoner has been very strange in his manner; his eyes used to glare. At the time he had this fit he clenched his fists and seemed to stare as though he wanted to catch hold of something; this happened the night after he came home from "The Rabbits." He has
also complained to me of sleeplessness and pains in the head and he has made the same statement to me about not daring to use a razor for fear of cutting his throat. I do not know how he came by this revolver (Exhibit 2), which I have seen in his possession. I suggested his going to America, where my son was. I said to him that they all carry revolvers there. He did not say anything to me about his having wandered about all night.
Cross-examined. He behaved himself, I believe, at all the places that he was a barman; I thought he was fit to be a barman. I never knew that he has been rather given to drink for the last two years. That does not affect my opinion. I know Miss Hynes. I never knew she had warned him about it. Nothing I have said about him can be explained by the fact that he had been drinking.
THOMAS FREEMAN , licensed victuallers' manager, 211, St. George's Street. Till last March I was employed as under manager at "The Three Rabbits"; I had been employed there three years. Prisoner was employed there seven or eight months during which time he bore, to my idea, a very good character. On one occasion in July when they had gone up to supper I heard screams and I went upstairs and found Musto "clenching" in a corner. Prisoner said Musto had twice insulted him. I told prisoner to go and see Mills, who was looking after the business while the guvnor was away. Mills chastised prisoner, and I saw him to his room. After 15 minutes I heard the same thing. On running upstairs I saw prisoner running up and down the landing saying he was going to kill his father. I said that was a wrong sort of thing to do and he rushed downstairs and out of the door. The next morning he came and asked if he might start work again. He was not a drunkard at all; he always used to drink lemonades. I was the one he always used to ask for drinks, and I thought he drank more small "lemons" than anyone else. This conduct was not the result of drink.
Cross-examined. I heard afterwards that he had been "larking" about with the barmaids. He had a very excitable temper, and little things upset him.
MARY ANN HARDGROVE . I keep an oil shop at 113, Central Park Road, East Ham. I have known prisoner nine years. He worked for me in 1906. I always found him an honest, respectable, very clever, and good lad, but at the same time he was very impulsive. In October, 1906, he said he was so depressed and upset that he hardly knew what he had done, and he told me that he had taken spirits of salts. It did not have much effect on him. He used to be rather absent at times and do rather strange things, but I put them down to be boy's actions. He fretted a good deal about his mother and I put that down as the cause of his strange behaviour. On one occasion he brought a horse in front of the shop and went away and left it.
Cross-examined. He was an errand boy. I dismissed him once, but I took him back again in spite of his faults and he remained with me till June, 1907. I dismissed him because of something to do with Florry Hynes, who was also in my service. I never knew he drank.
November 16, 1906, my wife received this letter from him: "I am glad to say I have been taken up by Mr. and Mrs. Hardgrove. Father came. and tried to do me harm by talking, but, how-ever, he did not succeed." He came to see me on the following Sunday. He looked queer and fell on the floor. He gave a scream and went off in a fit. I saw him home afterwards. He would not have known he had had a fit if I had not told him. I have never known him to drink.
THEOPHILUS HYSLOP , M.D., senior physician, Bethlem Royal Hospital, Lecturer on Mental Diseases, St. Mary's Hospital, and London School of Medicine, etc. On July 15 I examined prisoner in Brizton Prison in the presence of Dr. East. I found evidence of an old injury to his brain near to the right frontal region, which was very evident to the touch. As to his mental condition I found no marked evidence of hallucinations with the exception of possible hallucination of hearing, especially at night; he told me that he heard voices at nights speaking to him, but he was not sure whether they were real or imaginary. I then inquired into his memory of the actual act. He told me that he remembered fairly well all that had occurred. When I asked him as to the motive, he said that he did not know of any motive. I asked if it had been his intention to kill anybody in particular, and he said the chief person that he intended to kill was his father. In reply to further questions, he said that he did not intend now to kill him because he had that morning received a letter from him; that he would not guarantee that he would not use a revolver in a similar way on anybody else; that he had attempted to commit suicide on several occasions, but that he did not know any reason for his wishing to do so; that he did not feel depressed in any way because of what he had done, and that he knew what would be the consequences of his act. On my asking him whether he realized what he had done, he said that he nearly always felt a kind of dazed, that it was only occasionally that he fully realised what had happened, and that even then he could not properly realise that he had committed a crime; that he did not fear what would happen to him, and that he was sorry for what he had done, because he was very fond of Armand; and that occasionally he passed into a dreamy state, and hardly knew what he was doing. The conclusion I have arrived at is that his is a case of practically epileptic mania, a not uncommon sequel to a history of a blow on the head and to the existence of a tendency to sleep-walking. It almost always happens in these cases that the tendency to commit crime begins to develop itself at about the age of 18, and continues to the age of 20—the adolescent period. I have recorded cases with a precisely similar history. Undoubtedly, if there has been a previous injury to the head a very small amount of alcohol is quite sufficient to produce unduly serious effects; the same thing would happen in the case of an epileptic person. Self-abuse and drink would aggravate the condition with the blow on the head. I would regard prisoner as having been a properly certifiable person at the time he committed the act, and also at the time when I examined
him. From the evidence I have heard, even if he had not committed the act I fear I should have had to advise his certification considering his views with regard to suicide and shooting other people. I do not think at the time he committed this act he fully appreciated either the nature or the consequences of it; there was a morbid impulse to kill. This epileptic mania is a condition which may be described as mental automatism. Sometimes the individuals who are suffering from this perform violent acts; they may set fire to things or commit almost any crime. There may be also a certain amount of premeditation and knowledge of the act with memory of the act subsequently. I have known of cases of this condition lasting for a number of years. To the uninitiated a person in such a condition would appear to be perfectly sane. The suddenness of the attack, carelessness, and a feeling of relief after it is done are all symptoms of homicidal mania. While in this condition of automatism the subject performs most extraordinary things not appreciating the dangerous nature of what he is doing; the parapet incident is an illustration of this.
Cross-examined. The fact that prisoner had held a position as bar-man for four years in different situations and borne an excellent character at each does not affect my opinion at all. The thickening of the skull I regard as evidence of a former injury. It is very common for insanity to manifest itself years after a person has sustained such an injury. I did not attach much importance to the hallucinations. Prisoner's memory of the act was pretty good. This condition of automatism in my opinion lasted over the whole period. You may have a complete cycle of events and perfect knowledge of the acts, and even a description of the details afterwards, and yet still that person is in the mentally automatic state. He may be in such a state as to form murderous intentions and to know that if he shot Armand it would be murder, but yet he may be disassociated from the world; he has not a grasp of the situation. It is not a common test of epileptic homicidal mania to see if the person is unconscious of what he is doing; that is too narrow. In larve epilepsy the departure from the normal is so very slight that it cannot be recognised by those who have not made a special study of the subject. In the ordinary condition of double personality, which is practically this case, you have two separate individuals, one of whom is responsible and the other irresponsible. I should regard the fact that he said he wanted to commit suicide for no reason whatever alone sufficient to justify his being certified. I have not considered the facts in this case in reference to that, only his statements to me. I do not think that the reason for wishing to shoot his father was sufficient to warrant the belief that he was sane in wishing to do so.
Re-examined. There is the grosser form of epileptic fits where you get the subject foaming at the mouth, convulsions, and clonic contractions In addition to that form you have the larve form, and in some cases you have the two forms co-existing in one subject. Prisoner may have realised that he was doing wrong in a dim kind of way, and yet his actual personal consciousness may have been dormant. (To the-court.)
I was with prisoner about 33 minutes. All I have heard in this case confirms the opinion at which I arrived as the result of my examination.
(Thursday, July 21.)
FREDERICK SCHERMAN TOOGOOD , M.D., medical superintendent in charge of epileptic ward, Lewisham Infirmary. I have held this post for 16 years. I have been in charge of epileptic wards for 25 years. The phases of epilepsy vary very much from the epileptic who is practically a sane person to the epileptic dement. Petit mal is the slightest evidence of epilepsy; it may be merely a momentary loss of consciousness, which is almost imperceptible. The uninitiated think that it is a slight attack of faintness. The subject often goes a little pale. The after-effects may be the same as those after a more pronounced attack. In "grand mal" you have a definite epileptic seizure in which the subject would at first turn pale and then congested; his pupils would become dilated, his movements convulsive, and there would be loss of consciousness. There is not always foaming at the mouth. A preceding scream is a characteristic sign, and then the subject would become silent with the exception of heavy breathing. Epileptic automatism is the condition which ensues after an attack of epilepsy; and is a state in which the subject is not really responsible for his actions; this can ensue after both petit mal and grand mal. Sometimes this condition is accompanied by no loss of consciousness. You very often find epileptic patients doing curious actions without any apparent motive at all where there has been no obvious fit. Pyro-mania, setting fire to houses or ricks, for no reason at all, is a frequent symptom of epilepsy. If a man subject to epileptic fits tries to commit suicide without being depressed at all, I should say he was a certifiable lunatic. Epileptic ambulatory automatism is the name given to the walking in sleep of an epileptic. If an epileptic said he was going to murder his father I should say he was certifiable; but I should be influenced in my opinion by his motive in doing so. One of the symptoms of homicidal mania is to attack people of whom you are very fond with absence of motive. I regard the letter written to his stepmother, prisoner being an epileptic, as strong confirmatory evidence that he was a certifiable lunatic. I think the part of his letter to Florry Hynes, in which he describes his symptoms, is consistent with his having an epileptic fit, and the statements he makes about his father may be evidence of delusion. I think that no epileptic is a safe person to be at large; the majority of motiveless crimes are committed by them. I think that prisoner running along a parapet as he did showed that he was then in a state of post-epileptic automatism. Of course, it obviously may bear another interpretation. I think the fact that prisoner went pale when spoken to by deceased is suggestive as indicating that he may have had an attack of petit mal at that moment. Sexual and emotional impulses are very common in epileptics. Drink has a much greater effect on an epileptic and on a person who has had
an injury to his head. I visited prisoner in Brixton Prison last Monday at the request of his solicitor. I had no information about the case with the exception of what I had read in the papers. About three-quarters of the way through the examination I told him who had sent me. As the result of my interview I came to the conclusion that he was a certifiable epileptic. He said that the whole thing appeared to him to be a dream; he remembered nothing about it except in a very hazy way. I did not press that matter very much. He struck me as being rather morose and reticent, but not upset. The bases for my conclusion were firstly the history of the fits and secondly the absence of motive and the act. I regard masturbation more as a symptom than a cause of these cases. Headaches, insomnia, and mental confusion are other symptoms. A person in this state of automatism may to the untrained observer appear to be perfectly sane. You cannot judge an epileptic by ordinary standards, for even when he is not in a fit his power of self-control is less than normal. In the post-epileptic state his actions would be reflex. I found a bony enlargement on his right frontal region, which was consistent with being the result of an injury which may have caused epilepsy. He told me about his suicidal tendencies, the one occasion on which he lost his memory. I certainly think he was properly certifiable as a lunatic before this act was committed.
Cross-examined. I have come to that conclusion by hearing his previous history—not as a result of my examination of him alone. I am not sure whether I told him I was a doctor. I was told that Dr. Hyslop had visited him, but I had no report from him. It is very important in discovering whether a person has acted as an automaton to see whether he has any recollection of the act afterwards. I do not think that a clear recollection afterwards would show that he was not acting as an automaton; some epileptics appear to have a very distinct recollection. I do not think memory has a great deal to do with it. I do not think I said it was the most important test of all. I was able to get very little information from him as to his fits. My recollection is that I got the information I had with regard to them from the newspaper reports, but it is possible I may be mistaken. I do not know that no such question was raised at the police court. I had not a summary of the case before I went and examined him. I may have had the formation from the solicitor. He said that he had not been drinking when he lost his memory, nor that he had been drinking excessively for the last two years. I cannot express an opinion as to whether he knew he had a pistol in his hand; when in a condition of post-epileptic automatism he might know perfectly well that he had, but yet be quite irresponsible. There is no evidence that he did not know it was loaded. I do not suggest that he did not pull the trigger intentionally, and that he did Hot realise that if he did pull it, he would probably kill the deceased. Nor do I suggest that he was not capable of forming the intention to kill. I do not think he was capable of forming an intention to revenge himself for being told to go to bed because he had been drinking. If Dr. Hyslop says that he was
in a state capable of forming a murderous intention I do not agree with him. In this condition of post-epileptic automatism he is another personality altogether. There was no actual mental process of judging of what was right and wrong. I suggest that at the moment he went pale he had a epileptic fit. It is difficult to say precisely when this fit ceased. He subsequently went into the automatic stage when it is possible for him to give a perfectly coherent account of what had taken place. I was with him about 45 minutes.
Re-examined. I consider from the evidence I have heard in this case that prisoner's fits, were epileptic. The mind of an epileptic becomes more deteriorated as time goes on, and he is liable to become insane at any moment. There are authorities who say that it is possible for these things to be done by an epileptic without any actual fit having taken place.
JAMES MILLS , manager, "The Three Rabbits," Manor Park. This time last year prisoner worked three weeks for me whilst I was there; he was there previous to my going there. On one occasion he ran out of the house and on being fetched back said that he was going to kill his father. Freeman saw him. I saw no knife in his hand. I heard that he had had fits previous to my going there. The next time he did it I said to him, "What does all this mean? This is the second affair you have had." He replied sullenly, "I have got family troubles." He mysteriously disappeared and then I got a letter from him saying how sorry he was. I refused to take him back on my own responsibility. He seemed very strange in his manner.
Cross-examined. I destroyed the original letter from him, this is a copy of it (produced). It is dated July 20, 1909 (Exhibit No. 16). Daring the time I was there he appeared to be in quite a proper state of mind. I never saw him drink; I understood he was a teetotaler. I did not see him on the night he had a row with Musto. He disappeared on the following day.
Re-examined. He was peculiar in his manner on the two occasions I have spoken of.
Mr. Travers Humphreys proposed to call medical evidence in rebuttal, the defence of insanity not having been raised in the coarse of the case for the prosecution.
Mr. McDonald stated that the prosecution knew the nature of the defence at least 24 hours before the commencement of the case.
Mr. Justice Ridley admitted the evidence.
(Evidence in rebuttal.)
WILLIAM NORWOOD EAST , M.D., M.R.C.S., deputy medical officer, Brixton Prison. I examine in the course of my duties 1,500 prisoners a year with regard to their mental condition. Prisoner was received at Brixton on June 27 and has been under my observation in the hospital since that time. I have seen him every day except for about three days, and frequently twice a day. I have had prolonged interviews
views with him to ascertain the state of his mind. He knew of no insanity in his family. He stated that after his mother's death there was a quarrel between himself and his brother and his father; that he went away from home, and that since that time he has not been on good terms with his father and has felt revengeful towards him, particularly at times when he has been drinking. I gathered from him that the fits he had had were ordinary attacks of fainting fits. He said he had given way to drink for about 18 months. He said he remembered being reprimanded by Chesson when he was at "The Three Rabbits," and that he had been drinking then. As far as I remember he did not say anything about throwing himself down. He remembered the occasion on which he had smashed the gas mantles at Woolwich; he said he had been drinking then. He said that on June 24 he had had two whiskies before breakfast; two bitters before dinner, one bitter at dinner, one at 4 p.m., one at 7, two gins and gingerbeers at 8.30 p.m., a stout and bitter at 10 p.m., and soon after that two gins and Angosturas. He said he had been drinking more than usual on the 21st, his ordinary amount on the 22nd, and more than usual on the 23rd. I examined him on more than one occasion about these facts, and his accounts were practically the same. He gave me a very clear account of what happened on that evening. He had no fits while with me, and I detected no signs of delusion. He quite appeared to realise the position he was in. The cause of his attempting to commit suicide is quite a common one—it was a love affair. He did not tell me that he attempted to commit suicide on any other occasion; I probably asked him but I am not sure. I have never known myself, nor have I ever heard anyone, except the witnesses to-day, say they have known of a case in which a person has committed an act in a state of automatism and has recollected the whole of what happened afterwards. In my opinion he is sane now and at the time he did this act he was capable of knowing the nature and quality of it.
Cross-examined. I do not suggest that I am an expert in epilepsy, but I see a great deal of it. I dare say that Dr. Toogood knows a great deal more about it than I do, but I do not think he sees the amount of epilepsy in criminal cases that I do. I have a great respect for Dr. Hyslop's opinion as well; he examined me. I have had three cases of epileptic automatism in crime within the last seven or eight weeks, two being for murder. They had absolutely no recollection afterwards of what had happened. It is not clear from what Sir William Gower says in his book whether he is referring to the patient having a recollection while in the automatic stage or afterwards. A person may be epileptic and commit a crime while he is perfectly sane without the epilepsy influencing him in the slightest. I agree an epileptic is more impulsive than an ordinary individual. If an epileptic commits a crime without any provocation I should say he was not responsible, but that is not the present case. As regards Dr. Spratling's instance of a man having a complete recollection of what had occurred after he had committed the crime, I do not see any evidence in what he writes of the man having had epileptic frensy.
Dr Hyslop's and Dr. Toogood's experience as to the recollection point clashes with mine. It is possible for the automatic stage to last for a long time during which the subject may appear to be perfectly sane. It is impossible that prisoner is still in that stage, as I have been through more or less the whole of his life with him and there is no gap of memory, which would be the case if he were in the automatic stage. A man may have epileptic mania without having a fit. Assum—the prisoner has had fits when he screamed, stared, frothed at the mouth, changed colour and failed to recognise people, that would point very strongly to his having had epileptic attacks. If you had an abnormal act plus epilepsy I might, or might not, connect one with the other. I think a person who attempts to commit suicide for no reason ought to be under medical care, but I should always want to examine the subject myself before certifying. Assuming that prisoner is epileptic and tried to commit suicide for no reason at all, his attempts to set fire to the house would, I should say, probably be due to insanity. Prisoner has a slight depression of the bone in his skull, but there is absolutely no evidence of injury to the brain. Alcohol operates with more effect on epileptics and persons who have sustained an injury to the head. I think the absence or presence of motive is most important in determining whether an act of homicide was due to mania. I have listened very carefully to the evidence, and from the description of the fits none of them as far as I could make out were epileptic. You have to take each fit separately; in the questions put to me you grouped together all the symptoms that he showed in different fits. Extreme carelessness after a crime is consistent with either sanity or insanity.
Re-examined. I do not agree that there is evidence that prisoner has attempted suicide without any cause. I think there was motive for his attempting to set fire to the house. Excessive drinking' was a factor in this case. If he had been an epileptic the drink that he had taken on this day would have affected him considerably, and it would have been noticeable.
HORACE CRAIG , M.D., F.R.C.P. I was for 14 years assistant physician to the Bethlem Royal Hospital. I left two and a half years ago. Dr. Hyslop was senior to me. I have had 17 years experience of lunacy and have been lecturer on mental disorders for seven years. I was asked by the Treasury, as I have been asked in other cases, to examine prisoner and I went on July 15. I saw him In the presence of Dr. East, and examined him for about 70 minutes. I examined him again on July 17 for about an hour. I asked Dr. East not to be present on the second occasion. I could not discover any symptoms of mental unsoundness from my examination. I tested his memory as to the event very carefully, and it was good. He said he felt hostility towards his father, but I could not say it was a delusion; I did not know the surrounding circumstances. I asked him if he had had any fainting attacks or fits, and he said that he had had faints which he rather put down to the weather; he did not seem to attach much importance to them. I had the depositions before me and I asked him
whether there were any periods in his life that he could not bridge over, and he told me there were none. He told me about one of the occurrences at "The Three Rabbits." I asked him if he ever found himself at any place without being able to account for his being there and he said he could not. He told me that he had a full recollection of that had occurred on June 24, of course, I did not go into all the details for obvious reasons. As far as his conduct, apart from the drink, and his memory are concerned, there is no evidence that I can get that he was then, or is now, of unsound mind.
Cross-examined. I am not here to say whether the motive for this act was a good or bad one; I am in the same position as the jury as to that. Prisoner gave me no motive, and I did not ask for one. I would not like to absolutely say that he was not suffering from epileptic mania, but taking each instance that has been given of epilepsy not one of them is what I could honestly describe as epileptic. I am not of the same opinion as Dr. Hyslop and Dr. Toogood as to that. Dr. Hyslop was my senior in point of years at the hospital and I respect his opinions as a well-known expert in lunacy matters, but I do not always agree with him. For automatism you must have, in my opinion, loss of memory. The subject may, as he returns to consciousness, remember things that happened towards the finish of his automatic stage. I do not know on what grounds Dr. Spratling came to the conclusion that the seizure after which the subject remembered everything was epileptic. I quite agree that there is such a condition as post-epileptic automatism, which is preceded by an epileptic seizure. This automatic stage may last for long periods and is difficult to detect. If an injury to the head has been followed by the epileptic condition, epileptic automatism may occur. Prisoner has a scar on his head which he told me was due to the throwing of a stone. I have heard the history of how he got it. If it broke the inner table of the brain there would be an affection of the brain. One would have expected the history of a severe concussion if that had been the case. He has no localising symptoms of injury to the brain, but I cannot say with absolute certainty after this lapse of time that there was no such injury. He told me about his attempting to commit suicide by taking spirits of salts; that was the only occasion he mentioned. I have heard of his wishing to kill his father; I cannot say whether he had sufficient motive for that. I certainly agree that it is not indicative of a normal mind. The desire to cut one's throat while shaving is very common in normal life, as is also the desire to throw oneself under a tram or train; I do not think I can attach much importance to it I agree the drink he had had did possibly influence him when did the act. Masturbation is a very common symptom in certain cases of mental disorder, but it is not accepted now that insanity follows its practice.
Verdict, Guilty, but insane. Prisoner was ordered to be detained during His Majesty's pleasure.
BEFORE THE RECORDER
(Wednesday, July 20.)
MYNORS, Reginald (42, manager) . Forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain document, to wit, an affidavit, used as evidence in a court of record, to wit, the King's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice. Committing wilful and corrupt perjury.
Mr. C. L. Chute prosecuted; Mr. J. Ewart Walker defended.
