Old Bailey Proceedings, 11th October 1910.
Reference Number: t19101011
Reference Number: f19101011

1910, OCTOBER.

Vol. CLIII.] Part 912.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT

Sessions Paper.

KNILL, MAYOR.

TWELFTH SESSION,

HELD OCT. 11TH, 1910, AND FOLLOWING DAYS.

MINUTES OF EVIDENCE.

TAKEN IN SHORTHAND BY

GEORGE WALPOLE & CO.,

Shorthand Writers to the Court.

POINTS OF LAW AND PRACTICE

EDITED BY

R. F. GRAHAM-CAMPBELL, ESQUIRE,

OF THE INNER TEMPLE.

[Published by Annual Subscription.]

LONDON:

GEO. WALPOLE & CO., PORTUGAL STREET BUILDINGS, LINCOLN'S INN, W.C.

PRINTED BY

THE ARGUS PRINTING COMPANY, LIMITED, 10, TEMPLE AVENUE, LONDON, E.C.

THE

WHOLE PROCEEDINGS

On the King's Commission of

OYER AND TERMINER AND GAOL DELIVERY

FOR

The City of London,

AND GAOL DELIVERY FOR THE

COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX AND THE PARTS OF OTHER COUNTIES

WITHIN THE JURISDICTION

OF THE

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,

Held on Tuesday, October 11th, 1910, and following days.

Before the Right Hon. Sir JOHN KNILL , Baronet, LORD MAYOR of the City of London; the Right Hon. LORD ALVERSTONE, Lord Chief Justice of England; the Hon. THOMAS EDWARD SCRUTTON, Knight, one of the Justices of His Majesty's High Court; Sir WALTER WILKIN , K.C.M.G.; Sir MARCUS SAMUEL , Bart.; Sir WM. PURDIE TRELOAR, Bart.; Sir DAVID BURNETT , Knight; Sir CHAS. CHEERS WAKERFIELD, Knight; and Sir HORACE B. MARSHALL, Knight, 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.

CHARLES JOHNSTON , Esq., Alderman.

HENRY C. BUCKINGHAM, Esq.

Sheriffs.

RUPERT SMYTHE , Esq., Deputy,

E. V; HUXTABLE, Esq.

Under-Sheriffs.

1910.

CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.

KNILL, MAYOR. TWELFTH SESSION.

LONDON AND MIDDLESEX CASES.

BEFORE THE RECORDER.

(Tuesday, October 11.)

Reference Number: t19101011-1

MERRITT, Alfred Charles (25, postman) , pleaded guilty of stealing a postal packet containing a purse and other articles, the property of His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he being an officer of the Post Office.

Sentence, Six months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19101011-2

HARVEY, James (auxiliary postman) , pleaded guilty of stealing a postal packet containing three half-crowns, a shilling, two penny stamps, and a postal order for 2s. 6d., the property of His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he being an officer of the Post Office.

Sentence, Six months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19101011-3

WILSON, John (22, packer) , pleaded guilty of maliciously damaging two plate glass windows, value £20, the goods of Messrs. Doland, Queen Street, E.C.

Five previous convictions were proved.

Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19101011-4

GIRDLESTON, James Malcolm (25, auxiliary postman) , pleaded guilty of stealing two postal packets containing postal orders for 13s. and 12s., the property of His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he being an officer of the Post Office.

Sentence, Eight months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19101011-5

COLEMAN, Charles William (38, Post Office sorter) , pleaded guilty of stealing a postal packet containing a postal order and a postage stamp, value altogether 1s. 4d., the goods of His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he being an officer of the Post Office.

Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19101011-6

THOMAS, Arthur, otherwise BAXENDALE (18, van boy) , pleaded guilty of stealing five memorandum books, three pairs of scissors, and other articles, the goods of the " Manchester Guardian" Newspaper Company.

Prisoner had been twice convicted. He had undergone imprisonment under the Borstal system, and the prison governor regarded him as quite unfit for further treatment under that system.

The Recorder sentenced prisoner to 20 months' hard labour, warning him that if he was brought up again he would be sent to penal servitude.

Reference Number: t19101011-7

SMITH, Elizabeth (39, boxmaker), CLEMENTS, Edith (30, flower seller), and LLOYD, Mary Ann (33, laundress) , pleaded guilty of stealing a coat, the goods of the Civil Service Supply Association, Limited ; stealing a coat and other articles, the goods of Sir Frederick Cook and Co. Each prisoner confessed to a previous conviction.

Eleven convictions were proved against Smith, fourteen against Clements, one against Lloyd.

Sentences: Smith, 22 months' hard labour; Clements, 20 months' hard labour; Lloyd, Six months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19101011-8

WOOD, Charles (62, engine driver) , pleaded guilty of breaking and entering the shop of Hope Brothers, Limited, and stealing therein two boots and two boot-trees, their goods; maliciously damaging a plate glass window, value £8, the goods of Hope Brothers, Limited. Prisoner confessed to a previous conviction.

Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19101011-9

HURLEY, Ethel (17, servant) , pleaded guilty of forging an order for the payment of 10s. 6d., with intent to defraud.

Prisoner bore an excellent character, and in the present case had yielded to a sudden temptation. Mr. Scott-France, the Court missionary, having undertaken to place her in proper care, she was released on her own recognisances in £10 to come up for judgment if called upon.

Reference Number: t19101011-10

WILLIAMSON, Michael (37, labourer) , pleaded guilty of breaking and entering the shop of N. Thierry, Limited, and stealing therein a pair of boots and a pair of boot-trees, their goods; maliciously damaging a plate glass window, value £15, the goods of N. Thierry, Limited, Prisoner confessed to a previous conviction; six convictions were proved.

Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19101011-11

JONES, Henry (42, decorator), and OSBORNE, Annie (45) , pleaded guilty of maliciously publishing a defamatory libel of and concerning John Joseph Aloysius Sherry.

Mr. Leycester prosecuted; Mr. Purcell appeared for prisoners.

Prosecutor is medical officer of health for the parish of St. Mary, Islington. Prisoners are brother and sister. In February prosecutor was called in to attend another sister in her confinement; this woman died, and since then prisoners had circulated most offensive libels of the prosecutor in reference to his professional conduct in the case. Prisoners now apologised and expressed their regret, and promised to hand over all copies of the libel in their possession. This having been

done, and prisoners undertaking not to repeat the offence, they were (on October 13) released on their own recognisances in £50 each to come up for judgment if called upon.

BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.

(Tuesday, October 11.)

Reference Number: t19101011-12

GRAY, John (25, stoker) , pleaded guilty of feloniously possessing a mould for coining. Four previous convictions were proved against prisoner (not for coining offences) dating from 1906. He was released from his last term of imprisonment, 15 months' hard labour, in December, 1909.

Sentence, Five years' penal servitude.

Reference Number: t19101011-13

NELSON, Henry (27, boiler scraper) , pleaded guilty of possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter the same and uttering a counterfeit florin, knowing it to be counterfeit.

Four previous convictions were proved against prisoner (not for coining offences) dating from 1902. He was stated to be an associate of convicted thieves.

Sentence, Three years' penal servitude on the possessing count; one month's imprisonment on the uttering count; to run concurrently.

Reference Number: t19101011-14

DOLFF, Thomas (35, butcher), and HEINZ, Henry (30, painter) , pleaded guilty of feloniously stealing two fruit dishes and other articles, the goods of George Stump, in his dwelling house, and Dolff further of stealing a pair of diamond earrings and other articles, the property of Valentine Ward, in his dwelling house.

A further indictment for possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter the same was not proceeded with.

It was stated that prisoners were Germans; Heinz having come to England in November last and Dolff at a later date. The thefts were committed from the people from whom they had obtained employment.

Sentences: Each prisoner, 15 months' hard labour; recommended for expulsion under the Aliens Act.

Reference Number: t19101011-15

ISAACS, Daniel (22, clerk) , possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter same.

Mr. Pickersgill, M.P., prosecuted.

Police-sergeant GEORGE JORDAN, H Division. About 7.30 p.m. on September 29 I was in Brick Lane with Detective Smart, when I saw prisoner standing at the corner of Hare Street. He crossed over to a coffee shop. Just as he was stepping into the doorway I said to him, "I want you." He rushed into the shop. I followed and caught hold of him and we struggled and fell to the ground. Detective Smart came in and prisoner put his hand in his right hand coat pocket and took out a screwed-up piece of paper. Smart caught hold of his hand and a florin fell on the floor. He took the paper from him and handed

it to me. In it I found four counterfeit florins in tissue paper. Two were dated 1897 and two 1901. Prisoner said, "What have you got me for?" and I said, "For possessing counterfeit coin." On the arrival of the uniformed officers I showed him the coins and he said, "I never had them." When taken to the station and charged he said, "I know nothing at all about them; I have never seen them before." I found upon him a tin of blacking polish which he could have used for blackening the coins, a door key, and 4 1/2 d. in bronze.

Detective ARTHUR SMART corroborated the previous witness's evidence.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , Inspector of Coins, H.M. Mint. These five florins, three dated 1901 and two 1887, are counterfeit; they are not above the average.

Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I did not have them."

DANIEL ISAACS (prisoner, not on oath). I was going into this coffee shop when the sergeant touched me on the shoulder. I turned round and fell over some cases; I did not struggle at all. The two officers then held me. One of them took these coins out of his pocket and charged me with having them in my possession. I have never seen them before. They must have made a mistake.

Verdict, Guilty. Three summary convictions were proved.

Sentence, 12 months' hard labour, the Common Serjeant remarking that the next time prisoner came up he would be sent to penal servitude.

Reference Number: t19101011-16

TURNER, Horace (41, waiter) , feloniously uttering counterfeit coin twice in one day.

Mr. Wilkinson prosecuted.

JANE MARIA GRIFFITHS , wife of David Morgan Griffiths, dairyman, 157, Cambridge Road, Mile End. About 8.30 p.m. on September 7 prisoner came into the shop and asked for a 1/2 lb. of best butter. I gave it to him and he tendered me a florin. I gave it to my husband to test as I thought it did not look quite right. He tried it with some liquid and it went black. He told prisoner it was bad. He made no reply, but gave me a good shilling. I was giving him his 8d. change when Bailey and two policemen came in. Bailey said to him, "You have just come from my place, the 'Salmon and Ball," and he said "Yes."

DAVID MORGAN GRIFFITHS corroborated the evidence of his wife.

REGINAL STUART BAILEY , proprietor, "Salmon and Ball" public-house, Bethnal Green Road. Just after 8 p.m. on September 7 prisoner came in and asked for a mild and bitter, tendering to the barman a florin in payment. The barman brought it to me and I found it to be counterfeit. I broke it in half with the tester and handed the pieces to prisoner. He put them into his pocket, saying, "Somebody must have given it to me." He paid for the drink with a good shilling and the barman gave him 6d. and 4 1/2 d. in coppers as change. When he went out I followed him. 250 yards down the road he went into the garden of a private house. After two minutes he came out and walked to the corner of Three Colts Lane, where he met

three men. I crossed over the road and made a communication to two constables. After five minutes prisoner left the men and went along Cambridge Road, till he came to Griffiths' milk shop. I gave him time to order something and then I went in, followed by the constable. I said to him, "You have just left my house at the corner, where you attempted to change a bad two-shilling piece." He said, "Yes, I have come from the 'Salmon and Ball'."

Police-constable GEORGE GREEN. On the evening of September 7 I was in Cambridge Road when Bailey pointed prisoner out to me. I followed him to 157, Cambridge Road, where he entered. I followed him in and found Griffiths testing a florin. He said to prisoner, "This is a bad one." He made no reply, but gave a good shilling, receiving 8d. in change. I asked prisoner what he had done with the coin that he had tendered at the "Salmon and Ball," and he said, "I threw the pieces away. They were no good to me, as it was bad." I found on him a sixpence and two coppers, the change that he had had from Mrs. Griffiths. When charged at the station he made no reply.

WILLIAM, JOHN WEBSTER , Inspector of Coins, H.M. Mint These two florins shown me are counterfeit and are of average make.

HORACE TURNER (prisoner, not on oath). I did not know these florins were bad. I do not know where I got them from. I threw away the pieces of bad florin that were returned to me at the "Salmon and Ball." I gave the change and the shilling that I got there to three men I met as they asked me for it; they" were hard up.

Verdict, Guilty.

Prisoner confessed to a conviction of uttering counterfeit coin on January 11 of this year, when he was sentenced to 18 months' hard labour. He was liberated on July 26. He had been convicted four times for offences, not coining, and had received short sentences.

Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19101011-17

BECK, John (27, porter) , feloniously uttering a counterfeit florin to Mabel Mary Sander, knowing the same to be counterfeit.

Mr. Wilkinson prosecuted.

MABEL MARY SANDER , wife of James Walter Sander, "Windmill" public house, Upper Ground Street, Blackfriars. About 6 p.m. on September 24 prisoner came in and asked for a "pony" of bitter, price 1d., tendering a florin in payment. I bent it almost double with my fingers. I called my husband's attention to it, and saying to prisoner, "Do you see what you have given me." I gave it back to him. He said, "I'm sorry," and gave me a 1d. He stopped long enough to drink his beer and went away. About 10 minutes after a constable brought him back and showed me the bent coin.