Prisoner was tried on the indictment of perjury.
Cross-examined. The receipts were put in in the action of John Martin v. George Rough trading as Reginald Mynors and also as the S. P. Q. R. stores, tried before Judge Emden on June 5, 1909.
FRANCIS CHURCHILL STILL , partner in Trower, Still, Freeling, and Parkin, 5, New Square, Lincoln's Inn, solicitors. My firm are agents for E. R. Still, of Bristol, and acted for the Imperial Tobacco Company in the action against Rough. We appeared by counsel in the interpleader action before Master Bonner. I was present; prisoner was sworn and gave evidence. He stated that at the end of 1909 he was in business at Wimbledon with George Rough, that at the beginning of 1910 he was manager of Rough's business at 5, Cheapside, South end-on-Sea; that in February, 1910, Rough sold his business to Mrs. Mynors, prisoner's wife; that Mrs. Mynors paid the money in cash to Rough, and that he saw Rough write out and sign the receipts (produced) for £20 and £20 5s. to Mrs. Mynors, which were put in at the interpleader action.
ALBERT JAMES HATCHER , clerk to Still and Co., corroborated the last witness. Judge Emden cautioned prisoner, who swore that body of the two receipts were in his (prisoner's) handwriting, and that the signature was George Rough's. In my opinion the whole of the documents are in prisoner's writing.
GEORGE ROUGH , 35, Havelock Road, Hammersmith, hairdresser's assistant. I first knew prisoner in March, 1909, when he had a tobacconist's and hairdresser's shop at 107, Merton Road, Wimbledon, and afterwards another shop at 168, Merton Road. I was in his service as hairdresser, he attending to the tobacco business and I to the hair-dressing department, receiving 23s. a week wages. The name upon the shops was "R. Mynors." I left him in September, 1909, after giving him a week's notice. I was never the proprietor of a business at 5, Cheapside, South end, and have never lived there. I have never had a business in my life. I never received £20 or £20 5s. from Mrs. Mynors, receipts produced are not signed by me. I was asked to give false evidence at Lambeth County Court by prisoner, but I could not leave my work to attend. If I could have attended I should have told the truth.
Cross-examined. I was asked to swear an affidavit before the Commissioner. I read a document which I understood was a copy of the one I swore to—I was not prepared to swear to the affidavit produced because it was untrue. I wrote letters to prisoner asking him to give me a character for two and a half years and also for four and a half years, although I was only in his service six months—it was prisoner's suggestion to give me such a character. The affidavit I was asked to swear stated that I established and carried on the business of tobacconist and newsvendor known as the S. P. Q. R. Stores at 5, Cheapside, Southend, that I employed Reginald Mynors as my manager at a salary of 10s. a week and commission, that it was agreed that the tenancy premises was to be taken in Mynor's name, and that he was to occupy rooms over the shop; that in February last I sold the said business to Mrs. Mynors for the sum of £10 for the goodwill and £40 5s., the agreed value of the stock in trade, that the £10 for good-will was retained by Mrs. Mynors to be applied in payment of rent and rates, and that I gave her receipts for £40 5s.; that the two receipts for £20 and £20 5s. were written and signed by me at 5, Cheapside, Southend-on-Sea, on the dates therein named. Affidavit produced which is to that effect was sworn by me. I read the copy which was to the same effect and which was all false. I was asked by Mr. Young, the solicitor's clerk, to give evidence at Lambeth County Court in the action of Martin v. Rough; I do not remember promising to attend. I do not remember telling Young that the affidavit was all right and that I would sign it—I may have said so. He showed me two receipts. I cannot remember whether I told him I had not signed them. I gave Young to understand that I had sold the Southend business to Mrs. Mynors, that she had paid me £20 and £20 5s., and that I had signed receipts for those sums.
The Recorder. How can you ask the jury to convict the prisoner upon such evidence as this?
The jury stated that they had heard enough of the case, and returned a verdict of Not guilty.
No evidence was offered on the indictment for forging and uttering the affidavit, and the jury returned a verdict of Not guilty.
Mr. Walker asked that the prosecutor should be ordered to pay the costs of the defence. The Recorder said that he had his own opinion about the case, and he should make no order for costs. He disallowed the costs of the witness Rough—he was a scandalous witness.
Mr. Warburton prosecuted.
RICHARD THOMAS LAMB . On February 24 at 2 p.m. I was in Bath Road, Cranford, having left the "White Hart" public house, where I had a glass of beer and where I saw prisoner. I pulled out silver and copper from my pocket, paid a penny for the ale, and left. I had got about 300 yd. from the public house when I was tripped up by a man who kicked me, put his hand in my left trouser pocket, took a leather bag from me containing 15 sovereigns, and ran off. It was
the same man whom I had seen in the "White Hart"; I saw him as he ran across the road. On July 13 I was called to Arlington Police Station and picked prisoner out at once from 10 other men.
WALTER CHARLES BLAKE , milk carrier, Cranford. On February 24, 1910, at 2.30 p.m., I saw prosecutor walking along the footpath in Bath Road, followed by the prisoner. They passed me, and were about 100 to 150 yd. away when I saw them both on the pavement struggling together; prisoner got up and ran away; I was too far off to run after him, but I had seen him as he passed me previously, when I was coming out of a customer's house. On July 13 I identified prisoner from among 10 other men. I am certain he is the man I saw with prosecutor; there was no one else in the road at the time.
ANDREW HAYES , "Jolly Waggoner," Bath Road, licensed victualler, On February 24 at 2.45 p.m. I was outside my house when prosecutor made a complaint to me. His face was scratched and he was covered with mud. Shortly afterwards Blake spoke to me. At five or ten minutes past three prisoner came and asked me if I would give him a drink as he had no money; I refused. The place where the robbery took place is about 450 yd. away from my public house.
Sergeant CHARLES LOADER , T Division. On July 13 at 8.10 p.m. I saw prisoner at South all Police Station. I told him that he answered the description of a man wanted for stealing £15 in a leather purse from Richard Thomas Lamb in the Bath Road on February 24, and said that I should take him to Arlington Police Station and place him among a number of men for identification. He said, "Thank God for that; I am innocent; I will go back with you for that." I conveyed him to Arlington, where he was placed among 10 other men of similar appearance, and picked out by the prosecutor, Blake, and Hayes.
HENRY SMITH (prisoner, not on oath). I know nothing about this. I am perfectly innocent. I have been travelling about all my life, and have been shifted by the policemen, and I should have been taken a long time before if I had been the man.
Sergeant CHARLES LOADER , recalled. The complaint was lodged at the police station on February 24 at 4 p.m. Prisoner is a traveling gipsy, living in a caravan. Prosecutor gave the description of the thief; we were searching for prisoner, but were not able to find him till about three weeks ago, when I saw him at Ashford, but he got away before I could arrest him.
Verdict, Not guilty.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL
(Wednesday, July 20.)
Mr. Purcell and Mr. Green prosecuted; Mr. Coombe and Mr. Diggle defended.
JOSEPH MARCUS JOSEPHSON , 85, Croydon Road, Plaistow, builder. I came to England in the year 1890. My father is rabbi in the Government of Minsk, Russia. I have taken out patents for improvements in building out of which in the year 1908 I made over £5,000. I was convicted at this Court in 1892 and sentenced to 10 years' penal servitude. Afterwards, as the result of a petition, I was released as a free man. I started as a builder with money sent by my father. I enjoyed the respect of my co-religionists, and at the time the fire occurred at the Jewish Synagogue I had £13,000 worth of work in hand. In 1905 I was secretary to a company. A charge of fraud was brought against me in connection with goods bought by that firm. I was the only one caught; the others escaped. On the advice of my counsel I pleaded guilty. Shortly afterwards my employer wrote from America exonerating me from all blame. I pleaded guilty because my counsel said I had no earthly chance to get acquitted on account of my past. I was sentenced to two years' hard labour. My family, who are all very rich, wanted me to go to some other country and start afresh, but I have sworn I will never leave this country until I am in a position to prove my innocence. As a builder I be-came bankrupt to the amount of £300. I have paid off £280. (To the Judge. Owing to people like Silverman and prisoner blackmailing me I was continually losing money.) I have settled on my wife out of the £5,000 £1,500 because she assisted me in getting out my patents. I was not a partner in any way with Goldstein last year. I had no work at the Wilkes Street Synagogue. I did not give prisoner directions to do repairs there. I did not say to him, "It is good that you work outside." It is not true that Goldstein said in my hearing to prisoner, "Here is 5s., go and buy the material" on the day of the fire, or that at 9 p.m. I was at Wilkes Street with Goldstein. Prisoner was in my employ before November 18, but not at Wilkes Street. I had to find fault with him as a worker. He repeatedly asked me for work. On the last occasion, Boxing-day, he said I must give him work or £30; if I did not he would give me five years. My wife shut the door. I did not hear it suggested that I was responsible for the burning of the synagogue until I was arrested and charged. The case was dismissed. I was at home on November 18 after 3 or 4 p.m. A Mrs. Birnberg called that evening. I have known her about eight years. She called about renting a house and paid £2 10s. deposit. I typed a receipt in her presence (Exhibit 5). A Mr. Simon Weinstein also called. He is a painter and decorator who works for me. He came about some work I had for him to do. There is an entry of that work in the book. On page 30 is an entry, "November 18, Everard asked for job, £1 5s." I cannot say when he made the signature to entry of November 18. Generally he signed when he called at the office. Weinstein came on November 18 to my house while Mrs. Birnberg was there. A postman brought some letters by the last post, one of which was from Dublin (letter read). Mrs. Birnberg was there
then, I was going to see her off by the 'bus, and she waited while I typed a letter to my solicitors, Miller and Smith. There is an entry of that letter in my post-book. I saw Mrs. Birnberg off at about 10.15 p.m. When this charge was brought against me, Mr. Smith said the receipt I had given to Mrs. Birnberg was most important I looked at my letter-book to see what transactions I had done that day. I then went to Mrs. Birnberg. She produced the receipt. When the charge against me was dismissed at Old Street I consulted my solicitor, Mr. Margetts, as to prosecuting prisoner for perjury. I felt I would never be safe; besides, my father is a rabbi, and it is considered a greater crime than murder to burn a synagogue, and my family would not look at me unless I absolutely clear myself. I tendered for the rebuilding of the synagogue, which tender was accepted. I assume it was the lowest. At that time I had another contract for £1,200. I returned the contract and the £300 which had been deposited because I considered it an honour for the community to entrust with sacred building a man with a bad record like myself, and it helps to clear my character. The synagogue contract was £850, including fittings. The remains of the old synagogue were removed and stored at my yard, and are still there. They were there when the charge of arson was brought. I offered the material for examination. It was taken away. It has been returned.
Cross-examined. The accusation against me when I was convicted in 1892 was that I wanted money from a man who had transactions with my wife. As a matter of fact, he wanted to take liberties with my wife, and I gave him a good thrashing, and I did not have the sense to make a proper statement at the time. I had no chance to do it. I brought the man to the Jewish Court, and according to Jewish law I could not give evidence, the same as I could not give evidence in the English Court, and according to our law he could not give evidence because he was accused of being in my place late at night. He did not appear, although he was called three times. He said he called at my place and my wife gave him something to drink, and he lost his senses and we put him in bed. He offered me money to go from this country. I said I could not go. He gave me a bill for £150, and six weeks afterwards said I had forged his signature and drugged him—first drugged him and extorted the signature. The Court said the signature was too good and a drugged man could not do it. I was convicted of the drugging and acquitted of the forgery. I was sentenced to ten years and my wife to 15 months. I served over seven years. When I came out my father sent me money, with which. I started building. I had a contract to build a branch of the International Bank for £600. The manager financed me, and at the end of the job gave me a present of £10. The £5,000 I got from my parents was two years ago, and since then my troubles commenced. The charge brought against me in 1909 was originally for obtaining credit without disclosing the fact that I was a bankrupt. I did not obtain credit at all; it was the firm. That charge was withdrawn, and I was charged with conspiring to defraud creditors—a long firm business. They made debts of about £500, and went away to New York to open
another branch, I understood. I was manager for the firm. Counsel advised me to plead guilty, as I would get an easier sentence, and I did. I employed prisoner before he worked at the synagogue. Gold-stein recommended him to me. He was not under my orders at the synagogue. That work was nothing to do with me. I understand he was employed by Goldstein from the evidence. I knew nothing about it before. The last work he did for me was in September, when the Building Society foreclosed on my wife's property. Goldstein and I have never been partners. My wife bought the property from Goldstein's father in September, 1908. That is the first transaction I had with Goldstein. The warden of the synagogue asked me to tender for the work at the synagogue. When I saw there was only about £20 worth of work I said it was too small and would not suit me. It is absolutely untrue that I owed prisoner money. This is prisoner's receipt for £49 9s. 3d. I would give him money every week according to the work he did, and when he finished the work at Humberston Street he was not satisfied with what I had given him. I told him to make up an account of what I owed him and I would pay him. He then brought this account, and I paid him. This was in August last. At the police-court he said this stamp was taken off another receipt, which shows to me clearly that he had in his mind, knowing my past, to give me a false receipt and bring a false charge against me. Luckily I got receipts independent of this for every penny I had given him. I agree that the stamp looks as if it had been removed, and say that he must have defrauded the revenue. I did not see prisoner on the Sunday before the fire. Sunday is the day I do my type-writing work. I do not work on Saturday. I might be at the synagogue on Sunday evenings but not in the morning. Goldstein lives a few doors from it. I might have been at Wilkes Street on the morning of the fire, but not in the afternoon or evening. I am going to prove that. I believe I was at Miller and Smith's office on the afternoon of the 18th as well as on the 19th and 20th. If your witnesses say they saw me at the synagogue in the afternoon of the 18th that would be untrue; if I had been I would go to Mr. Goldstein's. I had important letters to answer which I wrote that afternoon at home The letter and postage books will prove it. Mrs. Birnberg came about 9 p.m. I had asked her to call, but did not know she was coming that day. She is an acquaintance, and calls occasionally. She now lives in No. 9, Everard Street. She first moved into No. 13, on the understanding that she had No. 9 when it was ready, as it was more suitable for a shop. On November 18 she paid me £2 10s. deposit. This was three months before she moved in. I gave her a receipt that evening, which I typed in her presence. A workman named Weinstein also called that evening, and stopped from about seven to nine. He stayed in the kitchen till I sent for him, while Mrs. Birnstein was in the office talking to my wife. I kept Weinstein waiting because I had something else to do. I gave him orders as to what to do, fixed the price, and entered it in the book. I do not know if the signature of his in the book was made that night. When I pay a workman money I take his signature for it in my note-book, and afterwards when I go
through their accounts at the office they compare my note-book with them and sign. He would not sign till he was paid. In this book November 18 has been crossed out and December 18 written. I made an error as to the date of payment. It is only a book for myself. I first remembered that Mrs. Birnberg came on November 18 when I looked at my letter-book. I went round to her and looked at the receipt. I did not take it away. I next saw it in Mr. Margett's office.
HENRIETTA BIRNBERG , 9, Everard Street, E. I took the premises in January, 1909. On November 18 I paid £2 10s. deposit to Mr. Josephson. Exhibit 5 is the receipt he gave me that day at 85, Croydon Road, Plaistow. He typed it himself in my presence. I was there from 8.20 to 8.30 p.m. till 10. Simon Weinstein was there at the same time. I did not know him then. While I was there the postman came and a letter was given to Mr. Josephson. He opened it and read it. He was going to see me to my 'bus, and asked me to wait while he typed an answer. I believe he typed it. Mr. Josephson was in the house the whole of the time I was there. I took the receipt home and put it in a desk, which I lock up in a box. I saw an account of the prosecution of Mr. Josephson in the newspaper. After that he came to see me, and asked if I remembered November I could not, but I fetched the receipt, and saw it was the 18th I kept the receipt till I handed it to Mr. Margetts.
Cross-examined. I have known Mr. and Mrs. Josephson a lone time. Six years ago I lived with them for about a year. He asked me to come and see him about the house I was taking in Everard Street when I had got time, not on this particular evening. He said this at his house about two weeks before November 18. I used to go there sometimes on Saturdays and Sundays and in my slack time. I have not been there since November 18—perhaps I was once. I went to live at 13, Everard Street, in January. I moved afterwards to No-9. I paid £20 a year rent, £113s. 4d. a month for No. 9. I did not pay rent for the month I was at No. 13. I paid the deposit as early as November 18 because I wanted to be certain of getting the house. I took some shares in Mr. Josephson's company two years before. I took some others about two months before November 18.
(Thursday, July 21.)
HENRIETTA BIRNBERG , recalled, further cross-examined. I remember josephson being in business in Gray's Inn Road. I did not help him in his business. I used to take food to him. When he was prosecuted there was no question arose as to some account books. I did not take or keep any of them. Between November 18 and going to 9, Everard Street I was earning my living as a tailoress. I earned sometimes 8s. a week, sometimes 6s. When I took 9, Everard Street, I had £30. My cousin kept it for me. (At the request of the Judge the witness wrote the name on a piece of paper, Josephson wrote the same name when required.) Every few weeks I would receive out of
that money perhaps 10s. I had £22 left. I shall draw that when the shop opens in a week or two.
THOMAS LEWIS , managing clerk to Miller and Smith, solicitors, Salters' Hall Court, E.C. Exhibit 6 is a letter to my firm from Mr. Josephson. It enclosed a letter from Ireland. I opened it on the morning of November 19. There is an entry in our call-book that he called on the 19th at 2.30. He said he had arranged with the telephone company to communicate with our office from Ireland, and asked if he could use our telephone. He said the message would come about midday on the 20th. The message did not come through because our telephone was not in order. We had a demand for payment from the telephone company for the call, which we have not paid.
SIMON WEINSTEIN , 11, Everard Street, painter and decorator. I have known Mr. Josephson 15 months, and work for him. I went to 85, Croydon Road, one evening five or six weeks before Christmas saw Mrs. Birnberg there. I did not know her name then. I left at 9.15. Mrs. Birnberg was still there. I went there to get money and a job. I got the job but no money. The job was some work at 17, Everard Street. (Entry of November 18 in Exhibit 2 shown to witness.) I cannot remember when I wrote my name in that book. I signed when I got the money and the work had been done.
(Friday, July 22.)
SAM HERSCHFIELD (prisoner, on oath). I live at 72, Humberstone Street, E. I have been in this country nine years. I have never been convicted. I have known Josephson about two years. I was introduced to him by Goldstein. I have worked at the synagogue for Josephson before this job. Just before the fire I was employed to do work at the synagogue by Josephson and Goldstein. I did £70 to £80 worth of work there before the fire. In October he owed me £30. The work was rendered necessary, they told me, because they had orders from the district surveyor as to 87 to 93, Wilkes Street to do underpinning and repairs. I agreed with them to repair and repaint those for £60. Johnson did the underpinning. There was a written agreement. Goldstein has it. I started work on the synagogue about three weeks before the fire. I was paid about £9 before the fire; that was for material. A week after I started they came and said there is a misfortune and they do not know what to do, they have examined the synagogue, and they wished to make arrangements with me to make an end. Goldstein said, "I am afraid in case Hirschfield gives us away." Josephson arranged the plan. I was to be sent outside to work in order that the public should think my lamp exploded. I used a paraffin lamp to burn the paint off. Then they went away I was surprised; I did not know at the time what they meant. He being the master I had to carry out his instructions. When they saw me walking outside they said, "It is very good that you are working
outside." On the day of the fire I went there at 7 a.m. I waited till they arrived; I wanted money for materials. They came at Goldstein gave me 5s. I wanted paraffin for burning off the paint and methylated spirit to warm the lamp till I could light it. He said I should not buy everything at one shop because I won't be served with so much inflammable material. I went first to a shop at the corner of Castle Street, Aldgate, and then to 52, Brick Lane. I bought half a gallon of paraffin at each place. After that I bought one gallon at Humberston Street. I brought it back to the synagogue. Goldstein tore up the bills. I was burning off the paint from 12 till four; then Goldstein came and said, "Go home and have your tea and come back about nine." I asked why. He said, "We cannot go on with the work because we have a meeting to-night to distribute bread to the poor." The meeting was at the synagogue. I had never worked at 9 p.m. before; six was my time for leaving off. I did not think it was work I was wanted to do. I thought he would give me money to pay the workman. I had no idea to what use the paraffin was going to be put. I thought it was a joke. I came back about ten to nine. I found Josephson and Goldstein at Goldstein's shop, three doors from the synagogue. They called me over and said, "The meeting will soon be over, and we shall make an end of it." Then Gold-stein asked Josephson if it would not be advisable to take out the scrolls of the law. Josephson said, "Don't touch anything in case the fire will be extinguished by the fireman and after a search the scrolls will not be found and they will come to the conclusion that somebody must have done it." Then he winked at me. Josephson said, "It is all right; I know how to fix the thing properly." When the meeting was over we three went into the synagogue. Josephson went into the gallery and opened the stopcock in the middle of the big chandelier. Goldstein put the methylated spirit and paraffin on the floor and the seats that were piled up, and called to Josephson, "Are you ready." Josephson said "Yes." Goldstein lit the floor with a candle and Josephson ran out and went home. Goldstein told me not to go home, I could go over the other and he will come back in an hour or two.
Judge Rentoul. What is the explanation of Goldstein not being called.
Mr.GREEN. Your Lordship said to Mr. Purcell of the opening day that so far as Goldstein was concerned you did not think Goldstein could corroborate Josephson or Josephson coroborate Goldstein. So far as the allegations of perjury as affecting Josephson and Goldstein are concerned the only persons who could speak to those would be Josephson and Gold-stein We therefore thought it right, having regard to your Lord-ship's suggestion, to abandon those allegations and abandon all the paragraphs that were necessary to those allegations.
Examination resumed. When they started pouring out the paraffin and methylated spirits I was astounded. They told me what they were going to do, but I would not believe them. Goldstein told me to go away and come back because I was in a very nervous state, and
so that people should not notice anything wrong with me. I did not see Josephson again that night. When I came back the fire engines were working at the synagogue. The firemen asked Goldstein who was the landlord; he said his father-in-law was. The fireman asked if he was insured, and he said, "No." I was going to tell the police when I had got my money. On the morning of the fire they told me I should be paid all my money, the £30 owing and the £60, the contract price for the work I was doing then. Immediately after the fire I said, "How can you burn down the synagogue"; they said "Look at the religious man." They had to hold me because I nearly fainted. The following morning Goldstein gave me £2, and said as soon as they got the insurance money I should get my money and this £2 would not be counted. I saw Josephson many times after the fire at Goldstein's shop. They had a case on with Lord Huntly, from which they expected to get money, and I was promised payment out of that or the fire insurance, whichever came in first. I told them I could not work, the scene of the fire was always before me, and my conscience pricked me. For three months Goldstein did not let me work but took me with him wherever he went. Josephson told Goldstein to do it. The first man I told was Silverman; he told the police.
Cross-examined. I did not know till nine o'clock that they were going to fire the synagogue. Had I known it before I would have gone to the police. Up to then I thought they were joking with me. They suggested the fire three weeks before, when I started burning off the paint. They said I should not burn the paint off inside but outside. I do not recollect whether anything more was said about the fire until the Sunday before the fire. I heard Josephson say to Gold-stein, "The best thing that could happen was that the synagogue should go away in a flame." I believed then it was a joke. I heard Josephson say to Goldstein, "Ask him to get the stuff in order that the place could be got rid of." Goldstein gave me 5s. to get the stuff. I made no answer the whole time. I asked Goldstein in a jocular way, "If you intend to do this what will I have?" He said, "You will get your £60 for the work." The statement I made at the police court about being hard up and working for 5s. a day referred to after the fire. They could not understand properly at Old Street. I went to see Silverman because he was my neighbour. I did not know he had quarrels with Josephson. The bankruptcy proceedings by Silverman against Goldstein were after the fire. I was there as a witness for Goldstein. I do not know if Silverman was prosecuted for perjury. I do not know how many times he has been convicted The reason I have not said before that I was so overcome that Joseph son and Goldstein had to hold me up is that I had not been asked. I told my wife. I said at the police court that Goldstein lit the stuff with a candle and I was watching so that people should not see, and after the fire started the three of us went out. I did not know what I was standing at the door for until the last minute. Goldstein asked me to watch. He did not say he was going to make the fire.
Mr. Goldstein's. I could not get what I wanted from him and went to prisoner's house. His wife told me he was in Wilkes Street. I went there and found him at the baker's shop with Goldstein and Josephson. This was about 8 to 9 p.m. I could not work that night as I did not get the steps. I went for them next morning, and they were burnt.
Cross-examined. I saw Mrs. Hirschfield at 7 p.m. Prisoner told me to come in the morning as he was busy. Josephson had on an over-coat and cap, also an umbrella. I did not notice anything else. Prisoner first asked me what I recollected about this night at the trial at the police court.
SIMON FOGALL , 79, Nelson Street, E. I worked for Mr. Goldstein as foreman baker. I was working there the night of the fire till nine or ten Friday morning. Goldstein assists the workmen in the bake-house. The last I saw of him on the Thursday was at 8 p.m. I know Josephson well. He was at the shop on Thursday at half-past three. I saw him several times that day in the shop. The last time I saw him would be about 8 p.m. I saw Goldstein after the fire. I cannot remember if I saw Josephson.
Cross-examined. I read the case in the paper and went to the court out of curiosity. Somebody at the police court, while Goldstein and Josephson were being tried, asked me as to seeing Josephson on the night of the fire, and I told him.
JOHN STONE , solicitor's clerk. I was near the synagogue on the night of the fire with a Mr. Pask. I have known Josephson some years. My principal defended him. I saw him that night about nine o'clock, outside Goldstein's. I pointed him out to Mr. Pask as a man with a certain career. We went on to see a Mr. Silverman. Next night we went to see him again, and then I heard of the fire.
ARTHUR PASK , traveller to W. Ashton, Chancery Lane. I was with last witness on the night of the fire. He pointed out Josephson to me between 8 and 9 p.m. in Quaker Street, which is off Wilkes Street. I have seen Josephson since in Aldgate and here. I think he had on a cap and overcoat that night.
Cross-examined. I am here on subpoena. Stone is not a relative or a friend. I know Silverman. He did not speak to me about giving evidence in this case.
Verdict, Not guilty.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Thursday, July 21.)
GEORGE WATTS , 182, Grange Road, Plaistow, collector of rents. On July 1, at 10.40 p.m., I went with the witness Ward to the "Sultan" beerhouse, Plaistow, when I saw the two prisoners, both of whom I knew, and I immediately left. As I came out from the door George Cotter struck me a blow at the back of my head; and he with others dragged me into the middle of the road. A man named Collier was there. I was knocked down, and George Cotter got on top of me. I was kicked on the body, shoulders and head, and became unconscious. Two persons picked me up, and I found that £2 4s. of my employer's money, consisting of a sovereign, two half-sovereigns, and four separate shillings, was taken from my left trousers pocket, and a gold ring from my finger. I got to the corner of Grange Road and blew my whistle, when George Cotter attempted to hit me again. I got away blowing my whistle. On July 2 I went with the police to 20, Lower Road, where I saw George Cotter in bed. I identified him as the man who had attacked me, and he was taken into custody. I did not know either of the prisoners until I saw them in the public house.
JOHN WARD , 128, Upper Road, Plaistow, plumber. On July 1, at 10.40 p.m., I went with prosecutor to the "Sultan" where I saw George Cotter among 20 other people. He called prosecutor a broker's man, using a foul expression. I had a drink, went to the urinal, and left the house, when I saw prosecutor lying in the road-way, with George Cotter on top of him, Collier and two others kicking ing him. Prosecutor's face was bleeding, and with assistance I got him up, the men running away. I did not see Thomas Cotter. I knew both prisoners by sight.
GEORGE JAMES , 130, Grange Road, fish porter. On July 1, at 10.50 p.m., I saw prosecutor coming out of the "Sultan," when George Cotter struck him at the side of his head, and dragged him into the roadway. They both fell. Collier kicked prosecutor. Thomas Cotter was standing by his brother, and pulled prosecutor down as he tried to get up. George Cotter kicked prosecutor.
Police-constable FREDERICK STURGEON , 490 K. On July 1 at 11.20 p.m. I was on duty in Hermit Road, when I heard a whistle and went to Grange Road. There was a large crowd there. I went to prosecutor's house; his face was covered with blood, he had a cut across the nose and his eyes were going black; he was somewhat dazed. Police-constable Jones took him to St. Mary's Hospital. On July 2 at 5 a.m. I went to George Cotter's house and found him in bed asleep. I told him to get up and dress; that I would arrest him for highway robbery with violence. He made no reply. On the way to the station he said Watts had bitten him on the left thumb, and said, "I admit striking him at the back of the head outside the 'Sultan.'"
In reply to the charge he said, "I know nothing at all about the money or the ring, but I admit striking him in self defence."
Cross-examined. I did not mention the name of the prosecutor or the money or ring at George Cotter's house. I charged him with robbery with violence, and he at once came to the station. The station sergeant there charged him with robbing Watts and stealing from his person the money and ring. He replied, "I know nothing at all about the money or the ring, but I admit striking him in self defence."
Police-constable RICHARD JONES , 176 K. On July 1 I heard a whistle, went to Grange Road, and afterwards to prosecutor's house, and took him to the hospital. On July 5 at 6.30 p.m. I saw Thomas Cotter in the yard at the back of 74, Cleavers Road, East Ham, where he lives. I told him I should take him into custody for highway robbery with violence with another man, Collier, not in custody. I said, "You know about your brother George, he is in custody." He said, "I admit I was there, but the only thing I done was to try to get my brother away—to pull my brother away." When charged he repeated that statement.
GEORGE COTTER (prisoner, not on oath). On July 1 I was inside the "Sultan" when prosecutor came in. I said, "Come in, Mr. Broker's Man." He turned round and said, "I don't know you—get out of my company." I walked away. He claimed me by the throat and I pulled his hand away. After that he struck me in the mouth. I struck him back in self defence on the back of the neck. He walked outside and pulled his coat off to fight me. I put my coat on and went home. I was indoors by 11 o'clock. The constables came round to my house at five in the morning. They told me they stood out there from eleven to five. They came into my room and said, "Come to the station." When they searched me I had only 6d. in coppers on me.
GEORGE WATTS , recalled. My money consisted of a sovereign, two half-sovereigns, and four separate shillings. I sometimes act at broker's man. When George Cotter said, "Here is the broker's man," I walked out. I did not strike him. In the struggle he put his hand near my mouth and I bit it.
ALBERT OSBORNE , 31, Suffolk Road, Plaistow, costermonger. On July 1 towards 11 p.m. I was in the "Sultan." George Cotter and prosecutor started rowing and fighting in the bar; they both got out side and struggled. Thomas Cotter tried to part them, and told his brother to go off home. As prosecuter went to walk away he was knocked down by Jack Collier, who punched and kicked him; I then went back to the public house, drank my beer up, and went home I did not do anything to assist prosecutor; there were about 20 people there.
Thomas Cotter parted his brother and took him away; he said, "Come along out of it and come home." Collier and prosecutor continued fighting; prosecutor was on the ground and I saw Collier put his foot to him; I could not say if he kicked him. Prosecutor got up and started blowing his whistle. I did not see George Cotter on the top of or kicking prosecutor.
Verdict (both), Not guilty.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Wednesday, July 20.)
Mr. Leycester and Mr. Adrian Clark prosecuted.
The alleged libel was contained in a circular distributed by prisoner: "Important notice Charles Curtis will shortly write an account of his life, showing how he started, and the manner in which he was robbed by George Reuben Habershon, of Green's End, Woolwich, entitled 'How I was robbed by a Woolwich solidtor.'" Prisoner pleaded not guilty, and put in a plea of justification, the principal particular in which was (in effect) that "prosecutor obtained my signature to a deed of release on the understanding that he should pay me £1,000 in cash; instead of paying me £1,000 he produced a statement purporting to show how £800 of such sum was expended, and gave me only £200."
FREDERICK ROSEDALE , 45, New Road, Woolwich, tailor. I am a tenant of Mr. Habershon's. On April 15 prisoner came to my shop between 5 and 6 p.m. with several type-written notices. He handed one to me (producing Exhibit 1) He said he was going to the Town Hall where there was a football meeting. He had 500 or 600 of these in his hand, and he was going to give them out there.
CHARLES COHEN , Station Chambers, New Road, Woolwich. I am manager of the Woolwich Property Company, which belongs to the prosecutor. On the evening of April 15 I was in my office when prisoner called and handed me a type-written notice (Exhibit 2). He asked me to give it to Mr. Habershon, and I told him I would I have known prisoner for four or five years. He came to my office about three years ago with Habershon. He asked Habershon if he could have a share in the coffee tavern. Habershon said he could not. On another occasion (I do not recollect the date) the sum of £400 was mentioned—that if Habershon would" pay him £400 he would let him alone, or something to that effect.
Cross-examined by prisoner. I believe some of the houses used to belong to you. I would say the income of the coffee tavern would be perhaps £400. You did certain alterations, converting it into shops. I do not know how long you were on the job—some months
or weeks, I cannot say. You were a master man over the people doing the work.
THOMAS HALL , hall keeper, Woolwich Borough Council. On the evening of Friday, April 15, there was a public meeting at the Town Hall in connection with the Woolwich Arsenal Football Club. While the public were assembling prisoner handed me a typewritten circular (Exhibit 3). He asked me to read it. After I had read it he asked me what I thought of it. I asked him then if he did not think he was sailing rather close to the wind in circulating literature of such description. He said, no, it was the truth, and added words to the effect that he would be rather glad if Mr. Habersbon would take action against him. He said he was having 250 others printed but he was rather afraid they would not be ready in time to be distributed among the people who were attending the meeting.
To prisoner. I remember your coming to the Town Hall some years ago to see a certain electric light. There were some alterations being made at the Assembly Rooms, so that they should give exhibitions of animated pictures, and to do that they would have to conform to certain County Council regulations as to light, and we had that particular kind of light. It was an ordinary gas jet, but with a special kind of box.
GEORGE REIBEN HABERSHON , 29 and 30, Green's End, Woolwich, solicitor. I practise in Woolwich and at Cannon Street. I have been a solicitor since 1892. The same of my firm is Habershon, Walts and Company. It has been in Woolwich for 50 years. I have known prisoner practically since I have been in Woolwich, namely, 18 years. Before 1903 my firm had done work for him as solicitors. I know him as being a person dealing in real property in Woolwich and the neighbourhood and doing building. He was a well-known property jobber in the district. He did alterations and so on, but did not build for other people; he built for himself. In 1903 he informed me that he had agreed to purchase some freehold ground rents in Plumstead and was proposing to buy the ground rents and then buy the short leases of the houses and pull them down and build shops or private houses as the case might be. I was to find the money upon the terms that the profits should be divided between us and that all the law work in connection in the matter should be passed through the office and done by my firm. The agreement was carried out, the freehold being purchased and also the short leases. I found the money either myself or borrowed it on mortgage. The houses were pulled down and rebuilt. From time to time some of them were sold and others mortgaged. All the moneys passed through me. I gave the cheques for the workmen's wages and materials and all other expenses. All payments were made by cheques which are still in existence. Prisoner would produce a statement every week of the amount of wages and I would give him a cheque for that amount, and if there were bills for materials and he said that so much was to be paid for such and such a person, I used to give him the money. Sometimes he produced the bills and sometimes not. He used to find buyers for the properties and
the matter would be completed at the office, and I or the mortgages receive the purchase money. At that time I was perfectly friendly with prisoner and trusted him implicitly and he me. These operations extended from about 1903 to the beginning of 1907 when we completed the rebuilding of some premises in New Road, Woolwich. During that time prisoner would have cheques from me on account of his own profit; they would be drawn to him and the counterfoils would be so marked if they were on account of profits. The cheques are all here. The properties when purchased, would be sometimes in his name, sometimes in mine, and sometimes in our joint names. In 1907 a good many of them still stood in his name. They were all mortgaged except those we sold. In 1904 and 1905 I sent him accounts of the financial dealings with the firm and in 1907, when the work was practically finished, I had complete accounts made up in the office showing all the money transactions from the very start to the finish. They were made out by my clerks and a copy of them sent to prisoner. The balance-sheet showed a summary of all the accounts and what was left. Those accounts are here. About that time prisoner had had in cheques, on account of his profits, about £1,277. The amounts received as deposits passed through my hands and some of those were the only items about which there was any dispute. I did not receive those moneys; prisoner would sell the properties and receive the deposits I do not know what he has done with the deposits. They did not pass through my hands except on one or two occasions when they were paid to me, and they are shown, of course, in the accounts. These were the chief matters about which there were disputes. The amount involved in deposits was about £300 or £400. The amount of profits divided represented about £1,960 each. Prisoner admits having had about £1,277. He was several days at my office inspecting the accounts with my clerks, and the accounts were rectified. I asked prisoner what values he thought should be put on the properties, and the values he suggested I agreed to. There was no disagreement at that time about the values. I wanted the settlement to be made hen the properties were ultimately disposed of, but he was very nxious to have money, and asked me whether I could let him have some, and ultimately I agreed to pay him this money, and he was to take over the houses in Plum Lane and I was to take over all the other houses at a price which had been fixed by us, and which had been placed in the balance-sheet. There were eight houses in Plum Lane; originally there were nine; we sold one for £275. Those eight houses were valued in the account at £250 each—£2,000. The Capital and Counties Bank had a charge on them of £1,923 at that time, which I had guaranteed to the extent of £400. The houses were in prisoner's name and the charge to the bank of the house, 21, Arthur Street, was included in the settlement. In regard to the Plum Lane houses, prisoner took them over at a price less than he paid for them, namely, £1,923. The partnership was out of pocket on those houses £75. I have spent a good deal of money on them in repairs. Prisoner received the rents of the Plum Lane houses. 21, Arthur Street, was bought by us. It was charged to the bank—I gave it to prisoner.
It was valued in the accounts at £250. All the other properties came to me, subject to their mortgages. The out-of-pocket expenses which I found during the whole period ran into some thousands. Of course, some of the moneys would come back again as we sold the properties, I had found all the money which prisoner had on account of profits. He asked me to give him £1,000. I told him that under the balance-sheet he would not be entitled to anything like that; but, ultimately, I said I would give him £1,000, subject to the payments I had previously mentioned to him. This account shows what was due to him according to the balance-sheet as corrected in red ink (£662 2s. 0d.) These are the amounts paid in excess of those received. (The witness explained the figures.) In addition to the £682 there was due to defendant £50, profit or commission which I agreed to pay him on his buying the "Duke of Connaught" coffee tavern, and I agreed to pay him £1,000, in the way shown by that statement, to include everything. I sent him a letter of June 13, 1907: "Dear Sir,—As mentioned to-day I enclose a list of the purchase moneys still outstanding, amounting to £228 12s. 0d. There were certain charges on the Land Register for all of them, except the first two items. I cannot be troubled to collect these moneys, especially as some of them are not registered in my name. I will, therefore, deduct the amount from the moneys I am going to pay you and you can collect them when you like. There are several other items that will have to be adjusted," etc. The "purchase moneys still outstanding" were in respect of properties sold; but not completely paid for. This is a copy of the list enclosed. 1904 has nothing to do with this matter but some older matter. Only the first sheet of that was enclosed in the letter. Eustace Habershon is my brother, an architect. He did the architectural and surveying work for the partnership property and also for property of which prisoner was the owner. The amount that he took into account was about £50. I have the accounts with my papers. £33 12s. is the amount due to Eustace Habershon (prisoner's share). The £228 12s. 0d. was payable by instalments. On July 17, 1907, prisoner met me at my office, when a release and receipt were signed by him. Some of the transactions were in Mrs. Curtis's name. She was living at Southport and did not come up to sign this deed. This is prisoner's receipt for the £1,000: "Received of Mr. G. N. Habershon balance of £200 in full settlement. Charles Curtis. July 17, '07." The £228 12s. 0d. is money still due to me and prisoner in respect of properties we had sold, and such were neither in his nor his wife name. One of these cheques was in the joint names of prisoner and myself. A solicitor, acting for prisoner, a few weeks after the settlement came in and asked me to sign a transfer into prisoner's name entirely, which I did. I do not know whether prisoner has collected the moneys, He said there were a few amounts—£20 or £30—that had still to be paid. As a matter of fact, I have had to pay £124 odd. In regard to the Kent Reliance Building Society, prisoner when he called at my office, shortly before the settlement, told me he had a claim from the society for £75, moneys due from him for arrears of instalments on mortgages on his private property, and he asked
me if I would pay the £75 to the society out of the moneys I was going to pay him; this I did, as on previous occasions. That property had nothing to do with the partnership. This is a statement setting out what the arrears were, in the secretary's writing. I should say I got it from prisoner. As to the item, Capital and Counties Hank £400, when the Plum Lane property was purchased it was purchased in prisoner's name and mortgaged by him to the Capital and Counties Bank with a covering guarantee from me of £400. Before the settlement, at our interviews, I told prisoner I could not complete the final settlement unless I was released from my liability under the £400 guarantee, and he was trying to arrange a private mortgage at the time of the settlement so as to pay off the bank, but the arrangement was not completed: so I told him I would pay the £400 into his account at the Capital and Counties Bank, and at the time of settlement I drew a cheque for £400, and went with the defendant to the bank and saw the manager, and the cheque was endorsed by prisoner and paid into his account. The next item is £50 which prisoner had on account of the £1,000 a few days before, when he came up from Southport. These are the cheque and receipt (produced): "Received of Geo. N. Habershon the sum of £50 on account of moneys payable to me on the settlement of property transactions; 7 July, 1907." When I signed the release I told him I had now got the deed ready about which he had called previously, and that it was in full discharge of all moneys between us. He said, "That is all right." I gave it to him to read. He said, "That is all right; I don't want to read it." The amounts paid to my brother and to the Kent Reliance Building Society were not paid by individual cheques, but in account. The building society transaction was complicated. When prisoner refused to read the deed I said, "You must know what is in the deed; I shall read it right through," and I did so, explaining its effect. He signed it and my clerk witnessed it. At the same interview prisoner signed the receipt which has been put in. I went over the statement with him before reading the deed. He never raised any objection to the way in which the £1,000 was paid—we had arranged it all previously, and I then gave him a cheque for £200 and second charges for unpaid purchase money (£228 12s. 0d.), and he was perfectly satisfied, he executing the necessary deeds to transfer the properties to me. On June 30, 1908, I received a letter on his behalf from Messrs. Waltons, solicitors, stating that on a comparison of the accounts with prisoner's pass-books there appeared to be considerable differences in his favour, and asking for an appointment to go fully into the matter. I replied to Messrs. Waltons explaining that the whole of the matter had been settled on July 17, 1907, and I heard no more from them. In July, 1908, the houses in Plum Lane were put up for sale by auction by the bank. I was still liable on my guarantee for the £400. I instructed someone to buy the houses. Prisoner had allowed the property to depreciate. Some were let. I have not the figure here that I paid for them. I paid the bank £1,677. Prisoner was not in the auction room, but I saw him afterwards in the bar of the hotel, where the auction was held. He followed me out and walked by my side and said,
"I shall follow you until you give me into custody," and he followed me to Mr. Cohen's office. He was very wild and excited and had been drinking. He said he would follow me to my private house and create a disturbance there. He followed me to the station and got into the train and out at an intervening station, but he did not come to my house. In Cohen's office he said if I would give him £400 he would not bother me any more. The next day I sent him a letter in the name of my firm. "16 July, 1908.—Habershon, Watts and Co. to Mr. Curtis. Sir,—We write on behalf of our Mr. G. N. Habershon to firmly protest against your disgraceful behaviour to him last evening in following him about," etc. I had a letter on July 31 from Mr. Barclay Jones, a solicitor, acting on behalf of defendant. "Private.—I have been consulted by Mr. Chas. Curtis, of Plumstead, with reference to the accounts you have rendered him," etc. I replied by letter of August 1, and there were further letters. No action was taken to set aside the release and I heard nothing more of it. In October' last Mr. Norman wrote to me on behalf of prisoner, but nothing came of it. I told all these solicitors that they were at liberty to come and see the accounts and ask anything they liked about them, and even after this prosecution was started. I instructed my clerk on June 21 to take the accounts to the office of Mr. Whittaker, the solicitor who then represented prisoner. It was never suggested, until this plea of justification, that I had cheated prisoner into signing the release by pretending I was going to give him £1,000 in cash, nor was it suggested that the "Duke of-Connaught" coffee tavern was a partnership transaction. I told him I would give him £50 commission if he bought. He paid a deposit of £165 and asked me to pay my cheque into his account to meet it, which I did on October 27, 1905, and I have the bank receipt for it (produced). I bought the coffee tavern, providing some of the money myself, and borrowing the rest from the bank. Prisoner had nothing to do with the borrowing. The bank manager is here. This is the charge (produced) dated January 22, I think I borrowed about £3,000 and paid off the bank and then gave the documents back again. The ground floor was converted into lock-up shops, the work being done by the partnership workmen, who were working a few yards away on a building in New Road, and the estimated cost (£600) was to be paid by me in instalments. Prisoner never suggested until the plea of justification that he was to have wages for that work. I had a letter from him dated October 15, in which he says, "You must admit you offered me £50, my full share in the coffee tavern, of which I have not yet received a penny," I answered on the same date, "Having paid you all money, which includes your profit in the coffee tavern, we cannot allow the matter to be reopened," etc., I appointed my manager when the coffee tavern was bought, granted all the leases, and paid all the heavy expenses in connection with it. Prisoner has never had anything to do with it. At a conversation in my manager's office (Mr. Cohen) at the end of 1905 or early in 1906 prisoner asked me whether I would not give him an interest in the coffee tavern. I said, "No, certainly not; I purchased it on my own, I paid for it with my own moneys, bearing all
the expenses, and I would keep it." I said, "I have given you an interest in the New Road shops." We charged for the law work done by our firm, which charges were inserted in the accounts. They amounted to £875 2s. 3d., including stamp duties and out-of-pocket expenses £214 6s. 9d., leaving a net amount of £660 15s. 6d., of which I paid half. I have prepared a statement of account in respect of each of the properties. According to scale the amount would have been £1,325 10s. 9d., including the sum out of pocket; that would be under the Solicitors' Remuneration Act. Prisoner has not taken any steps to have the bill taxed. If it were taxed I should be allowed the full scale.