HENRY JAMES WALTER SANDER , proprietor, "The Windmill" public house. On this September 24, after finding the coin was bad, I told prisoner not to let it occur again. He said he had no intention of presenting it, and that he did not know it was a bad one. I had previously seen him between 2 and 5 p.m. on the 22nd. He called for a glass of bitter, and tendered a crown in payment. I gave him the

beer and his change. After he had gone I examined it and found it was bad. I had no other five-shilling piece given me on that day.

Cross-examined by prisoner. The only two occasions I saw you were on this day and on September 24, when you passed the bad florin.

HENRY BAGLEY , potman at the "Windmill." About 6.30 p.m. on September 24 I saw prisoner in the bar. I went out to fetch a constable. I saw prisoner leave the bar. I followed him up Bennett Street. When he saw me following him he ran into Stamford Street. I overtook and stopped him in Brunswick Street. I said to him, "You've got to come back with me to my governor. He said, "What for?" and I said, "For uttering bad money." He said, "Leave go, cry else there will be some trouble." I had taken hold of him. A man came up and got hold of his other arm, and we took him towards Bennett Street. I sent for a constable. When he came I charged prisoner with uttering. The constable asked him if he had any money, and he produced 6s. 8d. good money. He produced the bad florin from his hip pocket.

To prisoner. I did not start pulling you about.

WILLIAM OAKHAM , labourer. I was in the "Windmill" public house on September 22, when at 3 p.m. I saw prisoner. He called for a glass of bitter, tendering a crown in payment. He received 2s., a half-crown, and 4d. in change. About 6 p.m. on September 24 I was there when he called for a "pony" of bitter. I did not see the coin that he tendered. I followed him out. He walked up the street and stopped to see if anybody was following him. He saw the barman, and then he walked more smartly to the top of the street.

To prisoner. I did not see you run.

(Wednesday, October 12.)

Police-constable FREDERICK WILD, 150 L. About 6.30 p.m. on September 24 I was in Stamford Street when I saw Bagley detaining prisoner. He said, "This man tried to pass a bad two-shilling piece at the "Windmill" public house, Upper Ground Street, just now." I asked prisoner where the florin was, and he produced it from his hip pocket. Bagley then said, "He passed a bad five-shilling piece the other day to the governor." I then took prisoner to the" Windmill," where the landlord said, "This man came here on Wednesday or Thursday and changed a five-shilling piece. He gave me this crown. On the way to the station prisoner said, "I am as innocent as anybody about the two-shilling piece. I changed a half-sovereign at the "Swan," Shore ditch, last night, and I must have had it given to me in change. I paid for the 'pony' of bitter and stopped in the bar quite 10 minutes afterwards." When charged at the station he made no reply. I found on him in good money three florins, a sixpence, and 2d. in bronze.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , Inspector of Coins, H.M. Mint. This florin and this crown are both counterfeit.

Prisoner's statement before the magistrate: "I know nothing about the 5s. piece."

(Defence.)

CHARLES DENCH (bracemaker). Prisoner keeps company with my daughter. I heard of his being in trouble on the following Monday. On September 22 he was at my place at dinner time at 1.45 and he stayed at my street door till about 2.15 p.m. Then he went with my daughter to the "Britannia" at the top of the street, where I saw them at 5 p.m. on my going to ask my daughter to come home to tea. She left him at 7 p.m.

Cross-examined. I did not go to the hearing at the police court. Prisoner might be at my house two or three times a week. I have a particular reason for remembering this date because I had a daughter who moved from my house on that day. I was first spoken to about the matter last Sunday when a police officer came.

To the Court. It would take me three-quarters of an hour to walk from my house to Upper Ground Street.

ALICE DENCH , daughter of the last witness. Prisoner came to my father's house on September 24 at 1.30 p.m. and left With me at 2 p.m. We went to the "Britannia" public-house, where we stayed till 6 p.m. I left him at 7 p.m. at Shore ditch Road.

Cross-examined. He generally used to come and see me in the evenings only.

JOHN BECK (prisoner, not on oath). I took the two-shilling piece in change for half a sovereign at the "White Swan" the night previous, but I did not know it was bad. If I had known it was bad I would sooner have thrown it down the sink than pass it. Some people were speaking to me as I was about to pay and I paid with that instead of a smaller coin.

Verdict, Not guilty. On a further indictment for uttering the two coins knowing they were bad, no evidence was offered and a verdict of Not guilty was entered.

BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.

(Wednesday, October 12.)

KENNEDY, George, otherwise called KENNAWAY, Gerald (39, no occupation), and LONGHURST, Albert Henry (38, licensed victualler), who were found guilty last session (see page 503) of forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, an order for the payment of money with intent to defraud, were again brought up.

Mr. Muir, on the Common Serjeant's suggestion, did not proceed with the indictment against Kennaway of forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, an order for the payment of £665, with intent to defraud, and this indictment remains on the files of the Court.

Mr. St. John McDonald asked that sentence on Kennaway be post-poned until the hearing of the appeal which had been entered, on

the grounds that witnesses to character were not now present and that on the hearing of the appeal the Court would be prejudiced by the fact that prisoner had been previously convicted. This application the Common Serjeant refused.

Kennaway confessed to a conviction of forgery at this Court on September 9, 1902, for which he was sentenced to seven years' penal servitude, and proof was given of a like offence on May 21, 1900, at this Court, when he was sentenced to 18 months' hard labour.

Detective-inspector THOMAS DIVALL, J Division, stated that prisoner was a Cambridge undergraduate and was very respectably connected; that since his release in 1907 he had been set up in an agency business and had for a short time led an honest life, but that in July of this year a forged cheque had been presented alleged to have been presented by Longhurst and forged by Kennaway, who was undoubtedly the cleverest forger in this country. It was reported that the agency business was no longer existent. Longhurst, as to whom suspicion had been entertained for a considerable time, was associated with receivers and thieves in his capacity as a licensed victualler. Recently a number of letter boxes had been robbed, cheques having been stolen there from and forged.

HARRY PAYNE , called on Kennaway's behalf, stated that he had been assisting him in carrying on a genuine apiary business since the end of 1908.

Cross-examined as to his connection with Gordon, stated to be a dangerous criminal, a letter from whom addressed to him had been found on prisoner's premises, he stated that he had only met him on three occasions in connection with the apiary business.

Sentences: Kennaway, Five years' penal servitude; Longhurst, Three years' penal servitude.

Reference Number: t19101011-19

HILL, John Henry (28, artist) , pleaded guilty of breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Lazarus Mastowsky, with intent to steal therein.

Prisoner confessed to a conviction of felony at the North London Sessions on May 7, 1907. A previous conviction of felony at Bow Street Police Court on June 27, and four convictions for insulting behaving and drunkenness were proved against him. Prisoner, a Negro, stated that he was compelled to commit the offence in his endeavour to keep his wife and children from starvation. He was stated to be in poor circumstances.

Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19101011-20

ROWLES, Albert (49, clerk) , pleaded guilty of feloniously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Richard Francis Deimel, and stealing therein one watch and other articles, his goods; of feloniously forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for the payment of £8 10s., with intent to defraud; and of feloniously breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Ann Mathew, and stealing therein one bracelet and other articles, her goods.

It was stated that the prisoner left the Army in 1906, since when he bad borne an exemplary character, and that his downfall was due to betting.

Sentence, Six months' hard labour.

The Common Serjeant ordered restitution of the articles to the prosecutors on payment by them to the pawnbrokers of the sums advanced, which sums should be reimbursed to the prosecutors out of moneys found on prisoner (33 & 34 Vict. c. 23 s. 4).

Reference Number: t19101011-21

NEWSTUBB, Thomas (41, clicker), and PEAUMIER, George (26, porter) , feloniously possessing a mould for coining.

Peaumier pleaded guilty.

Mr. Pickersgill, M.P., prosecuted.

Detective CECIL BISHOP, Scotland Yard. About 8 a.m. on September 16 I went to the first-floor front room of 20, Wilks Place, Hoxton, with Sergeant Goodwillie and Detective Pearce, where I saw Newstubb asleep in bed. I searched the room, and found in the left-hand cupboard of the mantelpiece two moulds for making half-crowns. Detective Pearce found on the right-hand side of the fireplace 124 half-crowns, 10 florins, one basin containing silver sand, and a quantity of antimony. There were also found a quantity of plaster of Paris, a piece of glass with grease on it, a saucepan containing metal, two spoons, 30 wire dippers, for holding coins in the acid, a polishing brush, two knives, and a file. Newstubb awoke and said, "I only sleep here. I cannot help what you have found. I knew the moulds were there and the other stuff, but I do not know anything about it. I was sent here for a night's lodging by a man. You know the address. It is on that postcard. It is an expensive night's lodging for me." He was taken to the station. With the two other officers I returned to the house and we found a postcard with Peaumier's address, 159, Royal Mint Square, where he was arrested by Pearce. I saw New-stubb three days previously enter 20, Wilks Place at 3.20 p.m., and on two occasions previous to that.

Cross-examined by Newstubb. I saw you enter on August 11 and 12, which would be Monday.

JULIA HAMLET , wife of William Hamlet, carman, 20, Wilks Place, Shoreditch. Peaumier, whom I knew as "Casey," rented my first-floor front room for about 12 weeks at 5s. a week. Newstubb called for him about a week or a fortnight before they were arrested, and they went away together. He has been on three occasions into Casey's room.

To Newstubb. You were not at my house at all on Monday, September 12, you were in Kent.

By the Court. I knew Newstubb was in Kent because they went to see Casey's wife, I believe; I heard them talking about it. Casey's mother called on the Saturday previous to the arrest and she told me Newstubb was going to Kent on the Monday hopping, to see Casey's wife. I did not then know that "Newstubb" was prisoner's name. I do not know why she mentioned him; I did not know who she was

talking about. She said he had gone to Kent. I did not ask her who Newstubb was, and she did not tell me. She did not say how long he had been away.

Detective ALFRED PEARCE. On September 16 I went to 159, Royal Mint Square, where I arrested Peaumier. I found on him a genuine half-crown, dated 1909, and on the sideboard there was this photograph of the two prisoners taken together (produced). I told him I should arrest him with being concerned with Newstubb in making counterfeit coin at 20, Wilks Place, Hoxton, and he said, "Yes, I have been in the house and have paid the rent." I saw Newstubb on September 15 at the entrance to Wilks Place. I had not seen him previous to that.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , Inspector of Coins, H.M. Mint. This large quantity of florins and half-crowns shown me are all counterfeit, and are unusually well made. 42 of the half-crowns are dated 1910, 54 1909, and 27 1900, and they are made from the three moulds found of those dates. All the other articles found are such as are found in the usual stock-in-trade of a coiner. The coins seem to be the work of an expert.

THOMAS NEWSTUBB (prisoner, not on oath). I went there for a night's lodging. That is all I know about it.

Verdict (Newstubb), Guilty.

Sergeant DAVID GOODWILLIE stated that Newstubb, who had been very well brought up, and had been earning an honest living until recently, when he had given way to drink and had been associating with coiners. Peaumier had been doing a little work for a bookmaker. Neither prisoner had any previous conviction. It was believed that they personally made the coins.

Sentences: Newstubb, Five years' penal servitude; Peaumier, Three years' penal servitude.

Reference Number: t19101011-22

MILLINGTON, Robert (31, printer) , possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter the same.

Mr. Wilkinson prosecuted; Mr. St. John McDonald defended (at the request of the Court).

Sergeant HENRY GARANRD, G Division. About 11 a.m. on September 24 I was with Sergeant Leach in Old Street, St. Luke's, when I saw prisoner loitering. I asked him what he was loitering about for and he said, "lam waiting for a friend over the road." I noticed he kept his left hand in his left waistcoat pocket and I asked him what he had got there. He said, "Nothing." I told him to take his hand out and he did so, exposing some pieces of tissue paper. Leach took out one of the coins that were wrapped up and said, "What's this?" It was a counterfeit shilling. He said, "I'm trying to earn a few coppers by them." I then took nine others, eight of which were wrapped up in tissue paper and one separately, from his pocket. He said, "Yes, I am glad it has come to this, because now I shall get some food. I have been starving and should only have done something desperate if this had not occurred." I took him to the station. When charged he said, "I have been working for Woolridge for the

last ten years. For the last two years work has been very slack and I have earned very little. This morning I met a man in a public-house. He asked me if I wanted to earn a few pence and I said Yes.' He said, 'Well, carry these for me,' and gave me the coins done up in tissue paper. Then I went round some streets with him and was waiting for him when you came up and arrested me."

Cross-examined. It is correct that prisoner has been working for the last ten years with Mr. Woolridge, of Upper Thames Street. He had been leading a respectable life up to about three weeks before his arrest, when he was out of a job. I do not know what he has been doing during that time. He said he had been sleeping about the streets. He was a printer and embosser and was discharged through slackness. He described the man who gave him the coins, but he could not give us his address.

Police-sergeant CHARLES LEACH, G Division, corroborated the evidence of the last witness.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , Inspector of Coins, H.M. Mint. These ten shillings are all counterfeit and all from the same mould. Coiners sell these by the load, 10 being half a load.

Cross-examined. The price they used to charge for a load of shillings would be 2s. or 3s.

Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "I was trying to earn a few coppers. I did not know what they were until the officers told me,"

(Defence.)