To prisoner. I never said the coffee tavern cost £1,500—it was £1,650. It was £3,300 in all. £1,500 for the lease and £1,800 for the freehold. I paid for the freehold. I bought some property for £650 the same day, the total amount coming to £6,640. I asked you to bid for the freehold of the coffee tavern for me and you did buy for me, and the deposit came to £640 or £664, which I paid. I borrowed the money for the coffee tavern in the beginning of 1906. There was no cheque on joint account throughout the matter. I drew the cheques on my own account. Whatever moneys were received from the purchasers I received and paid into the bank. As property was sold the money was paid in. If you paid £5,000 out of your own pocket in 1901 it has nothing to do with me. These cheques were given to us and endorsed by us in 1901, but they had nothing to do with any of these transactions. I do not know what they relate to, but probably to matters of business my firm was completing. I do not think you had much money before you started with me. I have I.O.U.'s of yours, some dated 1901 and 1902. You may have had some money but you could not have had much for I lent you money in 1901 and 1902, and can produce the I.O.U.'s if you would like to see them. I should judge they were purchase money for properties you were dealing in. There is nothing to show what they were for. I do not know that I had, £200 of your money in 1901 and 1902. I never had any transactions with you apart from ordinary professional matters prior to 1903. In regard to the coffee tavern I do not know why you should not have worked without receiving wages. You were getting the profits for New Road and were not paying me back any of the money. You were superintending the work. That is why you were getting an interest in the profits. It did not matter to you whether you were superintending the work in New Road or the Assembly Rooms. The amount relating to alterations of the coffee tavern was agreed at £600, which was to be debited against me in the accounts. I think I could have got it done for less than £600. At first I lost on it; when I bought I got no income from it. It was shut up and was no good, and that is why you bought it cheaply. I did not go the auction sale and buy it myself because I was acting as solicitor for some of the debenture holders, and was also solicitor to the liquidator. It was sold by order of the Court, and I paid considerably more than I received My brother was partner at the time. The style of my firm has been altered two or three times in twenty years. The name was altered
according to its construction. The cheque for deposit (£664) was on the London and Provincial Bank. I gave you my cheque to meet it. You also had an account there. The profit shown, of £2,000, went in wages and material to build. You brought an action against me in the county court, and withdrew on terms.
(Thursday, July 21.)
GEORGE REUBEN HABERSHON , further cross-examined by prisoner Witness was pressed at length as to the transaction of July 17, 1907; he persisted in his story told in chief, and denied various suggestions made by prisoner (for which see prisoner's evidence, later). Witness denied prisoner's suggestion that he had refused to allow chartered accountants to go into the figures; on the contrary, he had repeatedly offered solicitors writing on behalf of prisoner to give every facility for an investigation, but nothing had ever come of it.
(Friday, July 22.)
CHARLES CURTIS (prisoner, on oath) admitted the publication of the libel. (In a long examination of the accounts he endeavoured to show that certain properties, treated by prosecutor as his own, were in fact acquired on joint account; further, that prosecutor had debited him with exorbitant law costs. On the main point, as to the inter-view of July 17, 1907, prisoner's evidence was as follows.) I would not have signed the release except that prosecutor promised me £1,000 in cash. On this day I was with prosecutor in his office for nearly two and a half hours. I said, "Mr. Habershon, I am sick and tired of this."; he said, "So am I"; I said, "Is this all you are going to give me, £1,000 in cash; you know I am entitled to more; I put all my money into the concern; you keep working on that cash deficiency of £2,432 19s. 8d.; how can that be, when it shows a profit of just on £6,000; but rather than go to Court I will take it." Yet after I had signed the release, all he gave me was £200.
Cross-examined. Habershon read the release through to me before I signed it. I understood that I was to receive £1,000. I did not read the receipt before I signed it. I was so upset at only receiving the £200 instead of the £1,000 that I was absolutely lost. I never went to the police to complain that I had been robbed. I did communicate with the Incorporated Law Society; they sent me forms to fill up, and I did not go on with it as I had not the means. I have employed three or four solicitors over this matter, but have never brought an action against prosecutor.
ROBERT SIMMONS , a clerk, not now in any employment, was called by prisoner to speak to his analysis of accounts furnished to him by prisoner (last night) in relation to the Slade property. It turned out that the accounts submitted to witness were the old uncorrected accounts.
long before the settlement of July 27, 1907; and the witness could only prove additions and calculations on immaterial sets of figures.
GEORGE ERNEST PRIME (called by the prosecution). I am clerk to Mr. Habershon. On July 17, 1907, I was present when prisoner signed the receipt and release. Habershon called me into his room; he read the deed of release through to prisoner, explaining that it was a release from all moneys that might be due to him or his wife; prisoner replied, "That's all right," and signed the deed. I took it into my own room and attested it, so that I did not actually see prisoner sign the receipt. Previously, on 10 or 12 occasions prisoner had called at the office and gone through the accounts with me; many alterations were suggested and agreed upon; he never suggested any claim in respect of the "Duke of Connaught."
Cross-examined by prisoner. It is not the fact that at all our interviews you left our office dissatisfied and rowing.
Verdict, Guilty of publishing the libel; plea of justification not proved.
Sentence, Three months' imprisonment, second division; prisoner to pay the costs of the prosecution.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Thursday, July 21, and Friday, July 22.)
KINZETT, Abraham (55, bookseller),. BOKENHAM, Philip Fleming (32, printer), BOWDEN, Albert (29, caterer), KELLY, Edward (56, hawker), PUDDIFOOT, Arthur (29, printer), and PUDDIFOOT, John Wesley (51, printer), conspiring and agreeing together to print and cause to be printed for sale divers books, to wit, "De Profundis," in which there was then subsisting copyright, without the consent in writing of Robert Ross, the proprietor thereof; knowing such books to have been so unlawfully printed, did conspire to publish and sell and expose for sale and to cause to be published, sold and exposed for sale and to have in their possession for sale such books so unlawfully printed without such consent as aforesaid; conspiring to defraud, injure, and prejudice the said proprietor and to deprive him of the profits arising from the property of the said copyrights.
Mr. C. F. Gill, K.C., Mr. Muir, and Mr. Oddie prosecuted; Mr. Forrest Fulton appeared for Kinzett; Mr. Huntly Jenkins for Boken-ham: Mr. George Elliott, K.C., for Bowden; Mr. Louis Green for J. W. Puddifoot.
All the accused, except Arthur Puddifoot, pleaded guilty. Against Arthur Puddifoot no evidence was offered, and a verdict of Not guilty was entered. Bokenham and J. W. Puddifoot confessed to previous convictions.
Sentences: Kinzett, Two months' imprisonment, second division; Bokenham, six months' imprisonment; Bowden, fined £20; Kelly, released on his own recognisances in £10 to come up for judgment if called upon; J. W. Puddifoot, One month's imprisonment.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE RIDLEY.
(Friday, July 22.)
Prisoner in 1906 entered the employment of the prosecutor, and was in his service two or three months. He afterwards applied to him for monetary assistance and for a character, and on one or two occasions prosecutor gave him small sums of money and a character. In the present year, failing to obtain further assistance, prisoner wrote to the prosecutor threatening to shoot him. He now stated that he had not the slightest intentior of carrying out the threat.
Sentence, Six months' hard labour.
SCHOOSMITH, Edward Claver (30, none) , attempting to commit and perpetrate the abominable crime of buggery with a male person whose name is unknown. (Second Count.) Unlawfully committing certain acts of gross. indecency with another male person.
Verdict, Not guilty.
PILCHER, Frederick Joseph (61, engineer) , forging a will and testament purporting to be the last will and testament of Mary Lilian Kerferd; (second count) uttering that forged will knowing it to be forged and with intent to defraud.
Mr. Muir, Mr. Travers Humphreys, and Mr. Oddie prosecuted; Mr. Marshall Hall, K.C., Mr. Curtis Bennett, and Mr. Hugh Brodie defended.
LANCELOT DESMOND FELLOWES , clerk in the Probate Registry, Somerset House, produced a document purporting to be the last will and testament of Mary Lilian Kerferd (Exhibit 1), dated May 19, 1898, attached to which was the oath of the executor (Exhibit 2) signed Frederick J. Pilcher and dated May 8, 1909; the Act of Probate (Exhibit 3), dated May 14, 1909; a letter (Exhibit 4) from a Mr. Holme, solicitor, of Liverpool, to Stephenson, Harwood and Co., dated November 4, 1909; an injunction (Exhibit 120), dated October 19, 1909, restraining prisoner and his agents from dealing with the deceased's estate; an order (Exhibit 121), dated October 25, 1909, appointing an administrator pending the action; an affidavit of prisoner (Exhibit 122), dated March 23, 1910, together with letter referred to therein; order revoking probate (Exhibit 123), dated June 6, 1910, and condemning prisoner in costs; and the pleadings in
that action (Exhibit 34), the statement of claim alleging that the will was a forgery.
FRANK STOKES POPLAR , Streatley-on-Thames. The deceased was my niece. I was abroad when she died. I last saw her in December, 1908, in London. When abroad, prisoner wired me, saying my niece was seriously ill. I answered his telegram, and I then received this letter (Exhibit 90), dated March 22, 1909, stating the arrangements that were being made for the funeral and that he was keeping my sister, Mrs. Hasel, fully advised. He spells collapsed "collopsed" and Woking "Working." I received another letter from him on the same day, stating that he had not interfered with any papers and was waiting for me to give instructions as to what was to be done. On March 23 I received a letter from him (Exhibit 92), in which he writes "errond" for "errand," "and" for "than," and "dertermined" for "determined." I then received this letter from him, dated the 28th (Exhibit 93), stating that deceased had made a will on March 19, 1898, appointing him sole executor and leaving everything to him, "for at that time she had little to leave"; that before going on the Continent last year she had made another will, which she, according to Dorothy Jones's statement, had subsequently destroyed; that he had found in an envelope, marked "My will, M. L. Kerferd," an unsigned will, in which she had said, "My dear cousin, Fred J. Pilcher, knows all my wishes and will, I know, carry them out to the letter, and I appoint him my sole executor," and in which she had left the interest of £2,200 each, namely, "Aunt Isabella," Mrs. Hasel, Uncle Frank Stokes (myself), and Uncle Walter Stokes during their lives, and then to go to the Governesses' Home. I subsequently received a letter from him, dated March 30 (Exhibit 94), stating that he intended carrying out the wishes of the deceased as stated in the unsigned will. "April "is spelt "Aprol" and "importance" "importence," and "your" "you." (Witness here pointed out mistakes in spelling that prisoner had made in letters to him (Exhibits 94, 98, 100, 101, 102, 103, and 104.)
(Monday, July 25.)
HORACE GILDON HARWOOD , solicitor, 31, Lombard Street, E.C. On June 22, 1909, Mr. Frank Stokes consulted me with reference to the legality of his niece's will. I made some inquiries and eventually went on July 16 with him to Somerset House, where I saw the original will (Exhibit 1). We met Mrs. Hermendahl and Dorothy Jones there. As the result of my inquiries and what I had seen, I issued a writ on October 18 on behalf of Mr. Stokes as one of the next-of-kin, which I served on prisoner in Liverpool on October 22; it was for the revocation of the will and to appoint Mr. Stokes as administrator, on the ground that the will was a forgery. I told prisoner I had been instructed
to commence proceedings. He asked me what it meant and I told him. He replied, "I can explain." I then told him that any explanation he wished to make had better be made in the presence, of his solicitors. I afterwards met him at his solicitors' office, where I told them that the will was alleged to be a forgery. As prisoner made no explanation and his solicitors had taken up the matter on his behalf I suggested that prisoner should leave the room, which he did. I then discussed the matter with them. Mr. Holme shortly after left the room and, on his return, made a communication to me. I returned to London and an order was made on October 25 appointing Mr. Lawson as administrator. On November 4 Mr. Holme came to London and I showed him a photograph of the will. I then went with him to Mr. Kalkin, after which I received a letter from Mr. Holme, dated November 4, stating that prisoner was willing to take a decree revoking probate of the will, having regard to the fact that the attesting witnesses were dead and that the difficulties of affirmative proof would be very great, but stating that prisoner did not for a moment admit that the will was a forgery. The action came on for hearing on June 6. It was undefended and the will was revoked.
Cross-examined. I am acting for Mr. Stokes and the other next-of-kin The question of who is heir-at-law is still open. I never knew deceased and I had not known anything of prisoner before this. Mr. Beyfus, who represented the next-of-kin, said in court that we were not in a position to say who had forged the will.
Re-examined. For the purposes of the action that was immaterial. Prisoner never gave any explanation.
FRANK STOKES (recalled, further examined). Exhibits 105, 106, 107, and 108, letters from prisoner to witness were read, witness pointing out mistakes in grammar and spelling that prisoner had made therein.) I came to England on May 4, 1909, and I got a letter on June 4 from Mrs. Hermendahl, written from abroad, and another one on June 15, in consequence of which on June 22 I went to see my solicitor, Mr. Harwood. On June 26 I received a letter from Dorothy Jones. I saw prisoner on several occasions, but I never learnt from him either verbally or in writing where he had found the will (Exhibit 1). After seeing the will I instructed my solicitor to commence proceedings for its revocation.
Cross-examined. I first met Mrs. Hermendahl in New Brighton about 15 years ago. I never communicated with her or saw her since I believe she was a great friend of deceased's. I know that Dorothy Jones has been with deceased and before that with her mother for 13, or 14 years. She never wrote to me as far as I remember. Mrs. Hermendahl has told me that she has taken her into her employ. I saw the vituperative letter that Mrs. Hermendahl wrote to prisoner. I always had the idea that deceased believed in cremation, but I cannot say that her wish to be cremated dated as far back as 1898. I thought she and prisoner were very good friends. I knew very little about her business affairs. I was in Rome when prisoner wired me on March 18, "Lily sinking; come," but I wired back saying I could not do so on account of my health. I received four telegrams in all
from him. I do not remember receiving a letter from him, dated March 28, saying that he did not intend to move in the matter of papers or arrangements until I returned, "for your and her wishes, especially the latter, must be carried out to the letter." I telegraphed to him on the 25th, "Stokes suggests you open will and telegraph names of executors"; that was in reply to his letter of March 22, in which he said, "I am not interfering with papers or will, which I wish you to open, and then we can arrange what is to be done." I know he was the only person who attended the funeral. I know that deceased suffered from lupus and that she was eventually cured after several operations. The first time I ever saw the unsigned will, dated January 25, 1909 (Exhibit 86) was on July 2, 1909, at Mr. Holme's office in Liverpool. I should say the whole of it is in deceased's hand-writing, but I am not very well acquainted with her handwriting, because I did not receive many letters from her. On the back of the envelope in which it is enclosed is "Opened and resealed, L. K." I see she spells "Frederick" "Fredrick" and "benevolent" "benovolent." I notice that the dot on the "i" in "Pictures" is inside the loop of the "p" and that in "Pilcher" in the alleged forged will there is also a dot; it occurs twice. In Exhibit 86 she has altered the "T" in "Tea" and has spelt "ormolu" "ormulu". I cannot absolutely say that deceased derived all her property from her mother. I know that my sister, her mother, made a will leaving all her property to her daughter. My sister was very close about her business affairs and I did not know much about them. I did not expect to be appointed my niece's executor nor did I expect anything particular to come to me. I was on very good terms with her. I should have considered the interest on £2,200 as a generous recognition. There appears to me to be a slight break of fluency in the last six words of Exhibit 86 beginning "and I appoint." There was a document attached to that which contained specific requests as to the disposal of certain articles belonging to her. Prisoner sent me copy of the extracts which affected me or my family. I proposed that a trustee should be appointed and prisoner agreed to it later. He sent me the things that my niece wished me to have. When Mrs. Hermendahl wrote to me I wrote to prisoner on June 16 (Exhibit 173), saying hat I had a letter from her making grave charges against him and other information respecting the will seemed to be imperfect. She got the interest on £1,700 under the unsigned will and prisoner declined to give it her. I know that there was some correspondence between her and prisoner about some jewellery, but I did not know what it was. I did not want to be mixed up in it. Prisoner wrote me and said that deceased was a true friend of Mrs. Hermendahl's, but that Mrs. Hermendahl was cruel and insincere, causing the deceased many an unhappy hour, and he did not propose, under the circumstances, to allow her anything. I did not consider myself legally entitled to anything under the unsigned will. Prisoner showed me the letter (Exhibit 174), from Mrs. Hermendahl to him, dated June 13. I went with her and Dorothy Jones to see the will at Somerset House on July 16. She did not say anything then as to whether she
had seen it before, and for all I know that was the first time she had seen it. This is the letter she wrote on June 13 to prisoner: "I was waiting to get the things before writing to call you 'forgerer.' I can even guess whom you got to witness it. After long years of waiting I have the satisfaction of letting you know what I think of you. I have always had the greatest loathing and contempt for you and can read you like a book. At the last those crocodile tears and bursts of grief amused me very much. You have now ended by doing exactly what I expected. I even said to your poor dupe: 'What is to prevent him forging your will? He signs your broker's papers and dividends.' She even wrote and called you forgerer! You have added that to the rest of your villainy. Forger, pimp, rogue, liar, and diseased contaminator. A nice person to be at large! I know the contents of your dupe's will. The money is cursed. It will never do you or yours any good, mark my words. I could write much more of your noble character, but this much will relieve you of any conceited ideas you may have had of my friendship. I have often looked at you, and thought any baboon would have been preferable. You are despised among men. I have heard you discussed, but did not claim the honour of your acquaintance. Of the dead I won't write, only say it was a mad pity on my part for a mortal I looked upon as abnormal and a physiological study. You were a fit mate. I am writing to Mr. Frank Stokes. A villain like you will never think of the injustice you have done to others, whose futures were depending on what the dead had intended should be done for them. It is also possible you have suppressed Lily's last will, and did not require to forge it.' I told prisoner that she had said if he went up to see her she would see him about that letter. I do not remember that he told me that the cause of the letter was because he had refused to give her her share under the unsigned will. He did go and see her at my suggestion. He did not tell me that she was not responsible for her statements when in that sort of temper, and that the letter was not a genuine one, and that he could not understand it because a few days previously he had had letters from her in a most friendly spirit. I think he showed me a letter from her addressed to him in his Christian name. I do not recognise this little bag and I have never seen this piece of paper before. The estate is now in the hands of the official administrator.
Re-examined. This cremation paper, dated May 12, 1898 (Exhibit 175), appears to be signed by deceased. The handwriting on the envelope (Exhibit 176) enclosing it is entirely different. The letter of June 4 is the first communication I had from Mrs. Herraendahl; she asked me for an appointment on her return to England, as she had something serious to tell me. I have not that letter.
ARTHUR ROWNEY , 47, King Henry's Road, South Hampstead. I am a brother of Walter George Rowney, who gave evidence at the police court. I had a brother named Frederick Rowney, who died on December 1, 1904, and the person mentioned in this certificate of death (Exhibit 6) answers to his description. He lived at 14, Aschurch Terrace, Shepherd's Bush. This signature on Exhibit 1, "Fred. W Rowney," of "Old Sergeant's Inn, Chancery Lane, E.C.," is nothing
like that of my brother's. I cannot say whether he was living in Old Sergeant's Inn in 1898. These two letters headed "the Old Serjeant's Inn, Chancery Lane" (Exhibits 7 and 8) were written by him. He spells "Serjeant" with a "j" in each case. I know his hand-writing. I should say Exhibits 9, 10, 11, 12, 12a, 12b, and 12c are all in his handwriting. My father's name was "Frederick William Rowney." The signature on the will is not like his. Lovell Phillips was a great friend of my late brother and he stayed with him in Old Serjeant's Inn for considerable periods at a time.
Cross-examined. I saw a good deal of my brother in 1897 and 1898: we were in business together. I know nothing of Mrs. Or Miss Kerferd then and I did not know that my brother knew Miss Kerferd. He was sometimes away from London for week-ends. He used to sleep at Old Serjeant's Inn. I did not know that she used to lend her flat there sometimes for week-ends.
Re-examined. I never heard of Miss Kerferd before this case. After my brother's death I might have heard of prisoner being a friend of his.
ROSE PHILLIPS , sister of the late William Lovell Phillips. My brother died at the age of 60 on November 17, 1908, leaving a widow, L. A. Phillips. He appears to be the person described in this death certificate (Exhibit 16). This signature, "Lovell Phillips," in Exhibit 1 is not in his handwriting. Exhibit 18, which is all in his hand-writing, is headed "7, Old Serjeant's Inn." In formal documents he would sign his full name. I know he knew prisoner, but I did not know the extent of their friendship.
ELIZABETH EDWARD HERMENDAHL , widow, 24, Vale Court, Maida Vale. In 1893 I hired a house called "Bonavista," at New Brighton, from Mrs. Kerferd, with whom I subsequently became acquainted. I became intimate with her and her daughter, Mary Lilian Kerferd, who, I believe, had £30 a year. I know her handwriting well. On March 17, 1909, I went to visit her at "Neilgherry." She was out when I arrived, but came in shortly afterwards. She seemed to be semi-conscious. I had some conversation with her about her will The next morning she was unconscious. Prisoner asked me if I knew what she had left him and I said I believed it was £6,000 for business purposes. He said "Is that all?" and I said, "Yes, that is all I know." On the morning of the 19th deceased died. I left the house immediately after breakfast. One day in May I telephoned prisoner and said I had been waiting to hear about the will and asking if it had been proved. He said, "Yes." I said, "Was there anybody mentioned?" and he said, "No." Before I went to the South of France I spoke to my solicitors and whilst there I had a letter from them, and I wrote to Mr. Stokes. On June 8 I got this letter from prisoner (Exhibit 18), stating that he had given orders for the case of things that deceased had wished me to have to be sent to my address. He spells "Saville" "Savel." Enclosed in that letter was Exhibit 17, which is a list of articles in Miss Kerferd's handwriting, which she wished me to have. I received from my
solicitors a statement as to what had been proved in the will and I thereupon on June 13, 1909, wrote prisoner a registered letter (Exhibit 174, see page 411). I did not sign it, but he knew my hand-writing He telephoned the next afternoon asking me to come up and see him, as he wished to explain matters, and I said he could not see me and I wished no explanation. On June 16 he came to my flat and, pulling the letter out of his pocket, asked me what I meant by forgerer. I told him it was English and was exactly as I had written it. He asked me if I would apologise to Mr. Stokes and himself and I said I would write an apology when he proved himself not to be a forger. I had not said a word against Mr. Stokes. I told him he had his redress and that I believed he could give me five years for accusing him unjustly. I emphatically deny that I withdrew anything. Several pages in this recipe book (Exhibit 19) are in deceased's handwriting. I should think she wrote in it in about 1895. I could not be positive that all the Exhibits 20 to 28 and 31 and 32 are in her handwriting. I think Exhibits 29 and 30 and 33 are. The whole of the first three pages of the unsigned will (Exhibit 86) are in her handwriting. In my opinion, no part of the will (Exhibit 1) is in her handwriting. Deceased had told me what her intentions were with regard to her will I remember witnessing her signature to the cremation paper, which is dated May 12, 1898. The "K" in Exhibit 1 is formed in quite a different way to the signature on the cremation paper.
Cross-examined. I knew that deceased was very much attached to prisoner and she relied on him. I have independent means of my own. My income has never been discussed in the matter. I knew prisoner probably about 14 years. I believe deceased had a great antipathy towards Mrs. Pilcher, and I believe an absolute dislike for prisoner's children, I believe he ultimately persuaded her to leave something for one of them. I cannot say that I was on good terms with him; I treated him occasionally with rather contempt. I have always had the same opinion of him. I expected that deceased would leave me an emerald and diamond ring. The first I knew of the unsigned will was when Dorothy Jones told me in March; I did not see it then. I identify this as deceased's bag (Exhibit 174). I believe she kept her keys in it. This piece of paper (Exhibit 177) is in her hand-writing; it says: "In case of accident telephone 97, Maidenhead. Wire Pilcher, Liverpool. Own name Miss Kerferd, Neilgherry, Bray-on-Thames." She was afraid of accidents. The first I heard of the alleged forged will was when I went to Somerset House with Mr. Stokes, Mr. Harwood, and Dorothy Jones on July 16. I had never seen it or a copy of it before. I think it must have been in May, 1909, when I first had any communication with prisoner as to what deceased had done with her property, but I do not want to be positive about dates. I never knew there had been a will found until I heard from my solicitors about it at Whitsuntide. This letter of April 14, 1909, to prisoner is in my handwriting. I had my reasons for calling him "Dear Fred." I wrote that it was a pity deceased had not left Neilgherry to him, and that it seemed hard it should go to strangers after all the time and thought he had spent on it; that is quite true.
At the time I wrote that letter I had heard nothing about my name having been mentioned in any document. I see I say, "It was very touching of Lily to have left articles mentioned." I had understood for several years I was to have certain things. It is a dishonest letter, and I wrote it because I never could have got satisfaction out of him had I asked him a direct question; I was waiting to hear about the will and I thought I would keep in with him until I did. I had my suspicions then. He had sent me on April 13 a memorandum of articles that deceased had left me, but I did not know it was part of the unsigned will. I swear that he did not tell me anything about the unsigned will in the letter. He never promised to give me any details of what deceased had left. I see I say in my letter to him of May 6 that I am waiting for the details he had promised and that I supposed he had carried out all the instructions in the will. I retract what I said as to his not having promised me details. I must have known there was an unsigned will at that time. I quite forgot about that. The reason why I changed my attitude towards him between May 6 and June 13 when I wrote the anonymous letter was that I had heard from my solicitors that he was the sole executor and legatee under the will. He sent me the things that I mention in my letter of June 13 or June 18. I suppose it may be said that I kept up my dishonest correspondence with him until I got them., I was playing a game with him. I knew when I received these things that I was entitled under the unsigned will to the interest of £1,700, but I had no discussion with prisoner about it. I swear I never asked him for it, and that he never said that he would not give it to me because I was well off and did not want extra money. I was wrong in my idea about the witnesses to the will whom I refer to in my letter to him of June 15. (The witness wrote down the names of the witnesses to whom she referred.) I suppose my language in that letter is rather exceptional, but I meant what I said. When I said, "I know the contents of your dupe's will," I meant the will by which she told me she had left him £6,000 for business purposes; I did not know it was cancelled then. I referred to the deceased in the way I did because she had peculiar ideas about everything in general. She frequently spoke about wills. She was a very determined woman. I do not regret having written the letter, nor do I withdraw it. I suppose 'pimp" means a panderer. Prisoner suggested I had written the letter under the impulse of the moment, but I said it was after deliberation. I sent Dorothy Jones a copy of the will which Mr. Stokes had sent to me; I think that was in June—it was before I went to Somerset House. I was inaccurate when I said that I did not know the contents of it until I went in July to Somerset House; I retract that; it was a slip of memory. Having received a copy of the will I wrote the letter of June 13 to prisoner. I am not telling untruths, I wish to be accurate. I do not think Mr. Stokes can know whether I had seen the will before July 16 or not. Prisoner sent me some things that should have gone to Mr. Pollock. It is untrue that I refused to return them until he gave me a turquoise chain. I sent them to be repaired, and when they were returned to me I sent them to Mrs. Pollock, telling
her not to tell prisoner I had done so. I sent deceased this turquoise chain from Bombay. I never wrote to her and said I could not send her one as turquoises were too expensive; I wrote and said I was sorry they were not as nice as I should have liked them to have been. A friend of hers sent her a larger one from India, which prisoner said had got to be sold. I told him I was referring to the small one and not to the large one. It is true I wrote him on September 17 saying that I would not return the articles until the chain was returned to me, but by then I had returned them. If it is the fact that he wrote me a long letter saying that I had never sent the chain to deceased, I did not receive it. I took Dorothy Jones into my service on April 26 this year. I did not see a good deal of her before that. I never helped her to write a letter to prisoner. I did not influence her in any way. I believe for a lone time past prisoner has transacted deceased's business; I understood he superintended the building of her house at Bray. On October 12, 1909,1 sent him down a champagne case filled with bricks and stones because I thought he had sent it to me. After I found that I was mistaken in that I instructed my solicitor to apologise for me and pay the expenses. Perhaps I am a little eccentric.
Re-examined. Deceased never knew what my means were; I never led her to believe that I had small means—rather to the contrary. I expected she would leave me the diamond ring because I had made a compact with her that she would leave that to me and I should leave my diamond half-circle to her. With reference to my letter of April 14 I knew he was very anxious to have Neilgherry. Almost the last words that deceased said to me were, "Fred is worrying me to death to leave him Neilgherry." I told her not to bother about it that night and we would discuss it in the morning. I knew at the time of her death that there was an unsigned will because Dorothy Jones, I believe, told me. When writing him on June 13, calling him "forgerer" I knew that the will of 1898 must be a forgery, because it was quite contrary to her expressed intentions to me. She told me that Dorothy was going to get £2,000, and I believe there was going to be a small annuity left to an old servant, Mrs. Gray. As regards the sentence in my letter to him of June 13, "She even wrote and called you forgerer," I saw the letter that she wrote and I posted it. Dorothy Jones was with a Mrs. Freemantle, who died, and I wrote to her asking if she cared to come to me. I have known her 12 or 13 years.
MARY BOWER , The Doon, Liskeard, Cheshire. I have known deceased 30 years. I know her handwriting. This will (Exhibit 1) is not in her handwriting. In October, 1908, at "Bonavista," New Brighton, I remember her looking over some deeds with prisoner and I think he wrote her name across them and she said he did it so well that he would soon sign her cheques. In July of last year I went to see prisoner at Liverpool and asked him about the will that deceased had made on the night of her mother's funeral in 1907. He mumbled a lot and said she had cancelled it. I said I did not believe him and he said, "Oh, yes, she did—Dorothy says so." I said I did not believe Dorothy either and asked him if she had not left any will. He
said, "No, not exactly. She left a few papers and things, mentioning one or two people." He showed me some papers fastened with a pin and a list of jewellery. I said, "Is that all?" and he said, "There was a kind of draft of a will." I asked him if there was enough to prove and he said it was going to be proved in December. I asked him about the chain that deceased had told me she was leaving my daughter and he said he would send that at Christmas. This post-card, dated November 23, 1909 (Exhibit 165), is from prisoner to me. I know his handwriting and, in my opinion, Exhibit 1 is written by him. Deceased was a very correct writer and she was a very good speller: she never touched up any of her letters.
Cross-examined. I should say Exhibit 86 is in deceased's hand-writing. I do not think "Fred. J. Pilcher" in that document is in her handwriting because it is patchy and shaky. I have my doubt whether from "These annuities are in perpetuity" and onwards is in her handwriting. I have no ill-feeling against prisoner 1 suppose deceased would know how to spell "ormolu" and "benevolent." It surprises me to see that she has spelt "benevolent" "benevolent." I am not a good judge of spelling myself. I was expecting prisoner to leave me something. She gave me £80 to pay my boy's school fees. I got a letter from her, but I do not think it was complaining that I had not thanked her for the money. It is destroyed. I did not write to her and ask her to let me have £2 on my daughter's opera cloak; I asked her to buy it from me for £2. She had bought lots of things from me before. She wrote and said something to the effect that she was not a pawnbroker, but it was very unlike her to write in such a strain. I do not believe she did write it herself. I never at any time wrote to prisoner asking him to give me some money to pay my daughter's fare from Cheshire to London. I did not tell him when I saw him at Liverpool that I was disappointed that I bad not received anything. He did not tell me that the opera cloak incident had put her against me. I swear it was never mentioned. He said that he thought Dorothy had influenced her against me. I did not say, "Oh! I know what a liar she is. Remember she is Welsh. I will be even with her yet. She is a black devil of the deepest dye." It was with reference to the will that I said I did not believe Dorothy. I think she could be made untruthful. I never heard of a wedding ring being missed when I was stopping with deceased. No charge of any kind was made. I never had any difference with Dorothy. The chief reason for my saying Exhibit 1 is a forgery is that the writing is not steady. I said on the last occasion that I was making helmets for soldiers in the South African War with deceased when she made her will in May, 1908. I do not think I have made a mistake in the date. The war was contemplated then. Prisoner offered me any money I would like to have if I were short of money and I declined it.
Re-examined. (This conversation about money was since deceased's death—when he told me the 1907 will was destroyed, I think. Prisoner wrote me, "I hold myself responsible for further fees to complete boy's schooling, namely, £10 per annum," and I took it as deceased
had made herself responsible for them. I have never taken any other money from him.
(Tuesday, July 26.)
DOROTHY JONES . I am now maid to Mrs. Hermendahl. I was formerly in the service of the late Mrs. Kerferd, entering her service in 1896. She died on October 4, 1907, and I remained in the service of Miss Kerferd until she died on March 19, 1909. After Mrs. Kerferd's death Miss Kerferd went abroad and returned to England in May, 1908, when she hired a house called Neilgherry at Bray, which she afterwards purchased and lived in until her death. Prisoner frequently came there; he looked after some building that was going on there, which was started in October 1908. Deceased, who was suffering from diabetes, went on March 17, 1909, to London with prisoner to see a doctor. On her return Mrs. Hermendahl was there. Deceased was very dazed and faint. When she was abroad prisoner managed her affairs; he had been a frequent visitor just before Mrs. Kerferd died. On the night of Mrs. Kerferd's death or the next day Miss Kerferd made a will. Prisoner left the morning it was going to be signed. She had not to my knowledge made a will before. The cook and the housemaid witnessed it. At Christmas, 1908, she showed it to me with "Cancelled" written across it; that was the last I saw of it. I saw her writing another will. did not take very much notice of it. This (Exhibit 86) is in her handwriting. The paper I saw her writing on was like this; she had lots of lists and things. This unsigned will was kept on her writing table drawer, which she kept locked. She put the key in her little bag. I think I have seen the envelope enclosing it before; it was kept in the same drawer. In 1909 I was sleeping upstairs, while deceased. was on the ground floor, prisoner having the next room to hers. He called me in the early morning of March 18 and I found deceased very ill. Prisoner said that the doctor who had been sent for had said it was only a question of a few hours. Deceased was not conscious that day at all. Prisoner said to me, "She has talked about people dying without a will and now she goes and does the same thing herself. Remember how upset she was the other night when I wanted her to sign her will?" He had tried to get her to do so March 10; I saw she was upset then. The next time I saw him, on March 18, he asked me what deceased had left him, and I said, "She told me £130 a year "; I was referring to the unsigned will. He said, "Only £130 a year, after all I have done for her? Hasn't she left me Neilgherry?" I said, "No; she seemed as if she would. She told me you had promised her that if she did you would live in it like a hermit." He said, "Tell Mr. Stokes that, but drop the last sentence." Later on that day he said, "Did Miss Kerferd make a will when she was abroad in my favour?" and I said "No." Towards the evening he asked me for her little bag that her keys were in. I went to her bedroom and fetched it for him. Deceased was in a comatose
state then. I saw him at the writing table, some of the drawers of which were locked. He found deceased's private letters and he asked me about her friends, because he wanted to write to them. I did not notice afterwards whether any of the drawers had been opened with keys or not. At his request I gave him the letters that he had written to her and he put them into the fire; I think this was after the death. The unsigned will was kept in the top drawer of the writing table with the cancelled will, her cheque book, her stamps, and the analyses from the doctor. I saw a good deal of paper like that on which the will (Exhibit 1) is written in Mrs. Kerferd's cabinet and on the writing table at Neilgherry. I saw none of it after Miss Kerferd died. In my opinion, no part of Exhibit 1 is in her handwriting. I left Neilgherry on April 20 or 25. Prisoner told me before I left that the unsigned will was the will and there was no going away from it; and he said that I was provided for at the rate of £100 a year; he said I should receive £20 on June 1, and after that it would be £50 on every June 1 and December 1. He wrote to me on May 29, 1909, enclosing me a list in deceased's handwriting of things that had been left to me (Exhibit 31) and which he had given me before I left. Up to this time I had never heard of any other will, except the two I have mentioned. On June 1 he wrote me, saying that £10 would be sent me on November 30, with £2 10s. interest, but nothing about the £20 which had been promised me on that date. It was I who underlined the word "Kerferd" in that letter; I had been to Somerset House and seen the will and I compared that letter with what I had Been in the will. I remember deceased's handwriting in 1898 and in 1909, and the will (Exhibit 1) resembles her recent writing. On June 20 he wrote me, asking me how and when I should like to have the money and that the lawyers would arrange it, and that he was the sole executor of the will, as Mr. Stokes's name did not appear in the directions left him by the deceased. Mrs. Hermendahl had by this time sent me a copy of the will (Exhibit 1). Under the cancelled will I was to have had £2,000 absolutely. I did not know that under the unsigned will I was to have £85 a year; I though prisoner was referring to that will when he said I was to have £100 a year. On June 22 I got a letter from prisoner's solicitors in Liverpool asking me to go and see them. I wrote to prisoner, saying I should be there about 12. On the 24th I went to his office. He was surprised to see me, although I had written to say I was coming. He seemed very upset. He sent out his clerk and then said that he had been very upset over a letter from Mrs. Hermendahl; that everything was going on quite smoothly until she upset everything. He said that she had called him a forger and that she had refused to see him so that he could explain matters. I said, "If you are not a forger, why don't you have her up?" and he said, "I don't want to soil Miss Kerferd's name." He cried a good deal and said how fond he was of her and how he missed her. He then asked me what deceased had said to me about her will and I said that she had said Mrs. Pilcher was very ill, she was the last of her race and she was not likely to live the summer through; all her people died young, and that when she was dead
he (prisoner) was going to marry her, and then she would make a fresh will leaving him everything but only for life. He said, "You must not tell my lawyer that," and he told me not to mention the cancelled will, because as it was cancelled it was no good. He continued, "You can tell my lawyer that Miss Kerferd told you that she must sign her will, because if she did not, I was to have all." That was not true; she was always complaining about his wanting her to sign her will. I do not remember him saying anything else. He said that if I mentioned the cancelled will all the money would go into Chancery, and nobody would receive a penny. I went with him to the lawyer's and I was asked questions. My answers were taken down in writing. He interfered sometimes. I read over my statement and signed it. (Mr. Marshall Hall formally protested against the admission of the statement since it had been intimated to him that Mr. Holme, in whose custody it had been, was not going to be called. Mr. Muir stated that he had only been called at the police court for the purpose of obtaining from him certain documents; that he did not intend now to call him for reasons which he was prepared to go into fully, and that, in fact, at the police court the defence had strenuously opposed his being called. Mr. Justice Ridley said he could not interfere.) Prisoner was present all the time I was making the statement. I said, "Miss Kerferd often spoke to me about making wills. She said, 'As it stands now the Colonel will have everything.' I can safely say that the only will Miss Kerferd ever signed and had witnessed was that of 1898. If she had executed any other will, I am certain she would have told me.' That is all untrue. I said it to please the Colonel. I knew I was doing wrong. I also said what was true: "I believe the last expression of her wishes was contained in the sealed envelope (the unsigned will). A few days before she died she showed it to me, saying, 'This is my will. It is a horrid job, but I must get it finished.'" I got a cheque for £25 from prisoner on July 1, which I acknowledged and kept. I received a letter on July 9 from him with reference to some things that had been left for Miss Pollock; in it he spells fork "fork" and deduct "duduct." I wrote to Mr. Stokes the day after I had been to Liverpool, and then I saw Mr. Harwood. On July 16 I went to Somerset House and saw the will. On October 11 prisoner wrote to me enclosing a cheque for £25, my quarterly allowance, which I returned. He said in that letter that he had got Mrs. Lovell Phillips as caretaker at Neilgherry, with her child. I had never heard her name before. Deceased had mentioned Fred. Rowney's name to me once, but I had never seen him. I recognise this book "Wills—how to make and how to prove them," as having been in the possession of Mrs. Kerferd and afterwards of Miss Kerferd. Exhibits 35, 42, 43, 46, 51, 53, 58, 59, 65, 71, 82, and 84 are in prisoner's handwriting. Exhibit 111 is a postcard which prisoner sent to deceased. On one occasion, at the Charing Cross Hotel, prisoner had signed a paper for deceased and deceased said, "He has done it so well that I should be deceived in my own signature."