ROBERT MILLINGTON (prisoner, on oath). About 11 a.m. on this day I was making my way towards the firm where I had been previously working and I went in to have a drink. A very respectably dressed man started talking to me and in the course of the conversation I said I was going to my job and I had not done anything for a fortnight. He asked me if I would care to earn a few ha'pence and, on my saying I would, he asked me to come outside, where he gave me a little parcel done up in paper and told me to put in into my pocket. I asked him what it was and he said, "You have got nothing to be afraid of." I put it in my pocket and he told me to wait at the corner. I had not been waiting a minute before I was arrested. I was curious to see what the parcel contained and I had my hand in my pocket just pulling it out. I had never seen the man before, but I should know him again. I did not know the coins were counterfeit until the officers told me. I am a printer and have been in regular employment, with the exception of the last two years, of which I can account for 18 months.

Cross-examined. The little parcel was in newspaper when he gave it to me. The officer did not take the coins out separately. He was not away a minute before he came back again. I suppose now that he was uttering these coins and he was paying me to hold the coins. The police found on me a sixpence and five coppers and a penny packet

of sweets. The five coppers and the sweets the man gave me when he came back. Then he went away again and I saw no more of him. I told this story at the police station.

Verdict, Not guilty.

BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.

(Wednesday, October 12.)

Reference Number: t19101011-23

HARPER, William James, and STEDMAN, Florence Beatrice, conspiring and agreeing together to utter two forged promissory notes, knowing the same to be forged, with intent to defraud; obtaining by false pretences from Thomas Pewtress the several sums of £3 and £2 with intent to defraud.

Mr. J. P. Grain (instructed by the Court) prosecuted; Mr. J. Wells Thatcher defended Stedman.

Harper pleaded guilty.

----WRIGHT, manager to Mr. Pewtress, registered money lender, 102, Villiers Street, Walworth. In October, 1909, we had an application for a loan, in the name of Henry Thomas Stedman, 19, Roland Street, S.E. I called there on October 27 and saw the female prisoner, who showed me the home and the rent-book. I told her I must have a promissory note signed by her husband. Next day Harper called at our office; I asked him if he was Henry Thomas Stedman, and he said yes; he then signed the promissory note (produced) in that name, and I handed him the money. The weekly instalments were paid usually by Harper. In April Harper called again and a further loan was effected on a promissory note, also in the name of Henry Thomas Stedman. Instalments falling into arrear, application was made to H. T. Stedman, who declared that he knew nothing of the loans and that his signature to the notes was forged.

Cross-examined. I never saw the female prisoner sign her name to any document.

HENRY THOMAS STEDMAN , husband of the female prisoner. The two notes (produced) were not signed by me. I know nothing of the loans.

Police-constable EYKE, 260 L. On my serving Mrs. Stedman with the summons she said, "That's all right; I have agreed to pay the money." The summons for Harper was left with his wife.

(Defence.)

FLORENCE BEWATRICE STEDMAN (prisoner, on oath). I lived at the same house with Mr. and Mrs. Harper. Being in want of money I obtained an application form from Pewtress's; this I showed to Mrs. Harper and asked her if her husband would sign it to get me out of my trouble. Harper consented; he went to Pewtress and obtained the money and gave me half; I did not know what he signed. I paid my

half of the instalments as regularly as I could. My husband knew nothing about the borrowing, and I begged the Harpers not to tell him. I had no intention of defrauding. I did not write anything except my own name.

Verdict (Stedman), Not guilty.

On Harper being brought up for sentence he declared that he had pleaded guilty under a misunderstanding. Judge Rentoul allowed him to withdraw the plea and plead not guilty. On October 14 Harper was tried on the indictment for obtaining money by false pretences. The evidence given for the prosecution yesterday was repeated. Harper, on oath, declared that he only signed the notes to get Mrs. Stedman out of her trouble, and thinking that the money would be paid back directly. The jury found "That Harper forged the signature without intending to defraud." Judge Rentoul accepted this as a verdict of Not guilty.

Reference Number: t19101011-24

STEVENS, George (25, tailor) , stealing a pair of boots and trees, the goods of William Sears.

Mr. W. Horner Friend prosecuted.

Police-constable WILLIAM STOKELEY, 100 C. In the early morning of September 28 I was in Eastcheap, when I saw prisoner coming down Rood Lane; his pockets seemed very bulky. I signalled to Police-constable Morgan, and he stopped prisoner after a struggle. I asked prisoner, "What have you got in your pockets?" he said, "Nothing." I pulled his jacket on one side, and found that he had in his pockets a pair of boots with the trees inside. I sent prisoner to the station, and, returning on my beat, found that the premises of Messrs. Sears, 155, Fenchurch Street, had been broken open, a plate-glass window in the shop front being smashed. Prisoner, on being charged with unlawful possession of the articles, made no reply.

Police-constable ALBERT MARGAN, 193 C, corroborated; he added that in his struggle with the prisoner they both fell to the ground, prisoner on top; witness received injuries to his leg and was for some time on the sick list.

BERTIE YARROW , manager to Sears, identified the boots and trees. The damage to the window he estimated at £4 10s.

GEORGE STEVENS (prisoner, not on oath) said that he met a strange man, from whom he bought the boots and trees for sixpence.

Verdict, Guilty.

Prisoner confessed to one previous conviction; and five others were proved.

A witness having promised to do what he could to obtain employment for prisoner—who declared that he would keep straight if given another chance— Judge Rentoul passed the sentence of two months' hard labour, warning prisoner that he would be severely dealt with if again brought up.

Reference Number: t19101011-25

NEWMAN, Edward John (55, gasworker), and SMITH, John (72, labourer), were indicted for acts of gross indecency with four boys,and, as to three of them, under the age of 13 years, for indecently assaulting them.

Verdict, Guilty.

Sentence, each prisoner, Three months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19101011-26

BRANDL, Joseph (hat shape manufacturer) , receiving 30 rolls of silk, the goods of George Stockwelland Company, Limited , well knowing the same to have been stolen.

ISIDORE WEINSTEIN , job buyer, Barbican. I have known prisoner about four months, and have had small dealings with him. On September 26 he called on me and said he expected a consignment of silk; I told him that if it was cheap I would buy it. Next morning, about 10, he called with a roll of silk; it was wrapped in paper which had a label on it; I agreed to buy the stuff at Is. 7d. a yard. An hour afterwards he brought in a van 29 other rolls, and I bought the lot. The invoice was for £119 2s. 4d.; on another account I owed him £5 0s. 3d.; I gave him a crossed cheque for £44 2s. 7d. and an open cheque for £80.

Cross-examined. In all my transactions with prisoner he gave me invoices on printed headings. When he called on September 26 he sold me a job lot of dolls, price £5 0s. 3d., and then said that he was expecting to have some silk on the following morning. I had had about 20 or 30 transactions with him previously, including one of about £50. He at first asked for the silk 2s. a yard; I offered him 1s. 6d, which he would not accept; eventually we agreed upon 1s. 7d. I considered that a fair price; if I had sold them I might have made a profit of 12£ or 15 per cent.

ROBERT SAYER , 66, Aldermanbury, London manager of Schwartzback and Co., silk manufacturers, of Zurich. On September 27 I was expecting a case from Zurich; it would be marked "R.S. 1,700," and would contain 30 rolls of black taffeta silk; the value would be about £1751, I never received the silk. That afternoon I went to prisoner's warehouse and identified the silk there as that which must have come from Zurich consigned to me.

HENRY WEISTER , in the employ of Schwarkback at Zurich, identified the 30 rolls of silk produced as those which he had seen packed and labelled in Zurich and consigned to Sayer.

GEORGE STOCKWELL , director of Stockwell and Company, Limited, carriers, Finsbury Street, E.C. On September 26 I received from Switzerland an advice note regarding a case of silk, with the lettering "R.S. 1700" for delivery to Sayer. I never saw the case.

HERBERT WATSON , checker at the Willow Walk goods station, London and Brighton Railway. On September 27 I saw handed to Kiddle and put on his van a case marked "R.S. 1700." On the lid of the case, now produced, there has been an attempt made to erase the marks; they have been planed down, but there are still traceable the letter "S" and the figures "00."

HENRY GEORGE KIDDLE , carman to Stockwells. I left the Willow Walk goods station just before 9 a.m. on September 27; among other parcels on my van was this case of silk, which I had to deliver a 66, Aldermanbury. I made several deliveries at various places; the last I remember seeing the case was in Cheapside about 10.15. When I got to 66, Aldermanbury, I went upstairs to ask if the case should go down the shoot; when I came downstairs the case had disappeared.

ALBERT PAYNE , the vanguard who was on Kiddle's van, said that the case in question was put at the back of the van. He last remembered seeing the case outside the Great Western Railway depot in Gresham Street. He would not be able to see the case, as he was looking in front.

Detective inspector ROBERT LYON, City Police. On the afternoon of September 27 I called on Weinstein and was shown these 30 rolls of silk; he said he had purchased them from prisoner, and produced the receipt. I then went to prisoner's warehouse in Golden Lane, where I saw prisoner. I told him I was a police officer, making inquiries regarding a case of silk which had been stolen, the property of Stockwells. Having cautioned him, I said, "I believe you have just sold the goods I refer to to Mr. Weinstein." He said, "Quite right," and, handing me a receipt, added, "J have just bought it from that man and paid him £80." The receipt bears the address "S. & J. Josephs Brothers, 111, Brick Lane." In company with prisoner and Sergeant Digby I went to 111, Brick Lane; it was an ironmonger's shop, occupied by a Mr. Cotton; no "Josephs" was known there, nor had there been any correspondence in that name delivered there I returned to Golden Lane to look for the case. Prisoner's son handed me the case, which was in the condition it is in now; it was all broken up, but the lid was entire; the part where the markings were had been planed down. On my taking prisoner to the station he volunteered a statement. (This was read; it gave substantially the explanation given presently by prisoner on oath.) In reply to the formal charge prisoner said, "I did not know that the stuff was stolen." The distance from prisoner's premises in Golden Lane to 66, Aldermanbury, is about a thousand yards.

Cross-examined. From prisoner's premises to 111, Brick Lane is a mile or more. The receipt given by prisoner to Weinstein is on a printed heading, "J. Brandl, wire, buckram, and straw hat and bonnet manufacturer; please note new address, Golden Lane, E.C." I know that prisoner had been at Golden Lane about six weeks and was for three or four years previously at 17, Goswell Road. When we went to Brick Lane prisoner seemed surprised to find that there was no one there named Josephs; he gave me a description of Josephs; while he has been on bail he has given us every assistance in trying to find Josephs. We searched prisoner's place for a plane, and found no tool of any sort; he told me that the case had been opened in his presence by Josephs. Prisoner handed me 24 receipts relating to previous transactions with Josephs.

(Thursday, October 13.)

Detective-Inspector LYON, recalled. Further cross-examined. I have compared the 24 receipts of Joseph Brothers with the receipt for £80. I should say they are all in the same handwriting. Prisoner does not write legibly. I have the numbers of the notes which were given out by the bank on September 27 in exchange for Mr. Weinstein's cheque for £80. Prisoner had told me he had paid those to a man named Joseph. That was correct. On October 3 he brought me a letter he had received from Josephs from Dover, saying he had heard prisoner was in trouble and enclosing the four £5 notes for him to make use of in his defence, and that he was going to the Continent. He showed me a cheque he had paid to Josephs dated September 9 for £17 10s. to show that he had done business with Josephs by cheque. Prisoner gave me a list of names of thoroughly respectable firms in the City and asked me to inquire into his character. The character they gave was a very high one. I made inquiries into the transactions covered by the 24 receipts. There is a doubtful one, and that case is pending at the present time. Prisoner voluntarily handed me the receipts in order that I might make inquiries. Prisoner's hat shape business is a very fair one. He told me the office was so small that he could not keep the case there, but had it sent to the other room where it was broken up. He would not have much room in the office for that case. There were several Jewish gentlemen here yesterday to speak to his character, but they are not here to-day on account of it being the chief fast of the year.

(Defence.)

JOSEPH BRANDL (prisoner, on oath). I am an Hungarian. I have been in this country 10 years and in business in the City five or six years. I carry on the business of hat shape manufacturer at 8 and 10, Golden Lane. Before I went there I had a business at 17, Goswell Road. I was a job buyer as well, a separate business. The silk I sold to Weinstein on September 22 I bought from Josephs Brothers. I only knew one man. I had been buying from him since March, 1909. I could not tell you how many transactions I had with him. I only keep my receipts for a year and then destroy them. The receipts I gave the police were the 24 transactions I had in 12 months. They were all job lines. I always got a printed billhead receipt from him. I never sold to him. I never went to 111, Brick Lane. A man never goes out hunting for job lots; if a man has anything he comes to me. Weinstein has never been to my place. His clerk came a fortnight age. I do not keep books showing job transactions; I only keep books for my hat shape business. I first saw Josephs about the silk on the 26th, when he told me he would have some silk for me next morning. On the 26th I bought some dolls from him, which I sold to Weinstein. I paid Josephs about £4 15s. for them and took his receipt, which is here. On the 27th Josephs came about 10 minutes to 10 and brought one roll of taffeta silk sample. He said it was the silk he told me

of yesterday. I looked at it; he asked 1s. 3d. for it and I offered 1s. 1d. a yard. He said there were 30 rolls, and I agreed to buy the lot. Twenty-five minutes afterwards he came with another man and brought the case. He opened the case himself. I was not there. I never looked at the case; I never had a plane. The case having been opened, I looked at the rolls and saw they were the same as the sample. We checked the number of yards, which at 1s. 1d. came to £81 some shillings. I agreed to give him £80, as he said he would give me the difference for discount. I told him to come back any time for his money, and he returned at 12.15. Before then I had been to Weinstein with one roll and asked him 2s. a yard. He offered me 1s. 6d. I never get what I ask. I refused 1s. 6d. and went away; he called me back and said he would give 1s. 7d. I did not know its value when I bought it; I am not a silk merchant. The reason I asked for an open cheque is that I had not enough money in the bank to pay Josephs. I went to the bank with Josephs, cashed the £80 cheque in gold and four £5 notes, and gave all to Josephs. At 10 to one next day Weinstein sent up his clerk. They called me down and said, "Mr. Weinstein wants to see you." When I went I saw Inspector Lyon and Sergeant Digby, and they told me the silk was stolen. I took Josephs' letter from Dover to Inspector Lyon straight away, and handed one of his officers the letter and notes. I made £38 19s. 7d. profit on the silk transaction. I have never been charged with any offence. Every day I saw Josephs in Aldergate Street. It did not occur to me that he was a thief. The £38 of skins I bought from Josephs, I handed that receipt to the police. They were sold to Caiman Links, wholesale furrier, Golden Lane. I gave the police the name and address and the name and address of every person to whom I sold things. I only paid Josephs once by cheque. I gave the police a description of him and went with them day by day the last fortnight to try and find him.