Cross-examined. I know Miss Bower. She told me yesterday that she had been asked about a wedding ring. Deceased gave her her
mother's wedding ring. I said to her that I should have thought that she would have liked to have kept it herself, but she said Miss Bower was a very great friend of her mother's, and she thought she would like it. Nothing happened after that about it. I told Miss Bower yesterday what had happened; there was nothing in it. I think deceased was a bit annoyed with Miss Bower about an opera cloak incident; I know she wrote to her, but I cannot say what was in the letter. I know she also wrote about the money she had paid for the boy's schooling, as she read me the letter, but I do not remember what was in it. Prisoner has been very kind to me and I have no ill feeling against him except that he deceived me and deceased. I know that Mrs. Kerferd only wanted to leave her daughter £300 a year. I do not know that prisoner had anything to do with making her change her mind. I and prisoner witnessed the mother's will. She and deceased used constantly to come to London and stay in Bryanston Street while Mrs. Kerferd was alive. Prisoner and deceased had been very great friends for many years. I returned the copy will that Mrs. Hermendahl early in June had sent me; it was in Mr. Stokes's handwriting. I have no idea how long I kept it. I destroyed the letter she wrote me enclosing it. I saw the names of the witnesses upon it. I must have noticed the date. I went into Mrs. Hermendahl's service this April. I heard from her now and again since she sent me the copy will, but not often. I was astonished to get it. I did not tell prisoner when I went to Liverpool that I had seen it. I think I can say that Mrs. Hermendahl went abroad on November 6. She did not come to see me on October 29. She never sent me copy of a letter that she wanted me to write to prisoner. She showed me a copy of the letter of June 13 she had written to him long after she had sent it. I did not understand some of it. I swear that in October I had no communication from her about writing to prisoner. I remember writing a letter to prisoner and his wife in that month. I think I know how to spell "forger." I do not know how Mrs. Hermendahl's spells it. I remember she called prisoner a forger in her letter, but I did not notice how she spelt it. I see I spelt forger "forgerer" in my letter to prisoner in October (Exhibit 193). I can-not say how I came to do it. I spelt Lovell "Loval" because that was how it was spelt on the will. In that letter I accused prisoner of being a forger and with being the cause of deceased's unhappy end. I know that deceased was devoted to him, but they always had difficulties over money matters. Prisoner was always bothering her to leave him Neilgherry and I think she would have done it to get rid of him. I did believe that prisoner was devotedly attached to her, but I have not believed it since last summer, when I found out things for myself. He kept no secrets from me. I gave prisoner the bag with the keys on the 18th—not the 19th. One of prisoner's sisters came on the day that deceased died and another one came after. I do not remember prisoner telling me that the private locked door in the writing table was not to be touched. I cannot say whether he did not touch it till after March 25. I do not remember being shown a telegram from Mr. Stokes, telling prisoner to open will and wire
names of executors. Prisoner went alone to the funeral. After deceased's death he was always crying. I only knew the contents of the cancelled will by what deceased had told me; she had left him £6,000 for business purposes only. Prisoner was in debt and deceased said some of it was to go for that. (On Mr. Justice Ridley's inquiring, Mr. Muir stated that this cancelled will had not been seen by anybody since January, 1909.) I forget whether Mrs. Hermendahl was to have £1,000 or £500. Deceased never signed "Mary Lilian Kerferd" ordinarily. I saw her sign that way on the 1907 will and also on papers for her stockbrokers. I was told afterwards that I would not get anything under the unsigned will, as it was not signed, but I did not know that at the time. I think my mother told me. Prisoner never spoke to me at Neilgherry after deceased's death in the presence of anybody about deceased or her affairs. He did not tell me on March 25 in the presence of Miss Lizzie Pilcher at Neilgherry that he had found a will dated 1898, leaving everything to him, and he did not read it to me. He did not call me from the dining room into the drawing room and say that he had found a bundle of papers consisting of an old will dated 1898, counsel's opinion on Mrs. Kerferd's will, a cremation paper, and an unsigned will. I knew that she kept a cremation paper with her documents; she told me she had signed it. I do not know that she kept it in this locked drawer. Prisoner did not tell me that he knew the unsigned will really represented her last wishes and that, in spite of the will of 1898, which left him everything, he was going to do everything according to the unsigned will. I was left £2,000 as long as I did not marry, but prisoner said he would alter that. I did not care whether I got it or whether I did not, because it was such a bother. When I wrote him a friendly letter on June 3 I did not know what he had done. It is true I wrote him a friendly letter on June 19, when I had read a copy of the will, but at that time I had not seen the will with my own eyes to know it was a forgery, although I had my own thoughts about it. I went to Liverpool because prisoner wrote asking me to see him. I see by my letter of June 21 that it was at my own initiative that I went to see him. I wrote saying his solicitors had asked me to go and I would call and see him. I meant to imply that prisoner asked me to go and see him before I went to the solicitors, so that he could tell me what to say. I never read his letter of June 21, telling me to go and see the solicitors, until a week after I returned; he had put the wrong address. My letter to him of June 21 was acknowledging another letter which I received from him on that date. Prisoner suggested I should tell the solicitor both Mrs. Kerferd and Miss Kerferd treated me as an equal. I never occupied the next room to deceased while prisoner was about. I should not have made the untrue statements that I did make if prisoner had not been there.
Mr. Marshall Hall said that during the course of the examination certain facts had been borne in upon his mind, and he had pointed out to prisoner that, even on the defence he proposed to put before the Court, there was no legal answer to the charge of uttering. To the charge of forging the will prisoner had always pleaded, and did still
plead, not guilty. But to the charge of uttering prisoner wished, under his advice, to plead guilty. Prisoner accordingly took that course.
Mr. Muir stated that he accepted that plea, but it must not be supposed that he in the smallest degree accepted the view that prisoner was not the forger.
The Jury returned a formal verdict of Guilty of uttering.
Evidence to character was called.
Sentence, Three years' penal servitude.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Friday, July 22.)
HEFFORD, William (25, labourer), and WILLSON, Albert Edward (21, dealer), Hefford stealing one bale of cloth, the goods of the Great Northern Railway , Willson feloniously receiving the said goods well knowing them to have been stolen.
Mr. Eustace Fulton prosecuted. Mr. Huntly Jenkins defended Wilson.
Hefford pleaded guilty.
WILLIAM HAYNES , warehouseman to Everett, Clear, and Hay ward, 18, Charing Cross Road, woollen merchants. On June 24 a truss of cloth was invoiced to my firm, value £43 5s. 10d., which was not delivered. The two rolls of cloth (produced) are what we expected to receive.
FRANCIS THEODORE EARL , checker, G.N. Railway, King's Cross. On June 25 at 2.30 a.m. I received five trusses of cloth consigned to Savage, goods agent, King's Cross, including one truss for delivery to Everett, Clear and Hay ward. I signed a receipt for them on sheet (produced). The five trusses were placed on the "A" bank for delivery.
WILLIAM MARTELL , porter, G.N. Railway, King's Cross Goods Depot. On June 25 at 2.30 p.m. I received delivery sheet for a truss of cloth marked "932," to be loaded by me for delivery to Everett, Clear and Hay ward. I made a thorough search for the truss, but it was not upon the bank.
Sergeant FREDERICK BUTTERS , Y Division. On June 28 (with Inspector Warder) I saw Willson at Cyrus Lumber Stores, Compton Street, Clerkenwell; it is a shop containing new boots and bundles of rags, bones, etc. I asked Willson if he was the governor of those premises. He said, "Yes." I said, "We are police officers and have a man in custody for stealing a truss of cloth from King's Cross Goods Station on Saturday last. He states he brought it here, and left it with the missis, and had seen you this afternoon about it, and you told him to call back at 7 p.m. and you would settle with him. We are going to search your premises." He said, "Yes, I have it here." I went into the parlour with him and found the two rolls of cloth
(produced). He said, "Here they are." I commenced looking for the canvas. The prisoner said, "What are you looking for?" I said, "I am looking for the canvas." He said, "Here you are—here the wrappers;" they were with a quantity of similar canvas on a shelf at the back of the counter. I took him to the station, where Hefford made and signed a statement in his presence, which I read over to both prisoners as follows: "On Saturday afternoon, 25th inst., about 3.30 p.m., I took from the Up-shed Bank of the G.N. Railway Goods Yards, King's Cross, one truss of cloth, put it on my own van, took it to the Cyrus Stores, Compton Street, and saw the missis. I said to her, 'I have got some canvas.' She replied, 'You had better leave it and call back.' I did not call again till 5 p.m. this afternoon. I then saw the governor and he told me to call back at 7 p.m. and he would settle up with me. I replied, 'All right; and I came to the yard. (Signed) W. Hefford." Willson said, "I do not know the man and have never seen him before I entered the station. I asked Hefford, "Is this the man you saw this afternoon at the shop, who you referred as the governor?" He replied, "Yes." Hefford signed the paper again in the presence of Willson. Both prisoners were then charged. Willson said, "I do not know how you make it feloniously receiving, for my wife took it in."
Detective-inspector DAVID WARDER , employed by G.N. Railway. On June 28 I saw Willson at Somers Town Police Station, when he made and signed statement as follows: "On Saturday, June 25, I went from home about 1 p.m. and returned between 1.30 and 2.30 p.m. My wife made a statement to me and I then saw canvas packet in the shop. I removed it to the back of the counter, expecting someone about it. No one called. The package remained in the shop until the morning of Tuesday, June 28, when I inspected it and found it contained two rolls of cloth (produced). To keep the cloth clean I took it into my parlour and intended to let it stop there until next Saturday, when I intended to inform the police; but two police officers called at my shop at about 7 p.m. on Tuesday, 28th, and I showed them the cloth, which they took away."
ALBERT EDWARD WILLSON (prisoner, on oath). I have been in business as Cyrus Stores for two and a half years as a miscellaneous dealer. I am 21 years old, married; my mother left the business to me. I never saw Hefford until June 28, when I was taken to the station On June 25 I went out about 1 p.m. and returned a little before two, when my wife made a statement to me, and I saw in the shop a bundle. which I put behind the counter. On Tuesday, about 12 noon, as no one had come about it, I opened the parcel, took off the canvas, which was dirty, and found it contained two rolls of cloth, which I put in the parlour, throwing the canvas on a shelf in the back of the shop. Between 4 and 4.30 p.m. I went to Proctor and Company, 9, Old Nicholas Street, Shoreditch, bought a pair of boots, and returned at 5.45 p.m. I saw no one about the cloth. At 6.45 p.m. the police
came. Their evidence is correct, except that Hefford at first said, "I never saw that man (me)—it was a tall dark man I saw." He said that four or five times. He seemed very strange in his manner, and did not know what to say, and the police officers bullied him, the inspector called him a b—liar, and told him to say I was the man. He then said I was the man.
Cross-examined. This was in the presence of Sergeant Butters. I was represented at the police court by Mr. Ricketts, a solicitor. I had put that in my statement to him; he did not suggest it in examination. People have occasionally left bundles of canvas or rags at my shop. My wife never bought anything in my absence—I did not leave her any money. I thought the cloth was worth about £5.
Re-examined. I made no attempt to dispose of the cloth. Statement (produced) is my instructions to Mr. Ricketts, stating that the police officer called Hefford a liar and told him to say that I was the man he had seen.
REGINALD LEWIS , manager to Proctor and Company, 9, Old Nicholas Street, wholesale boot dealers. On June 28 at 5 p.m. Willson was at my warehouse buying a pair of boots, was there 20 minutes and left. I am certain of the time because it was immediately after tea, which we have at 4.30 p.m.
Inspector JOHN HOCKING , Y Division. I have been 15 years in the police force. On June 28 I was in charge of Somers Town Police Station when Willson was brought in. It is absolutely false that I told Hefford to say the man he saw was Willson. Butters asked Hefford, "Is this the man you saw this afternoon at the shop whom you refer to as the governor?" Hefford said, "Yes." No one has ever suggested till now that I said any such thing to Hefford.
Verdict (Willson), Not guilty.
Hefford was stated to have been bound over in June, 1904, for larceny, and to have been in honest employment as a carman for several years. He stated that he was drunk at the time he took the cloth.
Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.
EDWARDS, James (48, mason), and TROTT, Sydney (28, clerk). Edwards stealing one gladstone bag containing one pipe, one cheque book, and other articles, the goods of Norman Frederick Becher Bingham; Trott feloniously receiving the said cheque book, well knowing the same to have been stolen; Edwards stealing one bag containing one suit, and other articles, the goods of John Griereson Brown; Trott feloniously receiving the said suit, well knowing the same to have been stolen.
Mr. J. P. Grain and Mr. Eustace Fulton prosecuted; Mr. Huntly Jenkins defended Trott; Mr. Hawtin appeared for Edwards.
Edwards pleaded Guilty.
Trott was tried for receiving in the case of Bingham.
NORMAN FREDERICK BECHER BINGHAM , Bolton Street, solicitor. On June 1 I arrived at Liverpool Street Station to take the 11.45 a.m train to Walton-on-the-Naze, which I missed. I kept watch on my luggage until 1.45, when I missed my gladstone bag, containing clothing and other matters, including cheque book produced. I identify shirts and other articles, pawn tickets for which are produced.
Detective-sergeant JAMES BUTT. On June 23, at 1.45, I went into the "Bell" public-house, Pentonville Road. I passed through the smoking room, where I saw the two prisoners and a man named Rankin, all of whom I knew. The three were sitting on a settee and the two bags produced (belonging to Bingham and Brown) were between Edwards and Rankin. I heard Rankin say, "Clear out, Trott—there is Butt." Trott jumped up and hurried out through the saloon bar. I followed, stopped him as he was going into the street, and told him to come back. He said, "What is this for?" and put his hand to his inside coat pocket. I pulled his hand away and took him back to the smoking room, where I took from his pocket a packet wrapped up in the "Daily Mirror" of that date, June 23, containing cheque book and six pawn-tickets, five of which relate to property taken from prosecutor's bag. I showed Trott the contents of the packet; he made no reply. Rankin said, "These bags do not belong to me." Edwards said, "That one" (pointing to the small one—Mr. Brown's) "is mine. That one" (pointing to the large one, Mr. Bingham's) "is his," meaning Rankin's. I said to Rankin, "Whose are these?" He said, "They are his," meaning Edwards; "I was just going to buy it" (the large one) "for 9s.; he wanted 10s. But you are a little too soon; I only met him this morning." I obtained assistance and the three men were taken to King's Cross Police Station, charged, and taken to Bishopsgate, where the large bag, which was empty, was identified by prosecutor. Trott refused his address.
Detective CHARLES GOODCHILD , Y Division. I have known Edwards for two or three weeks prior to his arrest, Trott five or six years, and Rankin four or five years. A fortnight before the arrest I have seen all three together several times in the neighbourhood of King's Cross and Pentonville Road.
Detective FREDERICK BARHAM , City Police. I took charge of the prisoners at King's Cross and conveyed them to Bishopsgate Street Police Station. The smaller bag contained clothing, a telescope, 11 collars, cap, shirt, razor, strop, sponge bag, stationery, ties, eight pairs of socks, and other articles. Trott made no answer to the charge.
(Saturday, July 23.)
SIDNEY TROTT (prisoner, on oath). On May 30 and 31 and June 1 I was at Epsom attending the Derby races. On June 23 I went to the "Load of Hay" public-house, near Paddington Station, to meet Rankin and some other friends, who had arrived by the G.W.R. and who were going with me to Folkestone races. I was unwell and went with Rankin to the lavatory at Paddington Station. As I came out I saw Rankin talking to Edwards, whom I had never seen before. I joined them, we had a drink outside the station, and went from Praed Street to King's Cross. In the train Edwards said to Rankin, "I have got a bag to sell." Rankin said, "If it is a good one I might buy it for my holidays." Edwards said the bag was at Rowton House. At King's Cross Rankin and I went to the "Bell" public-house and had a drink, while Edwards went for the bag; he was gone about 25 minutes and returned with the two portmanteaus produced. He had a lot of things in the large bag, which he emptied into the small one and offered to sell the large bag to Rankin for 10s. Rankin offered him 9s., which Edwards accepted. As he was strapping up the large bag I noticed there was something in the pocket of the bag bulging out and said, "You had better take that out." Edwards was kneeling on the floor and he handed a newspaper parcel to me to hold I wanted to make a cigarette and I just put the packet in my pocket for a second. At that moment Sergeant Butt, whom I knew, walked through the bar into the smoking room, where we were; he looked at the two portmanteaus, and, thinking there might be something wrong, I walked out, forgetting to return the parcel to Edwards. Butt then stopped me.
JAMES EDWARDS (prisoner, called for Trott). My right name is Joseph Sheil. I have pleaded guilty to this charge. I have a terrible record of Convictions against me and have now one year and 140 days to serve from my last sentence. I took the pawntickets and cheque book out of the portmanteau pocket, wrapped them up in the "Daily Mirror," which was in the bar, and handed them to Trott to hold for me. (The witness otherwise corroborated Trott.)
Cross-examined. I have been out of Court and did not hear the evidence given by Edwards.
Verdict: Trott, Guilty of felonious receiving; Not guilty of stealing.
The second indictment was not proceeded with.
Trott confessed to having been convicted on October 19, 1907, at Leicester, receiving one month's hard labour for stealing 20s. from a bedroom; three other summary convictions were proved. Edwards confessed to having been convicted at Glasgow on September 5, 1905, as Joseph Sheil, receiving six years' penal servitude, of which he has
one year and 140 days to serve. 24 convictions were stated, commencing in 1882 and including seven years' penal servitude.
Sentence: Edwards, Three years' penal servitude; Trott, 12 months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Friday, July 22, and Saturday, July 23.)
WHEELER, Ernest (30, toymaker), and GLOVER, Ernest (26, carman) , both stealing two coster's barrows, the goods of Thomas Hearn, and feloniously receiving the same; both stealing one coster's barrow, the goods of Edward Foster, and feloniously receiving the same; Wheeler stealing one coster's barrow, the goods of Charles Jones, and feloniously receiving the same.
Wheeler pleaded guilty to the three charges. Glover was tried on the indictment in the case of Hearn.
Mr. Ryan prosecuted.
After several witnesses had been examined, the Common Serjeant held that there was not sufficient evidence against Glover (whose defence was that he had bought the barrows from Wheeler in the ordinary course of business, a statement corroborated by Wheeler) and a verdict of Not guilty was returned.
Eight previous convictions were proved against Wheeler, dating from 1895. He was released in the beginning of 1908. It was stated that he made the stealing of these barrows a practice.
Sentence, Three years' penal servitude.
No evidence was offered against Glover on the indictment in the case of Foster, and a verdict of Not guilty was entered.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Friday, July 22.)
Sentence, Three months' imprisonment.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Saturday, July 23.)
Mr. Scott-Crickitt prosecuted; Mr. Huntly Jenkins defended.
PHILLIP O'NEIL . I am an American engineer, staying at the Central Hotel, Percy Street, Tottenham Court Road. I arrived in England on June 8, and on June 11 drew from the Bank of Scotland £200 in 19 £10 notes and £10 gold. On Sunday, June 12, at 10 a.m., I was standing at the corner of Oxford Street and Tottenham Court Road, when prisoner came up and said, "Are you an American?" I said "Yes." He said, "So am I. There are about 500 Americans stopping down at the Imperial Hotel, where I am stopping. I have a great many friends there and should be glad for you to meet them." I said "All right." He said, "Come to the White City with me." We crossed over to the Tube, and on arriving at the White City found it closed. Prisoner then said, "Come and have a drink with me." We went to the Wellington Hotel; he procured tickets stating that we were bona-fide travellers and I had a small Bass with him. We then returned by the Tube, arriving at Oxford Street at about 12.30. We travelled in a carriage with no other passengers, when I felt the prisoner put his hand in my right hand outside jacket pocket, I had my money in the left pocket. Feeling that the prisoner was trying to rob me, I wanted to catch him before witnesses. He then proposed to go to lunch and we took a taxi to the Strand, where we had lunch, including two bottles of champagne, which I paid for. Prisoner then suggested a drive round the city. We got into a hansom, and prisoner stopped at a private house; after driving about for some time he proposed to go and have tea and we drove to a tea shop in Euston Road and ordered tea. It was then 3.30 p.m. Prisoner went to the urinal; after a few minutes I followed him and in the passage I met him coming out. He staggered against me as if drunk, pushed me over and took from my left-hand pocket 19 £10 notes and a cheque for £200. I proceeded to the urinal and there found my money was gone, ran upstairs but could see nothing of the prisoner. I had remained with the prisoner because I knew he was not an American and suspecting he meant to rob me I wanted to catch him in the presence of witnesses. I reported the matter to a police officer, giving a description of the prisoner. Two days afterwards I picked the prisoner out with a number of men. I am quite sure he is the man who robbed me.
Cross-examined. It is absolutely false that I went into a house in Berners Street where there were two women and Bad several bottles of beer there. Prisoner called for a moment at some house but I did not get out of the cab. In addition to the 19 £10 notes I had 20 sovereigns in a purse from which I paid for the luncheon.
(Monday, July 25.)
Sunday, June 12, he went out after breakfast and I heard him come in with his latchkey at 1.30 a.m. the following morning. I was in bed; I heard him come up into his room; he was conversing with a woman who had been staying with him. He then went out and returned in about an hour when I spoke to him. He said, "I have been driving round getting change."
FLORENCE TIBBLES , step-daughter of the last witness. On June 12 prisoner returned at 5 p.m.; he came in with a latchkey and I served him and the woman living with him with tea. He had been drinking. About 20 minutes after he went out with the lady.
EDWIN LOVETT , chief cashier, Bank of Scotland, 19, Bishopsgate Street. On June 11 prosecutor, who has an account with my bank, drew £200 in 19 £10 notes, Nos. 21789—800, and 80051—7, all dated 15/12/08, and £10 in gold.
WILLIAM JOSIAH ALLEN , licensee, "Royal George" public-house, Charing Cross Road. On June 12, at 9.30 p.m., prisoner changed £10 note produced, No. 80054. The next day I took it to my bank, the London and County, Oxford Street branch. A week afterwards I saw seven or eight men at Clerkenwell Police Court and identified the prisoner without hesitation.
Cross-examined. Prisoner wrote the name "J. H. Pearson" on the back of the note.
LEOPOLD GROSEMAN , superintendent of waiters, Charing Cross Hotel. On Sunday, June 12, at 7.30 p.m., prisoner came with a lady to my restaurant and had dinner and wine. A waiter told me that he wanted to change some money. I asked prisoner, "How much money do you want?" He said "A lot." I offered to get him £20 worth of French money. He handed me two £10 notes, which I took to Mr. Gunter, the exchange cashier, and brought prisoner 500 francs in exchange. I told prisoner, "I can get you £20 more"; he gave me two more £10 notes, for which I obtained him French money. About 10 days afterwards I identified prisoner out of 10 other men at the police station. I am sure he is the man.
CHARLES GEORGE GUNTER , chief cashier, Exchange office, Charing Cross. On June 12 I changed, at the request of the last witness, four £10 notes for French money. I endorsed the note No. 21800 "339" and handed it in exchange to the cashier.
LIVINGSTONE TIBBETT , cashier, Deacon's Bank, Charing Cross. On June 13 the Charing Cross Hotel paid into their account at my bank five £10 notes, including four numbered 21800, 80052, 21790 and. 21798, all dated December 15, 1908.