Cross-examined. I think Inspector Lyon told me that the skins I am now charged with receiving were offered to the original owner. I do not know that the original owner informed the police. It is a genuine business I carry on at Golden Lane. I keep a day book, ledger, and signature books. I have an account at the Union of London and Smiths Bank. The bank book will show the business I have done with customers. I do not keep an account of the job lots. The case of silk was brought in by Josephs; I did not see the other man. The case was opened in my presence by Josephs with a chisel. We counted the yards; each roll has a ticket with the number of yards printed on it. I examined one or two of the rolls. I saw they looked like new goods. Thirty rolls of new silk is a job line. I do not suggest I was taking any risk in buying such goods as a job line. I did not know the value, but I thought at 1s. 1d. I cannot lose much. With job lines We always offer a little less than is asked. I never noticed any mark on the case. I can see something has been removed which has been printed or stamped on it. I got Weinstein's open cheque for £80 because that was the amount I had to give Josephs. I could not give

him my open cheque; I do not think I had as much money in the bank. He told me he was a large job buyer. I never went to his premises. Once or twice he has told me he would not have a crossed cheque as he had no banking account. I first met Josephs at an auction room in the City. I do not think there is anybody here who has seen him. Lots of people have seen him. I never made inquiries about the firm of Josephs. I did not attempt to ascertain where they obtained the goods they sold to me; no job buyers do that. (Several invoices put to witness.) I sold all those to Weinstein. I sold the skins mentioned in the invoice of July 18 to Caiman Links.

HENRY RICHARD BUCKINGHAM , wholesale milliner, Jewin Crescent, E.C. I have known prisoner three or four years. I have always considered him a very straightforward, upright man. There are dozens that will speak of him in our trade.

Inspector LYON, recalled. I went to Mr. Links, Golden Lane, in consequence of a communication made by Mr. Milner, of 1, Creed Lane, the original consignee of the skins that have been referred to. I saw accused after I had seen Links.

Verdict, Guilty.

Sentence, Six months' imprisonment, second division.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE SCRUTTON.

(Thursday, October 13.)

Reference Number: t19101011-27

BUTTON, Jennie (22, laundress) , murder of her newly-born male child.

Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Leycester prosecuted; Mr. Oddie defended (at the request of the Court).

Mrs. LOUISA GRIFFIN, 5, Montpelier Road, Peckham. In April prisoner took lodgings with me; she said she was 28, and gave her name as Jennie Butler; I took her to be a single woman; she worked at a laundry at Brockley. In May I noticed that she was rather stout and asked her if she was pregnant; she denied it, and said that she had scalded her stomach and had to wear bandages. She went regularly to her work every day. On May 27 when she came home she seemed poorly; she said she had had a fall and hurt her knee; she stayed in bed for two or three days. Her room was at the bottom of the house; mine at the top. On June 3 she seemed very bad; she could hardly move and I thought she had rheumatism; she agreed that she ought to have a doctor, and, as she had no money I went to fetch the Relieving Officer; he came and the doctor, and she was sent to the infirmary. She had a small dress basket; there were some brushes and odd things of hers in the room; I asked her what I should do with them, and she said, "Just put them in the basket anyhow"; then she said, "You won't want to open the basket will you; take it down in your parlour and keep it for me." The next day I went to her bedroom; everything

on the bedstead was bloodstained, and the bed had been turned over; the sheet was stuffed in a pillow; it was saturated, as if it had been washed out; there was a chemise of hers in a similar state. Afterwards the doctor came and in my presence he opened the basket left by prisoner; at the bottom was a parcel which contained the dead body of a child. We also found a bloodstained pair of scissors; these are mine; I had lent them to the prisoner.

Mrs. CAROLINE GINGELL, daughter of the previous witness. On June 2 I saw prisoner in her bedroom; she asked me if I had heard her get up in the night and go down to the lavatory; I told her I had not; she said she had been down twice. In the lavatory there is a washbasin and water tap.

Dr. ALFRED B. BLOMFIELD, of the Camberwell Infirmary. On the morning of June 3 I went to 15, Montpelier Road and saw prisoner in bed. She said she was suffering from rheumatism, and I found this was so. As Mrs. Griffin said could not keep her in the house I ordered her removal to the infirmary. Next day I called at the house and was shown the basket; on undoing it I found at the bottom the body of a newly-born male child; it was a full-time child; weight 51b. 13oz.; quite healthy. The cord had been cut close to the abdomen. There were six punctured wounds on the neck and two on the top of the chest; a mark on the left side of the back of the neck. The wounds could have been caused by the scissors (produced), but I think the scissors could not have been open; there were eight separate stabs. Considerable force must have been exercised to inflict the wounds. The cause of death was hemorrhage from the six deep wounds. At the post-mortem the lungs and the heart showed a healthy appearance; I tested both; the lungs floated in water, both when they were attached to the heart and when they were cut up and squeezed; this shows that air had entered the lungs and that the child had breathed, for how long it is impossible to say. There were signs in the stomach that the child had attempted to swallow. Blood circulation had been established. It is impossible to say that the breathing might not have been before complete birth. I do not think the wounds could have been inflicted before complete birth. From the appearances as a whole, I conclude that the child did have a separate existence. It is possible for the child to be living, by its own vitality, before the cord is severed.

Cross-examined. I do not agree that the wounds might have been caused by the mother in using the scissors to cut the com; the wounds were too deep. The cord was not tied, so that the child would eventually die of hemorrhage. [The following passage from Taylor's Forensic Medicine put to witness: "The lungs may be fully inflated by a child while it is still in the maternal passages."] I do not admit that a child could inflate its lungs, as I saw the lungs here, while the head was in the vagina, it might while the head was protruding. When I saw prisoner on June 3 she was suffering from gonorrheal rheumatism and was in very great pain; being in that condition, she would at the time of the confinement be in a frenzied state, and hardly know what

she was doing. Nevertheless I still say that the wounds cannot have been accidentally inflicted.

To the Court. I think the child, at the moment before it died, was separated from the mother and had an independent or separate existence. From the nature of the wounds and what I saw of the child I think they were inflicted when the child was separated from the mother and had an independent existence. In my opinion the wounds contributed to the child's death. By "separate existence" I mean that the child breathed; that is all that is necessary; that it has been born and has breathed; by "born" I mean that it is away from the mother; the attachment or non-attachment of the cord makes no difference.

WILLIAM J. C. KENT , medical superintendent, Camberwell Infirmary. I saw prisoner in the infirmary on June 4. She was suffering from gonorrheal rheumatism and blood poisoning. She is still under my care, and it will be a long time before she completely recovers.

Cross-examined. After listening to the evidence of Dr. Blomfield, I think the child may or may not have had a separate existence when the wounds were inflicted.

To the Court. By a "separate existence" I understand that the child was carrying out its life entirely apart from any circulation of its mother. The child may have a separate existence although the placenta remain in the mother. The probabilities are that this child had a separate existence.

Inspector ALBERT HAWKINS, B Division, after speaking to finding in the basket (in a separate parcel) the afterbirth, and also the pair of scissors, and that on October 5 he told prisoner she would be charged with the murder of her child by stabbing it with scissors; she replied, "All right"; on the way to the station she said, "I don't know what made me do it; the father of the child said he would murder me."

Cross-examined. What she said was not, "I do not know what I was doing."

Inspector RICHARD LEE, B Division, corroborated the finding of the basket.

This concluding the case for the Crown, his Lordhsip sent the jury out of Court while the question was considered whether, on the medical evidence, it would be safe to leave the case to the jury on the indictment for murder with the alternative of manslaughter. Reference was made to R. v. Crutchley (7 C. & P., 814) and R. v. Reeves (9 C. & P., 25) for the proposition that "The fact of the child's being still connected with the mother by the umbilical cord will not prevent the killing from being murder, if the child has a circulation completely independent of that of the mother"; and to R. v. Senior (1 Mood. C.C., 346), in which it was held that "If a mortal wound be given to a child whilst in the act of being born, for instance upon the head as soon as the head appears and before the child has breathed, it may be murder, if the child is afterwards born alive and dies thereof."

Mr. Bodkin admitted that in this case it would be rather straining the matter to ask the jury to infer from the evidence that prisoner intentionally inflicted the injuries on the child before it was completely born, that the child was then born, and died in consequence of the wounds.

Mr. Justice Scrutton said that, if he took the answers of the medical men to the general question, there would be evidence to go to the jury; but, in explaining their reasons for saying that there was a "separate existence," the

doctors attached various meanings to the phrase which left the matter very vague.

Mr. Bodkin agreed.

His Lordship then called the jury back and explained to them that, in order to convict of murder or manslaughter the person killed must be "a reasonable creature in being and under the King's peace"; here there was not conclusive evidence that the baby was injured at the time when it had a separate existence; therefore he directed them to acquit the prisoner of murder or manslaughter; it was still open to them to convict of concealment of birth.Mr. Oddie formally submitted that there was no evidence to go to the jury on this charge. His Lordship overruled the objection.Prisoner then, on the advice of counsel, pleaded guilty of concealment of birth , and was sentenced to six months' imprisonment.

Reference Number: t19101011-28

MCCARTHY, Michael (25, stevedore) , charged on the coroner's inquisition with the manslaughter of Joseph Hammond , pleaded guilty and was sentenced to Three months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19101011-29

ROTTSTEIN, Isaac (23, tailor), was indicted for and charged on coroner's inquisition with the manslaughter of Kristen Herman Hansen.

Mr. Cotes-Preedy prosecuted.

ARTHUR LAMBERT WOLFF . I was a sailor with Hansen on board a Norwegian steamer which berthed in Wapping Basin on September 4. On September 10 we left the ship together about 7 p.m. and had several drinks; I parted with him about 9.30. Later on I saw him lying unconscious outside the "Alma Arms," West India Dock Road.

HAROLD HANSEN , sailor. I had known deceased (who was no relation of mine) six or seven years. About 10 p.m. on September 10 I met him in West India Dock Road and we went into the "Alma Arms"; prisoner was there. I went out for a minute and when I returned I saw prisoner and deceased outside the house; I saw prisoner knock Hansen down with a heavy blow in the face. Hansen could not speak English.

Cross-examined by prisoner. I heard no quarrelling in the "Alma"; you were talking to deceased and there were other sailors there. I did not hear him ask you to fight.

KRISTEN PETERSEN , proprietor of the "Alma Arms." About 11 p.m. on September 10 four Norwegian sailors came into the bar; prisoner was there with three women. I heard prisoner chaffing deceased, saying, "Get your hair cut." I heard nothing about fighting. Soon afterwards deceased said, "Come outside"; he spoke that in broken English. Both the men then went outside.

To prisoner. I did not hear you say to Hansen, "Don't make grimaces at these ladies." I did not see him shake his fist in your face.

WILLIAM SIMMONDS . I was in the bar and saw and heard prisoner "chipping" deceased; the latter came across and shook his fist in prisoner's face, saying something in a foreign language; prisoner pushed him away, saying, "Go away from me; I don't want a crook like you." Afterwards, outside, I saw Hansen strike at prisoner and

knock his hat off; prisoner then struck him a heavy blow in the face and he fell, striking his head on the pavement.

ALBERT CLARKE , who was with previous witness, corroborated.

WILLIAM HODGSON , house surgeon, Poplar Hospital. Hansen was brought into the hospital about midnight; he was unconscious and bled from the nose; he was suffering from concussion. He died at 8 o'clock the following night. At the post-mortem I discovered between the scalp and the skull bones a lot of blood clot; the skull was fractured; this would be accounted for by his fall at this place, where there is a kind of double kerb. He must have been knocked down with some violence; a mere fall would not have done it.

To prisoner. There was no mark on the face.

Police-constable JOHN CABRON, K Division. In the early morning of September 11 I saw prisoner at his address. I said, "We are police officers and are going to arrest you for causing grievous bodily harm to a man outside the "Alma Arms" last night; he is now lying unconscious at Poplar Hospital." Prisoner replied, "I don't care if he is in the hospital; I done what I done in self-defence"; he then asked to see our warrant. When I told him a warrant was not necessary he refused to come with us and became violent. At the station he said, "The man made faces at my wife and I have got witnesses to prove it; he challenged me to fight and we had a fight. I know I hit him, but what I did did not kill him."