Sergeant WILLIAM EBSARY , E Division. On June 15, at 3.30 p.m., I arrested prisoner at the White City. I was with Sergeant Kenley and said, "We are police officers and we shall arrest you on suspicion of stealing £190 in notes and an open cheque for £200 from Mr. O'Neil at Euston Road on Sunday last." He said, "I do not understand what you mean." He was with a woman and another man.
I conveyed him to Hunter Street Police Station, where he was put up for identification with 10 other men and identified by prosecutor without hesitation. On July 4 he was put up with eight other men and at once picked out by Groseman, who said, "I think that is the man—that is the man, I am sure." On June 15 I searched him and found on him one £20 bank-note, 15s. silver, a gold watch and chain, passport for Turkey and Russia, an imitation pearl pin, and other articles.
Cross-examined. When Groseman identified the prisoner the inspector said, "Have a look round and see if you can identify any of those men." Groseman walked up to prisoner and said, "I think that is the man—that is the man, I am sure." I traced the notes to Groseman, who gave me a description of the prisoner, which he signed.
JOHN HENRY PEARSON (prisoner, on oath). On Sunday, June 12, I was living at 23, Liverpool Street. I am a British subject and have been in America. On June 12 I left my lodgings at 10 a.m. to get a cup of tea. I had had an unpleasantness with my landlady and had ceased to have meals at my lodgings. I went to the corner of Oxford Street and Tottenham Court Road, where I asked a newsvendor where I could get a cup of tea. The prosecutor came up and said he was looking for a place to have a drink. The newsvendor said if he went to the "Wellington" at Shepherd's Bush he could get a drink Prosecutor asked me to go with him. Nothing was said about the White City. We went to the Wellington by the Tube, had three bottles of Bass and returned by the Tube; 15 to 20 people were in carriage. I sat opposite the prosecutor. I made no attempt on his pocket. On arriving at Oxford Street I told prosecutor I was going to have lunch at a fish shop in the Strand. He proposed to go with me. We took a taxi and I found the fish shop closed, when the cabman took us to the "Golden Cross" Hotel. Before lunch we had two drinks of Vermouth each and with the lunch each of us had a large bottle of Pommery champagne. We remained smoking till 2.50 p.m., when prosecutor called a hansom cab and gave the cabman a card directing him where to drive to. In Berners Street I got out to post a letter and we then proceeded to a house in a street in Tottenham Court Road, where prosecutor knocked at the door. I paid the cabman and we went in there to get a drink. We had two bottles of German beer. There were two women there. Prosecutor went into the back room with one of them and shortly afterwards she came out and asked me if I could change a £10 note, which I did, giving her a £5 note and five sovereigns. I then told prosecutor I was going home. We were both much under the influence of drink and the woman advised us to get home. I called a cab, when prosecutor said he would go with me. I drove to the corner of Liverpool Street, where I live, when, coming to a tea room, prosecutor suggested having tea. We went in and he ordered some tea. I said I was going home, but I asked the man to
show me the lavatory. He directed me where to go, out of the restaurant, by a side door, and down some stairs. Prosecutor followed me. Having used the lavatory, I said I was going home, said "good bye" to him and left, coming up the stairs and going home to my room. It is untrue that I robbed the prosecutor. Having had tea at my lodgings, I went out with a lady I was living with at about 5 p.m.; we dined at Frascati's and returned to my room. I afterwards went out and changed the £10 note which I had received from the woman at the "Royal George," as stated by Adams. I have never been in the Charing Cross Hotel Restaurant in my life and am not the man who changed the four notes with Groseman. I returned home about 12 p.m. and, having no change to pay the cabman, drove back to the cab rank, where I obtained change. I had had a good deal to drink and remained walking about some time, when I returned to my room and told my landlord that I had been out to get change.
Prisoner was stated to have been repeatedly convicted in Australia and Cape Colony. The record of a sentence of 12 months' hard labour at Johannesburg, after which he was deported to England, was produced, together with photograph and finger-print identification.
The prisoner denied the Australian convictions and, as they were not strictly proved, the Recorder stated he should leave them out of consideration.
Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Saturday, July 23.)
Mr. H. Du Parcq prosecuted.
EMANUEL ROSZAK , furrier, 13, Newgate Street, E.C. On April 16 I left my premises in charge of Burt, my assistant. On the following Monday I found the door broken open and a number of furs and this cheque book of 50 forms (produced) were missing. I had used it up to cheque 127126 and all the counterfoils are in my writing. I find three counterfoils and four cheque forms missing. Counterfoil 127130 is not in my writing.
Cross-examined by prisoner. There is nothing in the book to suggest it belongs to a friend. The cheques, with the exception of one for £100, are mostly for small amounts.
THOMAS EDWIN BURT , 189, St. Leonard's Street, Bromley-by-Bow, I am Mr. Roszak's assistant. At 8.15 a.m. on April 18 I found the door of the offices broken in. I had left it all right on the 16th. I found some muffs missing.
Detective WILLIAM RYAN , K Division. On July 1 I saw prisoner in the Stratford Broadway with a gladstone bag. I asked him where he had got it from and he said, "I have just returned from Southend. It contains my clothing." I was not satisfied with that and I took him at the West Ham Police Station. He handed me the key and I opened the bag and found it contained a lot of clothing and this cheque book (produced) wrapped in a piece of brown paper. I showed it to him and he said, "That's done it. I know nothing about it." I subsequently charged him with its unlawful possession and he made no reply.
To prisoner. I did not take the bag away and then bring it back and find the cheque book. I found it in your presence.
Inspector HERBERT HINE , City Police. I saw prisoner on July 8 at the Snow Hill Police Station and said that he would be charged with breaking and entering a wareroom on the third floor of 13, New-gate Street, between April 16 and 18, and stealing therefrom some furs and this cheque book, which I showed him. He said, "What place was it?" I said, "A furrier's." He said, "The cheque book was handed to me in Houndsditch a few days before the Ascot races in June by a man named Miller, who frequents racecourses. I don't know where he lives. I believe he is a Jew. He gave it to me for the purpose of acting the gentleman at Ascot, as I had to show it to a man to make him believe I was a man of means. There were four of us in the deal and I was going to be introduced to him. We expected to get some money from him, but the book was found on me and I must go through it." I have traced one of the cheques, the counterfoil of which is not in the prosecutor's handwriting. I do not think that counterfoil is in prisoner's writing.
To prisoner. You were put up for identification regarding one of the cheques which had been used, but you were not identified.
The witness further proved that he had served statutory notice on prisoner that, under section 19 of the Prevention of Crimes Act, 1891, evidence would be given that he had been convicted of an offence involving dishonesty in 1908.
Prisoner. I do not dispute that conviction.
Prisoner's statement before the magistrate. "I ask his Worship to notice had I known the cheque had been stolen I should not have carried it about with me."
HARRY DOUGLAS (prisoner, not on oath). I was going with Miller to the Ascot races to make a book. When in the train he asked me to look after his cheque book, as his bag did not lock and mine did. I put it in my bag. I left Ascot before Miller, because I was expected to pay for him and three friends and I did not want to do so. The cheque book remained in my bag. When I saw Miller again I said to him, "What about your book?" and he said it would do all right on Saturday. He never told me it was stolen. I could see the cheques drawn were only for small amounts, such as household expenses, and as to the cheque for £100 he said that was given him
when his partner paid him out. I have never used the book. It was found the same as it was given to me—wrapped up. I do not know where Miller lives. I think it very unfair that my previous conviction should be brought up against me.
Prisoner confessed to a previous conviction of felony at this Court on September 8, 1903, when he was sentenced to five years' penal servitude. Three previous convictions were proved against him.
Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Saturday, July 23.)
Mr. Clarke Hall prosecuted; Mr. J. D. Cassels defended.
Verdict, Guilty. Previous convictions were proved.
Sentence, Six months' hard labour.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Monday, July 25.)
BENNETT, Charles (51, carman), pleaded guilty of carnally knowing Jane Bennett, his daughter (Punishment of Incest Act, 1908); second count, carnally knowing Jane Bennett, she being a girl under the age of 16 years and over the age of 13 years.
Sentence, Three years' penal servitude.
TURNER, James Thomas (61, provision dealer) , having been adjudicated bankrupt, unlawfully obtaining credit from John Davis to the extent of upwards of £20, to wit, to the extent of £41 2s. 6d., without informing him that he was an undischarged bankrupt.
Mr. Leycester prosecuted; Mr. W. S. M. Knight defended.
JAMES JOSEPH NAGLE , assistant to the Earl of Carrick, Inspector to, the Irish Board of Agriculture. On October 26, 1909, I went to 3, Bloomfield House, Smithfield Market; I asked to see Mr. Pybus; prisoner came forward and said "Yes." I told him I had come about the post of buyer that he had advertised; he said he wanted men to travel in Ireland to buy butter, bacon, etc., for him, to be delivered in London. I asked for a commission card and he wrote and handed me this document (Exhibit 28).
Cross-examined. I am sure of the date of the interview. I made a note of it immediately afterwards. The circular on which I went to see Pybus is Exhibit 27: "Memo, from Henry F. Pybus. Dear
Sir,—Please favour me with your price for creamery, etc." The matter was investigated by Earl Carrick in consequence of numerous complaints received as to "Henry F. Pybus" having obtained goods from Irish traders without paying for them. I do not know who sent this particular document to the department. I say that prisoner represented himself to me as Pybus, because when I went in and saw him I said, "Mr. Pybus?" He replied "Yes," and carried on the conversation.
(Tuesday, July 26.)
GEORGE INGLIS BOYLE , London Bankruptcy Court messenger, produced the file in the bankruptcy of James Thomas Turner; adjudication February, 1890, no discharge. Also file in the bankruptcy of John Thomas Turner, trading as the British New Laid Egg Company, adjudication March, 1908, no discharge.
Mrs. CLARKE , caretaker, Bloomfield House. In August prisoner called on me about renting offices and I referred him to the agent, Mr. Cox. Shortly afterwards prisoner took the office No. 3; the name put up was "H. F. Pybus." Subsequently he took the other three offices. Prisoner asked me to take in anything that came. He told me, in case of anyone calling to make inquiries, "You must hear all and say nothing." When the offices were first taken another man used to be in and out; I don't know who this was; he left off coming just before Christmas. No one besides Turner gave me instructions.
Cross-examined. Prisoner told me that "Pybus" was a trade name. I never knew a man to come there who answered to the name of Pybus. I should know the man I refer to if I saw him. (The witness Knight was brought into Court.) That is the man; he was known as "Little Tommy"; he was busying himself all over the place when the offices were first taken. So far as I could tell, prisoner was carrying on his own business in his own name, and Little Tommy was carrying on another business in the name of Pybus.
WILLIAM COX , clerk to H. Griffin, estate agent, 54, High Street, Battersea. On September 13 we let 3, Bloomfield House to prisoner; he said he was a provision merchant's agent and that he acted for a Mr. Pybus, who was in a big way of business on the market; he gave as a reference J. Knight, of Farringdon Road. In October we let the prisoner the other rooms in the basement of Bloomfield House, Nos. 1, 2, and 4: he sublet offices to Meredith, Frost and Co. and Mills.
JAMES ARTHUR MILLER , chief clerk, securities department, Farrow's Bank, Cheapside. I produce certified copy of account of prisoner with my bank. The account was opened on August 9, 1909. On November 16 there is a debit entry of £6 to Pybus. The waste-book shows four credit entries: on November 6 a cheque for £7 11s. 9d., drawn by Guzer, payable to H. F. Pybus; on December 22 a cheque
for £2 1s. 5d., drawn by F. Disdel, to H. F. Pybus; on December 22 a cheque for £4 8s., drawn by Kennington and Richardson to H. Pybus; on September 14 a cheque for £1 13s., drawn by W. Croker to H. Pybus. These cheques, paid into prisoner's account, are endorsed in the name of Pybus; I cannot identify the handwriting. The largest credit balance of the account was in September £29 3s. 9d., in December £11 1s. 5d.
JOHN DAVIS , dairyman, Yard Dairy, Kampisham, Dorchester. In October last I exhibited cheeses, etc., at the Dairy Show at Islington. Shortly afterwards I received a letter (Exhibit 3): "From Henry F. Pybus, West Smithfield, provision salesman and proprietor. Please quote me prices for same qualities as the Dairy Show exhibits." I sent in quotations and received an order signed "Hy. F Pybus," for certain goods amounting to £5 0s. lid.; this account was paid by a cheque on the London Banking Corporation, drawn by "H. F. Pybus." Subsequently further goods were ordered and supplied to the amount of £41 2s. 6d.; I made repeated applications, but never received payment. I never knew that the person carrying on business as H. F. Pybus was an undischarged bankrupt, or I should not have supplied the goods.
Cross-examined. I received this letter from Markham and Company: "5, Great James Street, Bedford Row. Frederick Knight, trading as Hy. F. Pybus, has been compelled to place his affairs in our hands; please send us particulars of your claim; he having been the victim of a malicious prosecution and been sentenced to a term of imprisonment at Cambridge Assizes." I sent the particulars, but never received the money. I never knew anything about "Turner" in the matter.
JOSEPH PREEDY , carman, Great Western Railway Company. On December 7 I delivered certain cheeses at 3, Bloomfield House. The delivery note (produced) was handed to me by prisoner; I saw him sign that receipt "Hy. F. Pybus," and he paid the charges.
HENRY ARTHUR HOGDEN , carman, Great Western Railway Company. On December 1 I delivered a parcel of cheeses at 3, Bloomfield House. Prisoner was there; I asked for the name of Pybus; prisoner said, "Right." He left the money and the receipted delivery note on the table; I did not actually see him sign the receipt.
ARTHUR ROBINSON , London representative of the Irish Co-operative Agency Society, Limited. In consequence of a communication received by my society at Limerick and forwarded to me, I went on October 19 to 3, Bloomfield House, where I saw prisoner. I asked him if he was Mr. Pybus, and he said he was. I told him I had received a letter sent to my firm in Limerick; he said he had sent the letter. We talked about prices and so on, and he said he would come round in a short time and bring another party to inspect the butter. He called a fortnight later and looked at our goods, but I would not then make him a quotation; on this occasion he informed me that he was in the egg and butter line and had a big connection with hotels.
About the middle of February I met prisoner just outside his office; I said, "Good morning, Mr. Pybus"; he told me that his name was not Pybus, but Turner; I apologised; and said I was always under the impression that his name was Pybus; he said, "Pybus was a partner of mine, but retired a short time ago." Previously to this he had informed me that he and his father had been on the market for 60 years trading as Pybus. Some time in May I went to 3, Bloomfield House, with Mr. White, who dressed up as a creamery manager. I introduced him to prisoner as "Mr. Pybus"; we had an hour's conversation, and he was "Mr. Pybus" all the way through.
Cross-examined. White was an Inspector of the Irish Board of Agriculture. Pybus's name was up on the outside door; I do not refer to the name plate (produced); the name was written or painted on the side of the door. White is not here to-day.
EDWARD JAMES RAND , secretary, London Banking Corporation. On November 16, 1909, an account was opened with us in the name of H. F. Pybus; the man who opened it was not the prisoner, but Knight. The first payment was £4 in gold and a cheque for £6 drawn on Farrow's Bank by prisoner in favour of Pybus. The account was closed on January 18.
Cross-examined. I never saw prisoner in connection with the account.
Detective-inspector HERBERT HINE , City Police. On June 23 I served the summons on prisoner at 4, Bloomfield House. He said, "I am trading here in my own name, James T. Turner"; the name of Turner was on the door. At that time this name-plate was not up; it had been there formerly; it disappeared about Christmas time. Prisoner produced to me a Cambridge newspaper of January 14 containing a report of the trial and conviction of a man named Frederick Knight, and pointed out a remark by the Judge that that conviction cleared everything. Prisoner said, "That is Pybus; I have nothing more to do with him than the man in the moon; I can tell you his banking account; would you like to know it?" I said, "That is as you like," and he made no reply. The name of Pybus is not mentioned in the report of Knight's trial. I have seen prisoner about the offices at Bloomfield House on various occasions. I have not seen Knight there; he may have been there.
JAMES THOMAS TURNER (prisoner, on oath). I have carried on business as a provision merchants' agent since September last at Bloom-field House. I first took No. 3, and subsequently Nos. 1, 2, and 4, eight rooms in all. I occupied No. 3 and shared the two rooms there with Knight; No. 1 I sublet to Meredith, No. 2 to Frost, and No. 4 to Mills. Knight carried on business as a cheese merchant, trading as Hy. F. Pybus; I carried on business in my own name. I was not a partner of Knight. When callers came or goods were delivered for Knight in his absence, I would answer to his name and take things in as his agent, and I also did some buying and selling and collecting
accounts for him on commission. I did the same for my other tenants. I never bought any goods from Davis. As to the circulars, I posted numbers for Knight; also for the other tenants. I had nothing to do with the printing of them or paying of postage. I did not tell Mrs. Clarke to take in goods coming in the name of Pybus; she would naturally take in anything that came after market hours. When she says that I told her "that if anyone came to make inquiries she was to hear all and say nothing," I do not know about the words; I should think not, not in the silly sense. When Knight first came to the office he himself put up the name-plate (produced) (with the name of Pybus). It remained up till January 7; after he was convicted the name Pybus was taken off all the places; I swear it was not there in May. When the goods were delivered by Preedy and Hogden I received them and signed for them as agent for Knight. The goods when sold were sold by Knight or on his behalf; I did not have the proceeds; I may have had some commission on what I sold. Three cheques came in after Knight's arrest, I endorsed them with his name (but still as agent), and paid them into my account. While Knight was in prison I was looking after his interests under the directions of Markham. My banking account was not in any sense Knight's nor his mine. I deny that I ever told Nagle or Robinson or White that my name was Pybus. I never told Robinson that I had been in partnership with Pybus.
Cross-examined. I started in business as a provision merchant in In March, 1879, I went into liquidation; liabilities £10,575, composition 9s. in the £. In September, 1880, there was another liquidation; liabilities £7,814, composition 7s. 6d. in the £. An-other in December, 1882; liabilities over £5,000, composition 15s. in the £. In February, 1890, I went into bankruptcy; liabilities £2,000; in March, 1908, bankruptcy again, liabilities £480. No dividend has been paid and I have not had my discharge. Since September I have been a provision merchants' agent; I buy or sell on commission, generally 2 1/2 per cent. I have kept no books. I did not require eight rooms to carry on this business; I took these offices to make money by reletting them. I had Knight's consent, verbally, to sign his name anywhere. When cheques came after Knight was in prison I paid them into my own account; that was because he had given me instructions what to do with the money.
FREDERICK HENRY KNIGHT . I am now undergoing imprisonment in Cambridge Gaol. Prior to December 21 I was carrying on business at 3, Bloomfield House, in the name of Henry F. Pybus. I had no partner. I remember getting some goods from Davis and paying for the first lot. I cannot say that I personally ordered the subsequent goods; prisoner usually did that business for me; he was not exactly my clerk, but he acted for me. I instructed him what to do. Whatever work he did I paid him for. Directly after I took the office I had this name-plate ("H. F. Pybus") put up. All the expenses of my business were paid by me; prisoner paid nothing and received nothing. He had no authority to deal with my money. When I opened the account at the London Banking Corporation it was with
£10 lent me by prisoner; this was repaid the next day. At that time I had an account at the Mercantile Bank, but it was not convenient. I had other businesses besides that of Pybus and I wanted to keep all the Pybus transactions in a separate account. Prisoner was not my partner; I in fact had a partner, a man named Hill. He was charged with me at Cambridge; he turned King's evidence and was acquitted. Turner had my authority to sign anything for me. When I got into trouble I asked prisoner to wind up my business for me in case I got sentenced.
Cross-examined. I have never been known as "Little Tommy"; I cannot tell my real name, but I have answered to "Knight" for twenty years, and latterly as "Pybus." My conviction at Cambridge was for obtaining goods by false pretences. My "exact relationship" with prisoner was that of landlord and tenant. I should not call him my agent; he was a sort of extra clerk, an amanuensis, or anything of that sort. I paid him according to what he did. When he wrote letters for me I should expect him to sign my name to them. If he has received cheques for me while I have been in prison he will have to account to me when I come out. I do not know that I gave him instructions to pay cheques of mine into his own account. I have never before seen the three cheques you now hand to me; those of course prisoner will have to settle with me for.
(Wednesday, July 27.)
MALCOLM MACGREGOR , accountant, trading as Markham and Co., 5, Great James Street, Bedford Row. I have known Knight for two years. I knew in December that he was trading at 3, Bloomfield House, as Pybus. I saw him just after his arrest, and he instructed me to see Turner and get him to help me to clear up the Pybus business. I told Turner he was to sell the cheeses and hand the money to me for payment to Mrs. Knight for the purposes of Knight's defence. Turner sold the cheese, acting on my instructions, or on the instructions of Knight through me.
Cross-examined. When Knight instructed me to wind up his business he did not give me a complete list of his assets and liabilities; I had a rough list. I take it for granted that Turner paid whatever moneys he collected to Mrs. Knight.
ALEXANDER ROSS , solicitor, 15, Basinghall Street. I acted for Knight in the proceedings at Cambridge, and briefed counsel for his defence. I knew Knight as trading as Pybus. I did not then know Turner at all.
It was proved that prisoner was convicted at this court in 1903 and again in 1908 of similar offences.
Sentence, 12 months' hard labour; Judge Rentoul wishing it to be recorded that he recommended that, in the event of any future charge against the prisoner, he should be indicted as a habitual criminal.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Tuesday, July 26.)
Mr. Sydney G. Turner prosecuted.