Detective-inspector ALBERT BALL, K Division. On being formally charged prisoner made no reply.

(Defence.)

ISAAC ROTTSTEIN (prisoner, on oath). I was in the "Alma" with a young woman, her mother, and her sister-in-law. The young woman was heavy in the family way; Hansen kept making grimaces and winking at her. I said to him, "You might look the other way and don't keep winking at these females." He rushed over and shook his first in my face and said, "Come outside." I walked outside and he followed; he struck me on the forehead and knocked my hat off. I just put my hand out to hit him, when he seemed to stumble; as he rushed at me he, fell. He was a big man and it would have taken a very hard blow by me to knock him down; he simply fell backwards as I put my hand out.

Cross-examined. It is not true that I am fond of boxing; I never boxed in a public place or a club. I have boxed with my young brother, no one else. I admit that I put out my hand to hit Hans's but it was in self defence, after he had struck me.

Mrs. ELIZABETH DIXON (to prisoner). I was in the public-house with my daughter and daughter-in-law; Henson was winking and laughing at my daughter; you asked him what he was looking at and told him to look the other way. He started taking his coat off and said, "Outside—man—fight." You said, "Don't be silly, man; go away."

ANNIE DODD , daughter of previous witness, corroborated.

Verdict, " Guilty of manslaughter, under very great provocation, and we recommend him to the mercy of the Court."

The police proved that prisoner had been twice fined for assault; he was stated to be rather fond of using his fists.

Sentence, two months' imprisonment, second division.

BEFORE THE RECORDER.

(Thursday, October 13.)

Reference Number: t19101011-30

SUGDEN, Harold (33, traveller) , pleaded guilty of stealing three shirts, the goods of Sidney John Beach and another; stealing one leather hat box, the goods of Benjamin Barrett ; stealing 24 knives and 12 forks, the goods of George Cloake.

Prisoner confessed to having been convicted at this court on May 18, 1909, receiving 12 months' hard labour for obtaining goods by false pretences. Other convictions proved were: January 4, 1904. four months for stealing a ring; January 21, 1906, Greenock Sheriffs' Court, two months for stealing jewellery; August 20, 1896, three months, stealing a bicycle.

Sentence, 12 months, hard labour.

Reference Number: t19101011-31

HOWES, Arthur Charles , forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, certain receipts for the payment of money, to wit. a receipt for the payment of £10 and £14 17s. 6d. by His Majesty's Postmaster-General, with intent to defraud.

Mr. Muir and Mr. Forster Boulton prosecuted; Mr. St. John MacDonald defended.

WILLIAM ALBERT CHRISTIE , clerk P.O. Savings Bank. I produce deposit book of William Markham, which I handed to the depositor on April 22, 1910, at his address, 124, Copenhagen Street, Islington. He wrote his name and address thereon in my presence. That has since been altered by being inked over with thick ink, in my opinion in the writing of the prisoner. On April 22 the account was in credit £79 17s. 6d. After handing Markham the book I saw the prisoner in the parlour of 124, Copenhagen Street. On August 3, 1910, I received notice of withdrawal (produced) signed "William Markham, 67, Cocksley Road, Plumstead," in the prisoner's writing, and I issued warrant for payment; receipt for same signed "William Markham," is in prisoner's writing.

Cross-examined. I have been 12 1/2 years in the P.O. I should not have issued the warrant if I had thought the book had been tampered with, or paid the money to the prisoner.

BERTHA LOCKRIN , sister-nurse, University College Hospital, Gower Street. On June 17, 1910, William Markham was admitted to my ward; he was suffering from hemorrhage of the brain, was incoherent, delirous, and unable to hold rational conversation. He had a P.O. Savings Bank book which I took from under his pillow and locked up.

He left the hospital on June 24. I gave the book to prisoner's wife at her request. Markham had given me no instructions with regard to the book. I never saw the prisoner on the subject.

Cross-examined. I spoke to Markham every day; he was in my charge. I am not absolutely certain that I did not give the book to prisoner; I have no recollection of seeing him.

MARY EMMA TAYLOR , wife of Arthur Taylor, clerk, P.O., Albert Road, North Woolwich. On August 3 between 2 and 4 p.m. a man applied to withdraw £14 17s. 6d. by telegraphic return of post on Markham's account, the warrant to be sent to Southend, and signed application form (produced), which I forwarded to the Central Office after initialing it. I compared the signature with that on the deposit book. I do not identify the prisoner.

HERBERT SELLERS , clerk, P.O. Savings Bank Department, South Kensington. On August 3 I received from North Woolwich P.O. telegraphic request to forward warrant for £14 17s. 6d. on account of William Markham. I had received the information that Markham was dead. I forwarded warrant and instructed a police-constable attached to the P.O. to attend at Southend.

GEORGE MARKHAM , bricklayer's labourer, brother of William Markham, deceased. On July 21 I learned that my brother was dead, and on July 22 I went to 124, Copenhagen Street, where prisoner's wife told me that he was dead. Prisoner took me up into my brother's room. I asked him several times where the bank book was; he ultimately told me the last time he saw it it was in the Relieving Officer's hands. I said, "What has become of the furniture?" Prisoner said, "The parish authorities have given me permission to do what I like with it." I said it was rather hard on me—I had not had anything—"What about the furniture he left—are you going to claim that as well?" Prisoner said, "No." I said, "Can I sell it?" He said, "Yes. I will buy it of you." I sold him the furniture for £2, which he paid me and for which I signed receipt (produced): "I,. George Markham, Charrington House, Deptford, surrender all property, monies, and effects of the late William Markham to Arthur Charles Howes, of 124, Copenhagen Street, N., in payment of £2 sterling." Dated 22nd July, 1910. Witness my hand, G. Markham." I did not read it and it was not read over to me. I did not know that there was then £34 standing to my brother's credit in the P.O. My brother was a bricklayer who had worked hard and saved money. I knew he had a bank acccount. On July 26 or 27 I wrote to the P.O.

Cross-examined. I occasionally visited my brother and frequently saw him out of doors. He had been living at prisoner's house for about 12 months. He frequently assisted me. He did not say that prisoner and his wife had been very good to him. Prisoner several times told me he did not know what had become of the bank book. He said, "The last time I saw it it was in the Relieving Officer's hands," and that the money was nearly all drawn out.

ALFRED MARSHALL , telegraphist and sorting clerk, Southend P.O. On August 4 at 10 a.m. prisoner presented the book of William Markham

and demanded payment of £14 17s. 6d., warrant for which had been forwarded to me. He signed the warrant and I compared it with the signature on the book. I asked him if the account was his and if his name was William Markham, he said, "Yes." Police-constable Brooks then spoke to the prisoner.

Police-constable FREDERICK BROOKS, attached to the G.P.O. On August 3 I saw prisoner at Southend P.O. I said I would like to speak to him in the postmaster's room. I then said, "I am going to speak to you about a Savings Bank matter," and cautioned him. I showed him Markham's book and said, "You handed this to the clerk at the counter, is it your property?" He said, "Yes." My name is William Markham and I am the depositor. I opened the account on December 17, 1908." I said, "I believe your name is Howes." He hesitated for a moment and said, "I wish to tell the truth." I said, "Do you wish to make a free and voluntary statement?" He said, "Yes. My name is Arthur Charles Howes. I am a newsagent and reside at 124, Copenhagen Street, Islington. The depositor William Markham came to live with me last January 12 months. On July 9 of this year he was taken away from my place to the University Hospital. The next day he sent for me. I went and he handed into my charge his Savings Bank book. The next week I took him to the Islington Infirmary, Highgate Hill. On the way he said to me, 'If anything happens to me you can have my money.' The following Sunday I went to see him, and he again told me if anything happened to him I was to have the money. I said to him. 'Will you sign it over to me?' Markham said he could not use his hands, and he said it did not matter." I asked prisoner if the warrant was signed by him. He said "Yes." I then telegraphed for instructions, requested prisoner to go with me to the G.P.O., London, which he did, and I there asked him further questions. On September 1 I arrested prisoner at 124, Copenhagen Street, and took him to Woolwich Police Station.

Cross-examined. Prisoner told me the deceased owed him £3 4s. 6d. for rent and board; that George Markham had seen him on July 22 and sold him the furniture, and that he had given him some of the deceased's clothes. Prisoner has occupied the shop at 124, Copenhagen Street, for several years and is a respectable man.

Re-examined. Prisoner signed the written statement produced.

ALICE KNOWLES , probationer nurse, St. Mary's Infirmary, High-gate. On June 24 William Markham was admitted to the infirmary; I first saw him on July 25 at 7 p.m. and attended him to the day of his death, July 6. He was never able to understand anything that was said to him. On July 5 I was on duty from 7 a.m. to 2 p.m. and from 4.30 to 8.30 p.m. No one visited him on that day. Prisoner called once on June 27 or 28. Markham was not in a condition to give anyone instructions, he was in a hopeless mental condition and continued so until his death, at which I was present.

AMELIA ROWE , nurse, St. Mary's Infirmary. Markham was brought to the infiramry on June 24 at 4 p.m. I saw him frequently. He could not speak intelligibly and remained in that condition till his death.

JAMES KENNEDY , gatekeeper, St. Mary's Infirmary. I produce visitors' book. Prisoner called on Markham on Monday, June 27, he also called on July 7, the day after Markham's death. Visitors' days are Wednesdays and Sundays, from 2 to 4 p.m., on which days visitors' names are not recorded.

Police-constable PERCY WHITE, attached to G.P.O. On August 4 I saw the wife of the prisoner and had a conversation with her.

(Defence.)

ARTHUR CHALRES HOWES (prisoner, on oath). William Markham took a room in my house on January 8, 1909. Two or three months afterwards he came in very drunk; I told him he must leave. He said he did not want to go, and if I would keep him on and look after him at his death I should have the money he had got in the bank. The last two or three months he was ill. He became attached to me and my wife and we attended to him. He showed me his bank book and repeatedly said we could have the money at his death. This was in the present of my wife and her sister, Mrs. Ellis, who used to call daily. He said we had always been good to him and he had no one else to care for. His wife was dead, but he had a brother and some nephews. I asked him if he wanted to see his brother; he said his brother was a tramp; he had not seen him for 14 years and did not want to see him. His brother called two or three times. Some neighbours took Markham to the University Hospital. I went to see him the same night and he handed me the keys of his room. I asked about his bank book according to our agreement. He told me the nurse had it. I said, "Do you want me to have possession of it?" He said "Yes." I afterwards saw the nurse and she gave me the bank book, which I signed for. On June 24 Markham was brought to my shop in the ambulance. He seemed to be all right; he was sitting up smoking and spoke to me rationally. I asked him, "Can I draw some money out?" He said, "Yes, you can go up to ten or twenty pounds if you want to." On June 28 I drew out £10 and signed Markham's name, not thinking I was doing wrong. I afterwards drew on July 5 £10, on July 14 £10, on July 21 £10, on July 27 £20, and on August 3 applied for the balance, £14 17s. 6d. I thought I was quite entitled to get the money. I represented myself to be William Markham—I did not know any other way of getting the money out. I did it in ignorance, not thinking I was doing anything wrong. I wrote Markham's name as stated—I wrote it with his authority.

SARAH HOWES , wife of the prisoner, and EMMA ELLIS, her sister, corroborated prisoner's statement.

(Evidence in rebuttal.)

Police-constable PERCY WHITE, recalled. On August 4 I saw prisoner's wife. I said I was a police officer and had received a communication

from Southend-on-Sea, where her husband was detained. She said, "Detained—what for?" I said, "I believe he has attempted to obtain an amount of money from your late lodger, Mr. Markham's, Savings Bank account and he requests that a receipt which Mr. Markham's brother gave him might be handed to him.

Mr. Macdonald objected that conversation in the absence of the prisoner was not evidence. Held that this was admissible in rebuttal of Mrs. Howes's statement.

Examination continued. She said, "I know nothing about Mr. Markham's Savings Bank book. I have never seen it." The same day I made a report of that conversation.

(Friday, October 14.)

ARTHUR LEIGHTON BRAINE , relieving officer, Islington. On June 24 William Markham was brought to my office in a hospital ambulance.

Prisoner was inside the ambulance with him. I asked Markham about his means; he mentioned a savings bank book, which he believed was at his lodgings. I told prisoner to look for the book and hand it over to an officer from the Guardians, who would call. He said he would do so. Prisoner did not tell me he had got it.

JOHN WILLIAM HUNT , relieving officer, Islington. On June 25 I saw prisoner at 124, Copenhagen Street, and asked if Markham had any property. He said he had none, except 6s. 8d. a week from the Operative Bricklayers' Society and something from the Foresters. I said that Markham was supposed to have a bank book. Prisoner said he had, but he did not know where it was. I saw Markham's room and told prisoner to lock it and that an officer from the Guardians would call respecting the furniture.

GEORGE HERBERT EDMONDS , superintendent relieving officer, Islington. Between June 24 and July 6 I saw prisoner at 124, Copenhagen Street. I examined Markham's furniture, which was of little value, searched for the savings bank book, and asked prisoner what had become of it, he said he knew nothing about it. I reminded him that he had told Mr. Hunt that Markham had a savings bank book. He said, "I could not have told him, because I did not know he had one. Markham was too poor to have saved money."

Verdict, Guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy.

Sentence, Six months' imprisonment, second division.

BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.

(Thursday, October 13.)

Reference Number: t19101011-32

SEGENFIELD, Isaac (16, gilder) , pleaded guilty of uttering a counterfeit sixpence and of possessing seven counterfeit sixpences.

The coins were stated to be genuine farthings which had been dipped into galvanit. Prisoner bore a good character. He was released on his own recognisances and those of his father, Jacob Segenfield, in £20 each, to come up for judgment if called upon.

Reference Number: t19101011-33

HARROW, Joseph (21, labourer) , uttering counterfeit coin and possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter.

Mr. Wilkinson prosecuted.

DAISY PETTIT , barmaid, "Mason's Arms" public house, Upper Berkeley Street. About 2.15 p.m. on August 30 prisoner came in and asked for a "pony" of "shandy-gaff." He tendered a florin in payment. I tested it with the tester and it bent. I handed it to Mr. Reeve, and said something to him which prisoner I do not think could hear. Mr. Reeve broke it into two pieces. Between seven and eight weeks previous to this I remember prisoner coming in and again calling for a "shandy-gaff." He tendered me then a florin which I found to be bad, and returned to him.

Cross-examined by prisoner. I am sure you are the man who came in in July.

Re-examined. I recognised him by his club foot.

ARTHUR HENRY REEVE , licensee, "Mason's Arms" public house. While prisoner was in my house on August 30 Pettit gave me a florin which I found to be bad. I told prisoner it was bad, and that I had a good mind to make an example of him. I sent for a constable and gave him in charge. I saw another bad florin found on him, I think in the ticket pocket of his jacket. Prisoner said he had drawn 18s. from a bookmaker the day before, and he must have got it amongst that money. One of his legs is shorter than the other.

To prisoner. Before the constable came I saw you fumbling about in your pocket. I put my finger in and found this other bad florin and left it there. I did not take it out and give it to the constable.

Police-sergeant ALFRED WARLAND, 15 D. About 2.30 p.m. I was called to the "Mason's Arms," where I found prisoner being detained by Mr. Reeve, who handed me a broken florin. On searching prisoner I found in his right-hand ticket pocket of his jacket another counterfeit florin. I found also 6s. in silver and nearly a shillingsworth of coppers in good money. He said, "I backed a horse yesterday and got 18s. from a bookmaker. I suppose this is some of them." He could not tell me who the bookmaker was. When charged at the station he made the same explanation.

Detective GEORGE HADLOW, D Division. I was at the station when prisoner was charged. He said, "I backed a horse yesterday and drew 18s. from a bookmaker last night. I suppose they were some of them." I asked him who the bookmaker was, and he said, "That's best known to myself. Do you want to pinch him?" He gave an address which I found to be that of a common lodging-house.

WILLIAM JOHN WEBSTER , Inspector of Coins, H.M. Mint. Both these florins are counterfeit and are from different moulds.

JOSEPH HARROW (prisoner, not on oath) repeated the statement he had made when charged.

Verdict, Guilty.

A previous conviction was proved.

Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19101011-34

KINGSTON, Leonard , pleaded guilty of, having been entrusted with certain property, to wit, the sum of £260 2s., for and on account of James Fleming, fraudently converting the same to his own use and benefit.

Sentence, Five months' hard labour.

BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.

(Thursday, October 13.)

Reference Number: t19101011-35

NASH, George (40, dealer) , pleaded guilty of forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, an order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for £49 10s. with intent to defraud obtaining by false pretences from Archibald Edward Norris four sets of harness and four horses with intent to defraud; obtaining by false pretences from William Luck one gelding with intent to defraud.

Previous convictions were proved.

Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19101011-36

HUGHES, Edwin (36, traveller.) , pleaded guilty of stealing a quantity of jewellery, value £100 or thereabouts, the goods of Edward James Frankland, and others, his employers; having been entrusted with a quantity of jewellery, the goods of Edward James Frankland and others, in order that he might apply them for a certain purpose, did fraudulently convert them to his own use and benefit.

Prisoner confessed to a previous conviction.

Sentence, 20 months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19101011-37

COOK, George (39, labourer) , pleaded guilty of committing an act of gross indecency with another male person.

Prisoner (having undertaken to leave the country) was released on his own recognisances in £5 to come up for judgment if called upon.

Reference Number: t19101011-38

DURRANT, James Nathaniel (61, no occupation) , pleaded guilty of forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for the payment of £50, with intent to defraud; embezzling the sums of 9s., 10s., and 9s., respectively, received by him for and on account of the Ancient Order of Foresters Friendly Society, his employers.

Sentence, Three months' imprisonment, second division.

Reference Number: t19101011-39

EMMETT, Samuel , pleaded guilty of committing acts of gross indecency with three male persons (named).

Prisoner was released on his own recognisances in £10 to come up for judgment if called upon.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE SCRUTTON.

(Friday, October 1.4.)

Reference Number: t19101011-40

CONNATTY, Alfred (24, printer) , rape on Louisa Warner.

Verdict, Not guilty.

Reference Number: t19101011-41

JAMES, Henry Davey (26, organ builder) , pleaded guilty of carnally knowing Frances Florence Amy Challis, a girl under the age of 13 years.

Sentence, 12 months, hard labour.

BEFORE THE RECORDER.

(Friday, October 14.)

Reference Number: t19101011-42

JACKSON, Sarah Anne , having the custody of a female child under the age of 16 years, did wilfully neglect her in such manner as to cause her unnecesary suffering and injury to her health.

Mr. Clarke Hall prosecuted.

SAMUEL CAMPION , Inspector, Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children. On July 29 I visited prisoner's house, 30, cloth Fair. Her child, Elsie Marjorie, was dirty, grimy, and generally neglected looking; I said to prisoner, "I have called in consequence of your neglecting your child." She said, "What business have you to come and worry me. I should like to know who sent you." She was the worse for drink. I said, "I have called in the interest of the child, and if you still neglect her the consequences may be serious." Her home and surroundings were in a very dirty condition. I called again on September 1; prisoner was not drunk; there was not improvement, and her child was in the same condition. I called in Dr. Maughan.

Dr. JAMES MAUGHAN, 56, Albany Street, Regent's Park. On September 3 I called at 30, Cloth Fair, and examined the child, Elsie Marjorie, in her mother's presence. She was thin, undersized, and dirty; her hair was verminous; the glands of the neck enlarged and inflamed; the body was copiously marked with flea-bites and dirty. The mother treated the matter as a joke. The child's body and hair were infested with lice, her clothing was dirty, ragged, and generally neglected; her bed very dirty, the sheets marked with blood and excrement. Prisoner was in a muddled condition at the time; in my opinion she is a habitual inebriate; the child was insufficiently fed. Prisoner said that that and the next house was her property, and that she received an income from the City. In my opinion the prisoner caused unnecessary suffering and injury to the health of her child by her neglect.

DORA BADGER , 81, Hazel wood Road, Highgate, school nurse to the London County Council. On April 24, May 31, and August 24 I

visited St. Bartholomew the Great School, Smith field, and found the child, Elsie Marjorie Jackson, in a verminous condition.

Police-constable THOMAS BETTERIDGE, City, produced birth certicate showing that Elsie Marjorie Jackson was born on February 27, 1897.

Prisoner (not on oath) stated that she had not neglected her child, who had been properly fed and, being nearly 14, was old enough to keep herself clean; that she had given her clean clothes.

Verdict, Guilty.

The Jury were then "charged to inquire" whether prisoner is an habitual drunkard. (Inebriates Act, 61 & 62 Vict., c. 60 s. 1 (2).)

RUEBEN JACKSON , typist, son of the prisoner. My mother has very often given way to drink—perhaps every other day for the last two years. My father died in June, 1910. Shortly after his death she fell down when under the influence of drink and broke her arm.

EDITH SMITH , married daughter of prisoner's late husband. Since my father's death in June last up to two months ago I frequently visited prisoner and found her under the influence of drink. On one occasion she made a disturbance in the street.

Dr. JAMES MAUGHAN repeated his evidence.

Prisoner said she had had no notice of this charge, or would have called witnesses to show that she was not an habitual drunkard.

As the committal order was not produced and the notice was unproved, on the Recorder's suggestion the jury returned a verdict of Not guilty.

Sentence (for neglecting the child), Six months, hard labour.

BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.

(Friday, October 14.)

Reference Number: t19101011-43

CANNELL, William (34, motor washer) , robbing with violence ROSE HARLEY and stealing from her four rings and other articles, her goods.

Mr. F. P. Faussett prosecuted.

ROSE HARLEY , widow, 1, Jordan Place, Walham Green. At 2.30 p.m. on September 26 I was at needlework when prisoner, whom I had never seen, before, came through the door, which was ajar, and asked me if I knew the name of a place which I do not now remember. I told him to go out as I did not know him and he locked the door, threw me down, hit me in the face and kicked me about the body. I begged him not to take my life and he said he would not do so if I would give him my jewellery and money. I said I had no money and he said I had and I was to go upstairs and get it. I said I was afraid to do so as he would follow me, but he said he would not do so. He caught hold of my wrist and took me to my first-floor sitting-room. He ransacked the room and said, "Now, where is the money?" I said, "I have none." He then threw me down and threatened to take my life if I did not tell him where my money was. He took me

to a room on the second floor, where, throwing me down again, he took liberties with me. I begged him to let me get up, saying I had got some money in a cupboard downstairs. He asked if there was a sovereign and I said I did not know, but I would give it to him, what-ever it was. He took me downstairs to the room which he had entered first. I took a cup out of the cupboard and took out 3s. 10 1/2 d. from it, all I had, and gave it to him. He said he wanted half a sovereign and I said I had not got it. He told me I must get it. I told him I had lent a man half a sovereign that morning and if he went and asked for it he could get it. He then made me stand in a dark corner and told me to wait there until he came back. The moment he was gone I rushed through the cottage door and told the people I was being murdered. When I arrived home from the station I found three pairs of gold earrings, a gold necklace, a comb, and four gold brooches were missing. These three gold rings he took off my fingers and this metal ring he got out of a box somewhere upstairs (articles produced). I do not think this knife belongs to me, but this spade guinea and half-guinea, which were in a box on the second floor, and these spectacles taken from the mantelpiece on the second floor are mine.

Cross-examined by prisoner. I know these scissors, this brush, and these spectacles belong to me, although there is no special mark on them.

WILLIAM HALLEY , divisional surgeon, 724, Fulham Road. I examined prosecutrix shortly after 2.20 p.m. on September 26 and found her suffering from a very severe contusion of the left eye and shock to the system. She complained of having been kicked on the lower part of the abdomen. She also had slight scratches on the face. There was an abrasion on her forehead and one or two slight scratches about her hands. The next day her left eye was completely closed and blackened. On October 5 I examined her abdomen and found that she was suffering from a very bad old-standing rupture, for which she had worn a truss, but since the assault she told me she had not been able to wear it on account of the pain caused by the kick. There was nothing to indicate a kick. Her injuries were consistent with the treatment she described.

WILLIAM PEPPER (fitter's mate), 6, Benston Road, Fulham. I know prosecutrix. About 6 p.m on September 26 I met her at the back entrance of her house, which leads into Vanston Place, and noticed she was "bashed" about the eye. She said something to me and I at first thought she was having a game. went to find a policeman and, not finding one, returned to he corner of Vanston Place, where I saw prisoner running out of the back entrance of prosecutrix's house into Vanston Place. I spoke to a policeman and ran after prisoner, who ran into the Walham Green Station. He was just getting into the train when the policeman caught him.

JOSEPH ABRAHAM , clerk, 27, Knighton Street, Fulham. About 6.10 p.m. on September 26 I was passing through Jordan Place, when I noticed prosecutrix with some other women. Her face was badly

bruised. I heard some woman calling out that there was a man in the house and I waited outside No. 26. I saw a man put his head out of the first storey window in the front of the house. After that prisoner came running out and I followed him. I kept him in view all the time, except just at the corner. I pointed him out to a policeman.

To prisoner. I followed you on to the platform and saw you jump into the moving train, and the train was stopped.

Police-sergeant ERNEST SHARP, 56 V. Between 6 and 7 p.m. on September 26 I was on duty in the Broadway, Walham Green, when Abraham spoke to me and pointed out to me prisoner, who was running. I followed him into the station, through the barrier and down the stairway, on to the platform. He then attempted to enter a train which was leaving, but, missing his footing, he was dragged about 20 yards along the platform. I blew my whistle and shouted and the train was stopped. Prisoner then regained his hold and managed to enter the last compartment but one. I went up to him and asked him where he was going and he said to Camden Town. I asked him to produce his ticket and he said he had not one, but had given the man a penny to let him through the barrier, which was untrue. I took him into custody. He said, "What have you got me for?" On being searched at the station the property referred to was found in his pockets.

To prisoner. I was not present when prosecutrix failed to identify you at the station.

ROSE HARLEY , recalled (to prisoner). I failed to identify you at the station that night, the first time I looked at you, because my eye was so bad, but I identified you when I looked at you a second time.

Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate. "I plead guilty to demanding the money with intent to steal and to stealing the property, but I plead not guilty to doing this grievous bodily harm."

(Defence.)