FREDERICK MALLETT , marine engineer. On Monday, June 27, I arrived from Aberdeen by the steamer to Limehouse, went to the Eastern Hotel with some passenger friends, had a drink with them, and saw them off by the 'bus. I was then going to my brother's house at Stepney, when prisoner and two other men met me and claimed acquaintance. I went into the "Britannia" and stood them a drink. I had a Scotch whisky; directly on drinking it my head seemed to turn round, and I wanted to leave; they kept pushing me about t and would not let me go out. I gave prisoner 2s. to treat himself, left the "Britannia," and went out. Prisoner and his two friends followed me to Brunton Street, when they came behind me; prisoner caught me by the neck and the others took from my right hand trouser pocket 17s. or 18., and from my left hand trouser pocket £49 in gold, cutting the pocket out, taking every farthing I had. As I was struggling to protect my pocket prisoner hit me a violent blow on the forehead and knocked me to the ground, the others robbing me, and they all ran off. My niece came and assisted me to my brother's house at 66, Maroon Street. I am chief engineer in steam fishing vessels, sailing from Aberdeen to Iceland and the North Sea. I come home for six weeks' holiday annually, and had arrived with the savings of the year; I was very ill from the blow, and my friends gave information to the police.
Cross-examined. I have known prisoner's father, but did not know him. He mentioned persons whom I knew, and I stood him and his companions a drink to get rid of them.
HENRY BERRY , labourer, 18 years of age. On June 27 at 5 p.m. I was coming from my work when I saw prosecutor lying on the ground in Brunton Street. I knew him; he lives in Maroon Street, where I also live. I saw prisoner running away a few yards off. I have known him for several years. Prosecutor's pocket was cut out. His niece came up and I assisted him to get home.
Cross-examined. I work from 6 a.m. to 5 p.m. at Finche's engineering factory. Prisoner turned round to see who was running after him, and I saw his face. I have known him for several years.
Police-constable WILLIAM BRISTOWE , 61 KB. On June 28, at 12.30 a.m. I saw prisoner in Commercial Road. Prosecutor's son-in-law had given information and was following me. I told prisoner I should take him to Arbour Square Police Station for being concerned with two other men in stealing from the person of Frederick Mallett the sum of £50. He said "£50—that is a lie. I know nothing about it. He had no business to have so much." On the way to the station he said, "Where and at what time did you say it happened." I said "Between 4.15 and 5 p.m. yesterday afternoon."
He said he was not there. At 10 a.m. the same morning prisoner was put up for identification.
Sergeant H. WESTON , H Division. On June 28, at 10 a.m., I saw prisoner at Arbour Square Police Station, and told him he would be put up for identification for being concerned with two others in stealing the sum of £49 odd, and violently assaulting Frederick Mallett. He was put up with eight others, and prosecutor immediately picked him out. While waiting to be charged prisoner said "What time do you say?" I said "Between 4.30 and 5 p.m." He said, "I can prove I was in the 'Star in the East' at 5 p.m."; that is a public-house a mile from Brunton Street. He made no reply to the charge. When prosecutor identified him he said, "I do not know this man; I had not been drinking with him that afternoon."
Prisoner confessed to having been convicted on May 28, 1907, at North London Sessions and receiving six months' hard labour for stealing a watch and chain. Other convictions proved: September 16 1901. 14 days, assault on the police; December 26, 1905, two months for stealing; November 7, six months, larceny from the person; November 16, 1908, six weeks for loitering; three summary convictions for drunkenness, etc.; December 29, 1909' three months' hard labour for larceny from the person. Stated to be a member and ringleader of a very dangerous gang of thieves frequenting the docks and robbing sailors.
Sentence, Six years' penal servitude.
It was stated that two witnesses of the robbery had been threatened and were afraid to come forward; that the witness Berry had been threatened, and was living under the protection of the police.
The Recorder said that the public were very much indebted to Henry Berry for his courage in coming forward to give evidence and ordered a reward of £20 to be paid to assist him in emigrating to Canada.
Mr. Lucas prosecuted.
Inspector ALBERT EMPTAGE produced sketch of lodging-house, 45 and 47, Tufton Street, Westminster.
WILLIAM FITZGERALD , Army pensioner receiving 10s. 6d. a week' 74 years of age. I occupy a bed on the ground floor of 47, Tufton Street. On July 5 I went to bed at 7 p.m., when Henderson and another man came into the room. Henderson put his hand over my mouth, and the other searched for my pocket, which contained my pension which I had received that day. £6 17s. I shouted for the police, and the men went out without succeeding in getting the money. They put handkerchief produced over my mouth, hurt me, and struck me in the stomach.
refused to accept him. On July 5, at 8 p.m., prosecutor complained to me he was bleeding from the mouth. I saw the two prisoners run through the passage. The policeman went up with me on the roof and we saw both the men hiding in the yard. Westwood was caught, but Henderson got away.
Cross-examined. I should have had no objection to Westwood using the closet in my yard.
JOHN SMITH , 47, Tufton Street. I know both prisoners. On July 5 at 7.45 p.m. I saw them go through the passage. I then heard prosecutor calling out, went into his room, when I saw Henderson over the old man, putting a handkerchief over his mouth, and with his hand round his throat. Westwood was not then in the room. Henderson came out behind me, and went into the street. Westwood then came out of the urinal.
FREDERICK GALE , deputy, lodging house, 47, Tufton Street, explained the position of the urinal, the prosecutor's room, and the passage. On July 5 at 3 p.m. I saw prisoners coming upstairs. I asked Henderson what he was doing—what was his game. He said, "Nothing much I will give you a punch in the nose if you go cop. Is Soldier Bull up-stairs? "—that is another Army pensioner—"I am going up to him." I said, "You need not trouble—he ain't got nothing." Westwood said he was going to search him. At 8 p.m. I saw the two prisoners in the yard near the prosecutor's room.
Police-constable MICHAEL MCGILLICOT , 336 A. On July 5 I went on the roof of the lodging house, 47, Tufton Street, with Bingham, when I saw the two prisoners hiding in the yard. When I got down-stairs they were gone. I knew them both.
Police-constable FRANCIS POWER , 133 A. On July 5 at 12 mid-night I saw Henderson outside Victoria Station. He turned to run away; I caught him and told him I should arrest him for attempting to rob the prosecutor. He said, "I have only just got off this 'I was coming from Fulham."
Inspector EMPTAGE , recalled. On July 5 at 8.40 p.m. Westwood was brought in on a charge of obstructing the police. Prosecutor came to the station as Westwood was being taken to the cell, and he said, "That is one of them." Westwood applied for bail, but I said, "There will be no bail—you will probably be charged with attempted murder." He made no reply. He was afterwards charged with Henderson.
THOMAS LANCELOT ARCHER , Divisional Surgeon, A Division. On July 5 at 10 p.m. I examined prosecutor. He was very exhausted There were bruises on his neck, apparently made by fingers, his mouth was bleeding, and I found that the string under the tongue, or frenum, was lacerated and bleeding. He produced a handkerchief. Considerable violence must have been used. His speech is now inarticulate, which is partly due to the injury and partly from loss of teeth.
Verdict (both), Guilty.
Convictions proved: Henderson, April 23, 1910, Bow Street, one months for larceny from a van; April 27, 1909, three months for stealing an overcoat; September 23, 1908, six months' in default of
finding sureties for assault. Westwood, September 9, 1902, two months for assault.
Sentences: Henderson, Three years' penal servitude; Westwood, 12 months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Tuesday, July 19.)
TANN, John (26, labourer), pleaded guilty of being found by night having in his possession, without lawful excuse, certain implements of house-breaking, to wit, one picklock, seven keys, and one electric torch.
Prisoner confessed to having been convicted at the Essex Assizes on November 10, 1906, of robbery with violence. Other convictions proved, January 4, 1905, two terms of six months' hard labour concurrent for housebreaking.
Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.
PERRY, Arthur (33, waiter), pleaded guilty of stealing one watch, two chains, one locket, one brooch, one watch and chain, the goods of Robert Tricker; stealing one watch and chain, one locket and chain and one ring, the goods of John Lockwood; stealing one pair of trousers and £1, the goods and moneys of Emma Alice Westhorpe.
Prisoner confessed to having been convicted on October 8, 1909, at West Ham of housebreaking, receiving nine months' hard labour, after five previous short sentences.
Sentence, 18 months' hard labour on each indictment, to run concurrently.
ATKINS, John (64, painter), pleaded guilty of attempting to carnally know Jane Clark, a girl under the age of 13 years; attempting to carnally know Esther Tugwood, a girl above the age of 13 years and under the age of 16 years.
Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.
COOMBS, Thomas Havelock (26, traveller), pleaded guilty of embezzling on May 3, 1910, the sum of 11s. 4d.; on June 10, 1910, the sum of 15s. lid.; on June 29, 1910, the sum of 7s., and on June 30 1910, the sum of £2 10s., received by him for and on account of Henry Jones, his employer; forging a receipt for £2 10s. with intent to defraud.
Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Tuesday, July 19.)
Mr. WARBURTON, who appeared to prosecute, said that prisoner in the year 1892 married Louisa Mary Guire at St. James Church, Pentonville, and there were four children living. He had lived with his wife up to the morning of the bigamous marriage on happy terms for 17 years. In September last he met Hildagard Clarice Gronland. He represented himself to her as a bachelor, and said he was living with a woman by whom he had four children. She agreed to marry him, and they went through a form of marriage on July 8 at the Roman Catholic Church, Barking. Prisoner had obtained a lucrative post on the "Cape Times" in South Africa, and was to have left England the next day. The wife's suspicions had been aroused by her discovering that her husband had removed certain of his belongings from their house in Richmond Street, Stamford Hill. By some accident she got a knowledge that her husband had been going down to Barking a good deal. She went to Barking, and after going from one house to another eventually reached the house of Miss Gronland's mother while the wedding party were at breakfast. She claimed the bridegroom as her husband, and the bride finally convinced, said, "Oh, well, if he is your husband you had better take him off." In the end Mr. and Mrs. Harman left together, and the husband offered to take his wife to South Africa. His Lordship read a statement handed up by prisoner, in which he made charges of immorality and drunkenness against his wife.
Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.
RAVENHILL, Charles Joseph (29, seaman). Pleaded guilty of burglary in the dwelling-house of Emeline Hockley and stealing therein two watches and other articles, her goods. He pleaded not guilty of being a habitual criminal.
Mr. Eustace Fulton prosecuted.
Sergeant TARBERY , R Division. I was present at Gravesend Quarter Sessions on January 20, 1905, when prisoner was convicted on two indictments of shop-breaking, and sentenced to eight months' imprisonment with hard labour on each indictment to run concurrently.
Inspector ALFRED GAUNT , Kent Constabulary, Tonbridge. I was present on October 13, 1905, at East Kent Quarter Sessions when prisoner was convicted of stealing 11s. from a till, and sentenced to three months' hard labour. I was also present at Maidstone Assizes on July 10, 1906, when he was convicted of shop-breaking, and sentenced to five years' penal servitude. That offence was committed just three months after he was committed for the till robbery, no doubt committed the night of the day that he was released from prison.
Divisional-Inspector ALFRED HALL , K Divirion. Prisoner was released from the conviction in 1906 on April 15 this year. The offence to which he has pleaded guilty was committed on the night of June I saw prisoner after his committal on this charge, and asked him whether he wished to give any information as to what he had been doing since he was released from penal servitude, as he might be indicted as a habitual criminal. He said, "I have been working. I had a fish shop at Gloucester since my release, and I have also worked for my father." I went to Gloucester on June 24 last. I saw his father and mother, found they were respectable working people, and that they had had a great deal of trouble with this man. At the time he was convicted at Maidstone Assizes the police arrested the mother in consequence of finding certain property at their house, and she was even charged with receiving, upon which charge she was acquitted. In spite of his parents' knowledge that he had been a bad character for many years they provided a home for him on his release from penal servitude and promised to stick by him. I find he had a fried fish shop in Gloucester for five days. He took the premises at a rental of 7s. per week. The previous occupier had been able to get a living at the business, but prisoner apparently made no genuine effort to conduct that business. The father then took him in hand again. He was at work with him about a week as a gardener. He did not stick to it. His mother bought him a new suit of clothing. He induced a woman to pawn them for the purpose of getting money to enable him to go about the country. From the inquiries I made at Gloucester he apparently returned immediately after committing the offence with which he is now charged. From June 14 to June 24, the day of his arrest, he was squandering that money with prostitutes and drinking.
Sentence, three years' penal servitude, and five years' preventive detention.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE RIDLEY.
(Friday, July 22.)
Mr. Metcalfe prosecuted; Mr. Warburton defended.
prisoner sitting in the passage. He asked me to walk to the corner with him as he wanted to speak to me. I went about 21 yards down the street with him when he asked me for some money. I asked him to see me in the morning, but he wanted it there and then. It was about 12.50 a.m., and I said I wanted to go to bed, and again asked him to see me in the morning. I had about 4s. 10d. on me He put up his hands and "showed fight." He endeavoured to hit me, and I noticed his hand went to his coat-pocket, and he produced a knife. He made several efforts to strike me, which I avoided. Eventually he stabbed me in the stomach, saying "That's got you now. Good luck to you." He pulled out the knife. I called for help. I felt faint, and was later on taken to the hospital, where I remained five weeks. I am an out-patient now. He appeared to be quite sober. I do not think there had been any trouble between us before. I did not owe him any money. I have always done my best to keep him as long as I possibly could. I had only started work for a day and a half at the railway. I had been out of work for some time. I have never seen him carrying this dagger. I have known he has had a dagger for 20 years. I cannot identify it as the weapon be used upon me.
Cross-examined. Prisoner has always been a well-conducted peaceable man up to this. I have no recollection of his starting me in the world in a liberal manner. I hope to be well in a very short time, but I cannot get about much now.
Mr. Metcalfe here stated that he would not press the charge of wounding with intent to murder.
ELIZABETH TWIST , widow, 3, Short Road, Stratford. Prisoner has lodged with me for three years. This dagger (produced) belonged to him, and was kept in my work-box. I saw it for the last time about a week before May 29. I did not know he had it in his possession on May 29. He left my house about 9.30 p.m. on May 28, saying he was going to see his son, and I saw no more of him.
FREDERICK HENRY HARRIS , 12, Globe Crescent, Stratford. I am the stepson of the prosecutor. At about 8.30 p.m. on May 28 prisoner called at our house', told mother he wanted to see prosecutor, and mother told him that he would not be in till 11.30. He said, "I must wait, if I wait till six to-morrow morning." He waited in the passage as he wished to do so, and sat on a chair which I had brought him. Mother went out to fetch father. When he came prisoner said he wanted him for a minute or two, and they both went out together. About two minutes after I heard the prosecutor cry, "He has stabbed me." Mother and I ran to the corner, where we saw prisoner with this knife in his hand. I went up to him, and he said, "Stand clear, or I shall stick it through you." A constable came up and he was taken into custody.
Police-constable SAMUEL COLES , K 641. On the morning of May 29 I was on duty about 100 yards from Globe Crescent when I heard a whistle blown. I went in the direction from which it came, and in Chatsworth Road I found a large crowd following prisoner. Someone shouted, "Stop that man! He has stabbed another." I stopped
prisoner, who said, "I have done it. Come up with me." I went with him to 12, Globe Crescent, where I saw prosecutor with his hands to his body. He said, "What a thing for a father to do. It's a cowardly thing to do." I handed prisoner to another constable. I put prosecutor on his back, undid his clothes, and found he had a cut of four or five inches deep. His intestines were hanging out. I took him to the West Ham Hospital.
Police-constable FREDERICK TAYLOR , K 427. Prisoner was handed to me by the previous witness. I asked him for the knife, and he said he had thrown it away down the road. We turned back to find it, and he then took it from his right-hand pocket, and said, "This is the knife." There were slight blood stains on it close to the handle, but it was practically clean. I took him to the station.
Inspector ALBERT YEO , K Division. At 3.30 a.m. on May 29 I saw prisoner detained at the West Ham Police Station. I told him he would be charged with attempting to murder his son. He said, "I am innocent of the charge. I deny it. He done it himself." When charged he made no further reply. I examined prosecutor's clothing. It was thick railway porter's clothing. I found three clean cuts through the overcoat, trousers, waistcoat, pants, and shirt, corresponding with the dagger. There was only one cut on prosecutor's body.
ALBERT VERNON LEDGER , M.R.C.P., surgeon, West Ham Hospital. At 2.15 a.m. on May 29 prosecutor was admitted to the hospital. He had an incised wound in the stomach, just below and to the left of the navel and three or four feet of intestines were obtruding from the wound. The intestines were punctured in three places. As far as I could see there was only one stab entering the groin itself; it was about four inches deep. The injury was a very serious one; prosecutor, who had lost a considerable quantity of blood, was in a state of collapse. He was discharged from the hospital on July 1. He is fairly strong now, but not capable of doing much work. It is impossible to say whether he will feel the effects in after life; it depends upon the efficiency of the operation. Considerable violence must have been used to have caused the injury.
Cross-examined. The body is not easily penetrated just where this wound was.
Verdict, Guilty of unlawful wounding.
Inspector YEO stated that prisoner bore the character of a respectable and hard-working man.
Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Monday, July 25.)
MATTHEWS, Robert (56, traveller) feloniously delivering to Charles Bottrell a certain paper falsely purporting to be an order of a certain court of law, to wit, the West Ham Police Court, then well knowing the same to be false; second count, forging such order, knowing it to be false.
Mr. W. W. Grantham prosecuted; Mr. Schultess Young defended.
CHARLES BOTTRELL , commission agent. On April 25 prisoner had rented a house and shop at 194, Upton Road, Stratford; I and my wife had two rooms there, on the understanding with prisoner that we were to be rent free till Christmas, I helping prisoner with some repairs and my wife acting as caretaker. In June there began to be unpleasantness between us. On June 8 prisoner put in a broker's man and seized my furniture for five weeks' rent, although I protested that I did not pay rent but was a caretaker. I refused to leave the premises, and he said he would go to the police court for an order on me to quit. On June 23 he came to me in the kitchen and laid a piece of paper on the table (Exhibit 1) and said, "I have just come from the West Ham Police Court, and I have a notice that you are to give up immediate possession, signed by the magistrate, so there you have it for yourself, and if you don't go I shall put you out."
The paper in question turned out to be an ordinary notice to quit, bearing the signature of Matthews, and at the foot was written, "possession at once, J.B."
Mr. Schultess Young submitted that not only was the document not a forgery, but it was not a document "purporting to be an order or process of any court."
Mr. Grantham contended that prisoner's language on leaving the document, coupled with his previous threat to go to a magistrate, was sufficient to bring the case within the Act.
Mr. Schultess Young replied that it was the document itself which must purport to be a process.
Judge Rentoul ruled that the case was covered by the Act.
Examination resumed. On June 24 I took the paper (Exhibit 1) to the West Ham Police Court and obtained a summons against prisoner; the police came the same night to serve the summons, but Matthews was not at home. On the 25th he came accompanied by a man; he said, "You have been here long enough, you have had the paper; I am now going to act on the magistrate's order and put your things out"; I went to see a solicitor; when I came back I found my furniture had been removed into the street, and the doors were nailed up. When prisoner left this document I believed it to be a magistrate's order. Prisoner has never served me with a notice to quit.
Cross-examined. I have known prisoner for some years. I swear that the arrangement was that I was to be charged no rent; he did not repeatedly or ever ask me for rent. I deny that I have obtained goods and furniture from many people in the neighbourhood and not paid, or that I have frequently left houses and lodgings leaving rent unpaid. All the time I was in these rooms rent free I was doing work for prisoner in return. I do not know if there is a magistrate with the initials "J. B." A long time ago I was sentenced to 21 days' imprisonment; that was for wife desertion.
On June 23 prisoner called at the Court and saw me; he produced the paper (Exhibit 1) and said he wanted to go before the magistrate and
apply for an ejectment warrant. I asked whether the man was a tenant or a lodger; prisoner said, "A lodger"; I then explained that the magistrate would have no jurisdiction, and that it was a county court matter. Prisoner then left. No ejectment order was applied for on that day by prisoner or on his behalf. This Exhibit 1 had not then on it the footnote "possession at once, J. B."
Cross-examined. The Stipendiary at West Ham is Mr. Gillespie; we have no magistrate or Justice sitting there whose initials are "J. B." I never knew any process of ejectment being granted by merely writing across a notice to quit the words "possession at once," with the magistrate's initials.
Cross-examined. I am sure the words he used were "an order," not "a notice." There is nothing against prisoner.
Prisoner's statement before the magistrate: "I should like to see the notice. This had not got the words 'possession at once' on it when I gave it to him. I have a witness here who can prove it."
ROBERT MATTHEWS (prisoner, on oath). I am a traveller in the timber trade. I have been a ratepayer at West Ham for 26 years, and never had a charge against me of any sort before this. In March I told prosecutor I was going to take this house at 194, Upton Road, and should have some rooms to let. Subsequently his wife called there and saw the place; she said she wanted the kitchen and a room upstairs; I said the rent would be 5s. 6d. a week, and I added, "I must have my rent because I have got to pay my rates and taxes." She agreed, and picked out the paper she wanted put on the walls. They moved in on April 18. After they had been there a fortnight I asked for the rent; prosecutor said, "You will have to wait the same as I have to do; you know things are very bad now." I asked again every week. When seven weeks rent were due I pressed him and he said he could not b—well give me any money. I then distrained, and such of the furniture as was not on the hire system was sold. I then gave prosecutor a notice to quit and he threw it on the fire. I then gave him (on June 13) the notice (Exhibit 1), and told him I was going to apply to a magistrate if he did not go out by the 20th. I swear that when I gave him this notice the words "possession at once" were not on it; they are not in my writing; I do not know the writing. When I gave him the notice prosecutor laughed at me, doubled it up and put it in his pocket. He was laughing because I told him that I had been to the police court and they had said that I must go to the county court. In 1901 I stood security for prosecutor with the Royal Liver Friendly Society; he embezzled £10 or £12, and I had to make it good. The reason I trusted him again after that was that he said he had reformed; besides, I wanted to let the rooms as I
could not afford to have them empty. It is totally untrue that prosecutor was to have the rooms rent free till Christmas.
Cross-examined. I did not give prosecutor a rent-book because they, in fact, paid no rent; but every time I asked for the rent I had the book ready.
FRANCIS SAYER , builder' now lodging at 194, Upton Road, said he was present on June 23 when prisoner left Exhibit 1 with prosecutor. The words prisoner used were, "I have been to West Ham and I am told I must go to Bow County Court, if you don't get out I shall chuck you out." Prisoner said nothing about a magistrate's order.
Verdict, Not guilty.