WILLIAM CANNELL (prisoner, on oath) admitted all the prosecutrix had said with reference to the robbery, but added, "I never injured the old lady in any way at all. All I did was to hold her by the wrist while I searched for things so that she should not go out. There was nothing the matter with her at all when I let her go into the back kitchen. Had it been my intention to injure her I should not have hit her in the eye; I should have knocked her insensible and walked out of the house without anybody knowing."

Cross-examined. The only way I can account for her eye being injured is that in her hurry to get out of the kitchen she must have hit herself up against the door.

To the Court. She took off her rings and handed them to me; I did not pull them off. I did not pull her upstairs; she walked up in front of me.

Verdict, Guilty.

Prisoner confessed to a previous conviction of felony at the Preston Quarter Sessions on October 16, 1901, in the name of William Robertson, four months' hard labour.

Detective-sergeant THOMAS LUSSON (Blackpool), proved this conviction.

Police-sergeant CHARLES HANDCOCK, B Division, stated that the Cardiff police wished the Court to take into consideration in sentencing prisoner the fact that a warrant was out for his arrest for stealing £13 10s. 12 months ago in Cardiff from a fellow lodger. He stated that prisoner had been employed as a driver and as a washer in different 'bus companies and had been three times convicted for offences under the Hackney Carriages Act.

Sentence, Five years, penal servitude.

Reference Number: t19101011-44

FARENDEN, James (49, bricklayer) , maliciously wounding Benjamin Wragg and Margaret Wragg.

Mr. W. J. Spratling prosecuted; Mr. L. Costello defended.

BENJAMIN WRAGG , 18, Risinghill Street, Clerkenwell. At midnight on October 1 I was going home with my wife up Risinghill Street when, as we passed prisoner's door, he rushed out and hit me on the side of the head; I cannot say what with. I was knocked to the ground. I got up and was making my way towards my own door when he made an attempt to assault me again. I put up my arm and stopped him hitting me. He came at me with his fist on the second occasion. He then went after my wife. On the police coming up I was taken to the hospital. I did not see what he did to my wife. I had no idea why he should assault me. He had had a few words with my wife that day, but that did not concern me.

Cross-examined. The suggestion is that it was a chopper that he assaulted me with. I saw nothing at all in his hand. My child came and told me there had been a disturbance between him and my wife in Chapel Street, and that my wife had been interfered with. I had been ill and did not go to see what was the matter. I know she had not been interfering with a stall he had put up. She told me when she came home that she had been interfered with by prisoner and that she had been set upon by three or four, including prisoner and his wife. I did not have any sort of quarrel with my wife on this night. I swear I did not have a chopper in my belt. I did not when I got outside prisoner's house stand and call out, "I have been waiting for you," or anything at all. He did not come to the window and say, "All right; I'll be down in a minute." I did not make a rush at him with the chopper when he came out, and he did not try and get it from me. He did not retire and I did not challenge him to fight. I never saw the chopper until it was at the police court My wife came to my assistance when I was on the ground and he punched her and dragged her about 20 yards along the street. I am sure I had nothing in my hand. I cannot say whether my wife was injured in the scuffle; I was too dazed. I did not see his landlady

nor a man named Bugg; at the time I was hit there was no one else in the street. The chopper picked up is not mine.

MARGARET WRAGG , wife of Benjamin Wragg. About 12.30 a.m. on October 2 I was coming down Risinghill Street with my husband when prisoner rushed out of his house and struck him. I turned round to assist him when he struck me on the head, and I fell down. I remembered no more until I found myself in the ambulance. I fainted again and did not come to till I was in the hospital, where I remained three hours, I am told.

Cross-examined. I keep a stall outside the "Salmon and Compasses.' At 6.30 p.m. that day I said to prisoner, "What about the stall," and he said, "You would not have had a stall only for me." With that he brought his wife out from the public house with two other women and they knocked me about because nine months before that there had been trouble between our children. Prisoner did not separate his wife and me. I was not drunk. My child was not there at the time. Shortly after my husband came up. I was not quarrelling with my husband when prisoner came out and hit my husband. My husband did not have a chopper. He did not call out to prisoner. He did not rush at prisoner when he came out. I rushed to his assistance when prisoner struck him. I must have received my injury in the course of the struggle that ensued. I did not see my husband get up and go towards our house because I was unconscious then. I had no weapon of any kind in my hand. I do not know what prisoner had in his hand. I do not know anybody of the name of Bugg. I did not go to Bugg's or anybody's shop and accuse him of using a chopper, neither did my sister. I did not say to him outside the police court "What did you want to say my husband had a chopper for?" Bugg's father told me that his son was offered half a sovereign. I did not know either the father or the son to speak to before this. I did not go to their oil shop at all after the police court proceedings.

BASIL HUGHES , Casualty Officer, Royal Free Hospital. Between 1 and 2 a.m. on October 2 Margaret Wragg was brought in suffering from pretty advanced concussion. She was very much dazed, and had lost a quantity of blood. She had a wound on the right side of her head caused undoubtedly by some sharp instrument such as this chopper. I attended to her and detained her for an hour or two. Her husband came in after her in a condition of concussion, not so advanced as his wife's. He had a similar wound on the right side of his head.

Cross-examined. In my opinion he had been drinking, but not very much. She had not. I cannot say whether they were sufficiently under the influence of drink to be excited.

Police-constable WILLIAM CHEESEMAN, 24 GR. At 12.50 a.m. on October 2 I was called by a whistle to this disturbance in Risinghill Street, and found Mrs. Wragg lying unconscious on the footway, bleeding profusely from a wound on her forehead. I rendered first aid and sent her to the hospital. In consequence of a statement she

made I went to 22, Risinghill Street, where I saw prisoner. I told him I should take him into custody for assault, and he said, "All right, guv'nor, I will come with you." He was taken to the station and charged, when he made no reply.

Cross-examined. Nothing was said by prisoner about a chopper. I do not know how it was obtained.

(Defence.)

THOMAS CHARLES BUGG . I work at an oil shop. On this night I saw prosecutor and his wife outside prisoner's house having a bit of a row together. Prosecutor dropped the chopper which he had in his belt, picked it up and put it in his belt again. Prsioner then came out of his house. I saw nothing in his hand. The next thing I saw was that they were all on the ground together. I tried to separate them and get the chopper away, which the prosecutor and prisoner had both got hold of. Just before they were all on the ground I saw Mrs. Wragg rush to her husband's assistance; I saw them both rush at prisoner. I saw nothing more after they were al on the ground as a crowd came round. Mrs. Wragg's head was bleeding and I tried to raise her. Then I heard a whistle and the police came and took her to the hospital. When I was outside the police court last Wednesday Mrs. Wragg said to me, "What did you want to say my husband had the chopper for?" She came to my shop the day after that and said that the chopper had been handed to me. Outside this Court her sister said, "Wait till you set outside. You'll go through it."

Cross-examined. When I saw the chopper I said to my father, who was with me, "Look! that man has a chopper in his belt." It was on his left side. When they got outside prisoner's house they began holloing. Then I saw prisoner standing at his street door, laughing, and prosecutor rushed at him. I was in front of his house at the time. I could not see prisoner coming downstairs.

Re-examined. Prosecutor shouted up to prisoner's window and then prisoner came down.

To the Court. I said before the Magistrate that I saw a chopper in prisoner's hand, holding it up, after the prosecutor picked it up This was after I saw Mrs. Wragg's head bleeding. I have not said this before because this is the first time I have been in a Court. I also said before the Magistrate that I and my father tried to get away the chopper from prisoner, but we did not succeed. I saw no blow struck and I did not see how the injuries were sustained. I saw prisoner at his door, laughing, and then I went to the bottom of the street and came back again and saw both Mr. and Mrs. Wragg's heads bleeding. Then Wragg said to prisoner, "Come on and have a fight" and started "sparring up."

WILLIAM H. WAINNER , vanguard boy. I was coming down Risinghill Street on this night when I saw prosecutor in the middle of the street challenging prisoner, who was at the window. Prisoner came

down and had got down about eight steps leading from his door when prosecutor rushed at him with something in his hand, which I could not see. Prisoner had nothing in his hand. When they got to the bottom of the steps they both fell down. The police then came up and turned me away.

Cross-examined. It was dark. The thing in prosecutor's hand looked like a chopper.

To the Court. I saw no woman on the ground. Prosecutor's head was not bleeding while I was there.

CHARLES MULLAYNE . I was in Risinghall Street on this evening when I saw prosecutor standing in the middle of the road with a chopper "flashing" in his hand. He shouted out to prisoner, "Come down here and I'll chop you in half with this." I could not see any more because I was pushed away by the police.

Cross-examined. I saw no blows struck.

To the Court. Fighting was going on, but I never saw it. I never saw anybody carried away. There were one or two policemen there with prosecutor, but they left him alone.

ELIZABETH COLLIS , 22b, Risinghall Street. I am prisoner's landlady. Between 12 and 12.30 p.m. on October 2 prisoner came down-stairs I held a light to light him down. He had nothing in his hand. He went out of the street door.

JAMES FARENDEN (prisoner, on oath). On the morning of October 1 I had put up some stalls. At 6.30 p.m. I went to the "Salmon and Compasses" with my wife and on coming out I found there was a disturbance with Mrs. Wragg. I told her she ought not to be making a row, as if it had not been for me she would not have had a stall at all. With that she called me a foul name. My wife came out of the public-house and they started fighting. We parted them. I and my wife then got our dinner in and went home and went to bed about 8 p.m. I was woken up by somebody shouting, "Come down. I've been waiting for you." I looked out of the window and said I would be down in a minute. I did not know who it was then. I then went down, the landlady giving me a light, and directly I got outside prosecutor rushed at me with the chopper. We closed and in the struggle the chopper was taken away from us; we were both holding it on the ground. Mrs. Wragg came to her husband's assistance and caught me by the handkerchief round my neck. We were then parted and they went down towards their place. The police came and took me in charge. The prosecutor returned and made a row outside my house. I believe Mrs. Wragg was being taken to the hospital then.

Cross-examined. They may have been 100 people there for all I know. I think he was brandishing something when I looked out of the window.

Re-examined. I was in liquor when I went to bed.

ALFRED WILSON (builder) stated that prisoner, whom he had known seven years, was of good character and a peaceable man.

BASIL HUGHES , recalled by the Jury, stated that the blows must have been somewhat severe in each case to have caused the resulting concussions.

Verdict, Guilty, the Jury adding, "We think there may have been provocation."

Sentence, Three months, hard labour.

BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.

(Friday, October 14.)

Reference Number: t19101011-45

BIRCH, William (36, engineer) , being armed with a certain offensive instrument, feloniously assaulting Elizabeth Cheary with intent to rob her of her goods and moneys.

Mr. J. Wells Thatcher prosecuted.

ELIZABETH CHEARY , wife of Edgar Cheary, 79, Lansdowne Road, Old Charlton. About 1.15 on September 15 I was coming through Hanging Wood Lane, carrying my bag, and I saw prisoner stooping down as though picking berries at the hedge side. I have not the slightest doubt it was the prisoner. I passed him, and when I got to the brow of the hill I heard sharp footsteps behind me and at the same time received a severe blow on the back of the head, and fell instantly. I had passed Rose Cottage and was going on towards the church. I have marked the spot on the map. Prisoner tried to get the bag from me. We struggled, and I screamed "Police" and "Murder." Then Rivers called to me and asked me what prisoner had done, and I said he had knocked me down and robbed me. I looked prisoner in the face, and I also looked when he was running away. Rivers went after prisoner, I saw him get over the fence and run after prisoner. I had to lie a little while, and then I went up to the seat by the church and sent a little boy for a constable. About half an hour elapsed before the other constable, Dent, appeared with the prisoner and Rivers. I described prisoner before I looked. I said the man who knocked me down had a dark blue suit on, a fresh colour and a dark moustache. I went to the police station and charged prisoner.

Cross-examined by prisoner. We had a struggle when I was on the ground. I was just on the brow of the hill going into Charlton. I had a good look at your face when I lifted my head off the ground, and I am convinced you are the man. I was losing a deal of blood and my bodice was smothered with it.

ROBERT HENRY RIVERS , labourer, 121, East Street, Charlton About 1 o'clock on September 15 I was on the swamps going for blackberries. The swamps are beside Hanging Wood Lane. I heard a thump like the going off of a gun, and I heard a lady screaming, "Police" and "Murder." I jumped over the railings and saw prisoner running at the top of the lane. The lady was just rising from the ground. I am positive sure it was the prisoner. When I first saw him he was about 10 or 15 yards ahead of me. I followed prisoner

for a few yards in the lane, then jumped over another fence and took a short cut across. I ran across a place called Pound Park, still keeping my eye on prisoner, because the field overlooks the road. I saw a man with a fish barrow in Charlton Lane about five minutes away from where the offence was committed. Prisoner went down Charlton Lane and then turned to the left, and I lost sight of him for a second or two. Then I saw him again. There was nobody else in the road. I followed him to the Woolwich Road, where there were some children. I saw a policeman at the corner, and just before prisoner got to him I went behind him, put my two hands on his shoulders and called the constable over, and told him that prisoner had knocked down a lady in Hanging Wood Lane and robbed her. Prisoner said, "I think you have made a mistake." I said, "I am positive sure I have not." We all went back to the old lady, and the constable asked if she could recognise any of the men there. She said, "I could not recognise him at the time because I feel too ill, but the man who did it had a blue serge suit, a dark moustache, and a bright complexion." The constable gave the prisoner to another constable, who took him to the police station. The constable had asked the fish man if he had seen prisoner, and he replied, "No," but he saw me jumping over the fence.

To prisoner. I was a very few yards away when I heard the thump the lady got at the back of her head. I was unemployed at the time and had two children and a wife, the same as you. I was trying to earn a few halfpence by blackberrying. I did not trouble about the blackberries afterwards. There were about 4 lb. You were only out of my sight for a few seconds till I got into the road. You were sometimes running and sometimes walking. I did not give the alarm because you would have run in a different direction from where I was coming across. You were past the fishmonger when I saw him; I could only see his barrow. He might have been serving at the time. Going from the pit to the arches you were kicking a piece of paper along. I was a few yards behind, about 10 yards. I was gaining on you the whole way till we got to the constable.

Police-constable ALFRED DENT, 466 R Division. About 1.30 p.m. on September 15 I was on duty in Woolwich Road where I saw prisoner approaching me two or three yards off and Rivers two or three yards behind him. Upon reaching me Rivers jumped behind prisoner, caught hold of him and said, "This man knocked down a lady in Hanging Wood Lane and robbed her. I saw him running all the way and you are the first constable I met." Prisoner said "Haven't you made a mistake? You be careful. I never came through that lane." I then took prisoner back, and on the way he said, "It was a good hour ago when I came through." Upon reaching Fairfield Road I saw prosecutrix sitting on a seat bleeding very freely from the back of her head. She looked up and said, "I am not positive who did it. I do feel ill, very ill, but the man who did it had a blue suit of clothes on and a dark moustache and a fresh colour." She was not looking fully at prisoner when she said that. She appeared to be in a very dazed condition, half lying on the seat

and half sitting up. I handed prisoner over to another constable and then took prosecutrix to her home, and placed a pad and stopped the bleeding, and immediately sent for the doctor. About two hours afterwards I conveyed her in a cab to West Combe Park Police Station. Prisoner said, "This is a serious charge. I walked down the hill; I did not run. I do not care a fig for myself only for my wife and children." He turned round to Rivers and said, "I was looking for a car when this man accused me to you of assault and robbing a woman." Prosecutrix said, "I am positive you are the man. I felt ill at the time I met you when you were with the constable, and you are the man, I am sure." Prisoner was charged, and in reply he said, "It's a lie; that's all I've got to say, sergeant." I found on prisoner a knife, a latchkey, a wooden pipe and one penny.

To prisoner. You did not struggle to get away. The fishmonger said he did not see you; he said he had just come away from serving at a door. I took down his name but not his address. I did not notice any blood on you. The lady was saturated with blood. She was holding a handerchief up to the wound and every now and then kept pulling it down and smeared herself in that way. There was no blood on the knife.

Police-sergeant GEORGE DOBEDOE, 96 R Division, proved a plan of the district.

Dr. WILLIAM ADAMS, Eleanor Road, Woolwich. When I was called to see prosecutrix on September 15 she was suffering from a lacerated scalp wound about two and a half inches behind the back of the ear, one inch in length, and from shock. The injury was caused by some blunt instrument or a very sharp stone.

To prisoner. When I mentioned a blunt chisel at Woolwich I did not know the occupation you followed.

(Defence.)

WILLIAM BIRCH (prisoner, on oath). I am an engineer's mate. I have worked in the Arsenal and for R. H. Green & Co., Blackwall. I ceased to work for them three weeks previous to being arrested. On September 15 I left home about 7.50 a.m. and proceeded to Vickers, Sons, and Maxim, Erith, to seek employment. I arrived about 8.45 and after staying there some time I went towards Woolwich Town Hall and from there to the Remount Depot, Woolwich. After staying there some considerable time I made my way along Woolwich Common towards London. I came down Cemetery Lane into Charlton Road and bought a pennyworth of lunch biscuits at a little shop. For purposes of nature I had to turn back and go down Fairfield Road into Hanging Wood Lane. I think I went about 50 yards from Rose Cottage and got over the fence. Afterwards I got into the lane again and then crossed the road on my right and sat on a seat in front of the church and finished my biscuits and had a nice smoke. After some considerable time I turned into Charlton Road and then bore round the chalk pits, and when about twenty yards away from the corner, to my amusement, I saw two little boys wrestling. I watched

them for about five minutes. Then I proceeded towards Woolwich Road, kicking a piece of paper as a football. When about a yard from the Woolwich Road pavement, to my amazement I felt someone pounce on me. The man said to a constable, "This man has knocked down an old lady and robbed her in Hanging Wood Lane." I said, "Man, what are you talking about? You want to be very careful what you are saying about people." The constable asked me where I was employed and I told him nowhere at the present time. He said, "You had better come with me and see this old lady." I said, "Certainly." On our way we met a fishmonger. At first the fishmonger said he saw me running, but afterwards when his name and address had been taken the constable said, "Are you sure you saw this man running?" pointing to me, and he said, "No, I saw the other man running and getting over the fence." When we got to the old lady there were two or three ladies and several children there, and a police-constable, to whom I was handed over. There was the witness, myself, and the lady, and he asked the lady whether she could see the man standing round that struck her. With that the witness said, "You know it was not me, ma'am; I called to you over the fence and asked what was the matter." With that she said, "I cannot say. All I know is he had a blue suit on." Those are all the words that were uttered by that lady in my presence. Then I was taken to the police station. I had to wait an hour and a half or two hours for the lady to come, and when she arrived we had to wait till they got the detective sergeant to come and take the case. During that time I could distinctly hear the prosecutrix and the witness conversing outside the charge room, and in my opinion that is where this was made up against me, for as soon as she came in she was positive that I was the man. But I swear I am innocent.

Cross-examined. I never saw the lady in my life till I saw her sitting on the seat bleeding, with her bodice saturated with blood. It is a mistake of identity. Rivers is telling a deliberate lie when he says he saw me running up the lane. I was not there. I am only an engineer's mate and do not carry tools, except when they are carried from one job to another: We are not supposed to use the tools by the Engineers' Amalgamated Society. I had not any tool in my pocket. I was never nearer than 50 yards from where the assault took place. I had three years in South Africa, amongst savages part of the time. I am an ex-Army man, still on the Reserve. I did not commit the crime. God knows we never treated the blacks like that.

CHARLES KING , manager to Messrs. R. H. Green. I have known prisoner some four and a half years and have never known a thing against his character. I know he has had opportunities of dishonesty if he had been so inclined.

Verdict, Guilty.

Detective-sergeant CHATT. I have made inquiries since prisoner was in custody. Prior to the charge there was nothing against him. He served in the Army, through the Boer War, after which he worked in the Arsenal for about three years and left of his own accord. Since

then he has been working at Green's dry dock. He has been out of work three or four weeks prior to his arrest, and he was very hard up, because he had been getting rid of certain articles of furniture. He has a wife and two children.

Sentence, Six months' hard labour.

The witness Rivers was commended by the Judge and directed to receive the sum of £2. He was also recommended to people about Woolwich for employment.

Reference Number: t19101011-46

LINCOFSKY, Isaac (28, clerk) , stealing £48 18s. 9d., the moneys of Abraham Laitner and another, his masters.

Mr. Eustace Fulton prosecuted; Mr. Purcell defended.

ABRAHAM LAITNER , 6, Hope Street, Whitechapel, Passover cake maker. Prisoner has been my clerk for six months. About 12.30 on July 26 I drew a cheque for £48 18s. 9d., made payable to prisoner. I handed it to him and told him to bring £45 in notes. He left and did not return. My brother went to the bank about one, and in consequence of his statement on his return I went to prisoner's house, Mount Street, Shoreditch, and saw his wife. I sent one of my clerks to inform the police and watched the house till an officer came at five o'clock. I returned to the house about 10.30 and at about 12-30 I saw prisoner in Brick Lane. When he saw me he wished to run away, but I got hold of him and gave him into custody. He said, "Laitner, do not make a fool of yourself; I have done no harm. Rosenberg knows all about it." Rosenberg is one of my clerks. Prisoner said he had been robbed.

Cross-examined. When I gave cheque to prisoner a Mr. Goldstein was present, waiting for the money. I was going to give him £46. Goldstein said he would have notes. I have once before drawn a cheque in prisoner's name. On that occasion he brought the money. I have given him cheques to cash drawn in other names three or four times. I have sent him to more than one bank. I have heard of pickpockets in Middlesex Street. Prisoner would do a couple of days' work for me in the week; he was not in regular employment at this time, but he had been. I said if I heard of anything I would recommend him. The bank he went to was the London and Provincial, 167, Whitechapel Road, about five minutes from Hope Street. It was about 12.45 when I gave him the cheque, when people are going to dinner.

Re-examined. Prisoner was present when Goldstein asked for notes, and I asked prisoner to bring notes.

ABRAHAM GOLDSTEILN , 65, Golden Square, Mile End. Laitner drew the cheque in my presence and told him to get notes.

Cross-examined. I went to Laitner's about 12.25. I refused to take a cheque because I did not want the trouble of cashing it. When prisoner left I went away and came back in about three or four minutes' time. Laitner usually speaks English. I could not say he is quite a master of the language. I cannot remember whether we were speaking Yiddish on that occasion or not.

GEORGE BROWN , cashier at the London and Provincial Bank, Whitechapel Road. About 1.15 on July 26 prisoner presented a cheque and I gave him £48 18s. 9d. in gold and silver, in a bag.

Cross-examined. I did not see where he put the bag. He has cashed one cheque before, according to the books. The books would only show cheques made payable to him.

REGINALD WILLIAM HUMHREY , cashier, London and Provincial Bank. Prisoner handed cheque to me, with the remark, "Gold." I had not enough gold and therefore handed it to the chief cashier. Cheque was handed in at 1.15.

Cross-examined. It may be that prisoner has cashed cheques drawn on other people's names, but I do not remember any other occasion. I traced a cheque drawn in prisoner's name for £26 12s. 3d., which was paid in cash.

GEORGE POTTER , Inspector, H Division. About 12.10 a.m. on July 27 prisoner came to the station and told me he had lost a bag containing £48 18s. 9d. in the Whitechapel Road. I asked him the time and he said about 1.30 in the afternoon of the 26th. He said he could not account for the loss, but he had noticed two gentlemen, one of whom passed him on one side and one on the other. He missed it when he got to the corner of St. Mary Street. I asked him why he had not reported it before, and he said it so upset him that he did not know what he was doing. A complaint about the matter had been made at Commercial Street.

Cross-examined. The police stations are in communication with each other. It was known by us that there had been a complaint that £48 was missing, but I did not realise it was the same till after prisoner had gone. He said he had lost the money from his jacket pocket. He gave a description of the bag. I do not know there are pickpockets in that part of London; I have only been there a short time. I came from Bethnal Green Road. He gave me Mr. Laitner's address. He did not mention about going to Laitner's that night. I told him to go home and I would send a detective in the morning.

Re-examined. I should have expected to receive a complaint before midnight.

Police-constable HARRY TILLY. I took prisoner into custody in the early morning of July 27. He said, "Mr. Laitner gave me a cheque to go to the bank to change and as I left the bank and was walking along Whitechapel Road I lost the money from my pocket. I went to Leman Street Police Staion just before 12 midnight and reported the loss." I took him to Commercial Street. He said nothing to the charge. The bank is about 10 minutes' walk from Hope Street.

(Defence.)

ISAAC LINCOFSKY (prisoner, on oath). I am a Russian by birth, 28 years of age, and have been in England 24 years. I was apprenticed by the Jewish Board of Guardians to F. Darton and Co., opticians,

with whom I served my apprenticeship. Then I was a canvasser and agent to Drage and Sons for about three years. Afterwards I was employed as collector by Messrs. Sellar and Goldberg and then by Messrs. Eatwell and Co. as manager of one of their shops. I have also been an auxiliary postman in the Eastern District post office. I am also secretary of a Christmas club, £17 a week passing through my hands. I have cashed cheques for Laitner about nine times and have always brought it in cash. The best part of them were payable to me, but a few were made out in anybody's name, taken at random, and I would be instructed to sign it on the back of the cheque. Once it was made payable to "Yencofsky." I heard no instructions to bring notes. Laitner speaks somewhat indistinctly and he kept on telling me to get £4 18s. 9d. separately and not to separate it on the bank premises but off the premises. That was my reason for putting the money in my pocket, because I intended to do that round Black Lion Yard. I put the money in a bank bag in my outside pocket. On my return as I stepped across St. Mary Street two men brushed by me, on on each side, very closely, and as soon as they had gone something struck me and I put my hand in my pocket and found my bag gone. Then I lost my head and roamed about. What grieved me mostly was it being a stranger's money. I went as far as Hyde Park. When it got dusk I thought of home, but I walked slowly, and on my way I went to Leman Street and told the inspector what had happened. I said, "The cheque is not my own; it belongs to Mr. Laitner. I have not yet reported to him through being upset and roaming about. Is it necessary for me to call on him, or what shall I do?" He said, "Go home. In the morning I will send a detective for fuller details and then you may report to Mr. Laitner." On my way home from there I saw a man running in front of me shrieking, "Stop, thief!" at the top of his voice. He had several men about him and he took me round the neck. I said, "Do not be silly; I have reported the loss at Leman Street."

Cross-examined. I have been to the London and Provincial about six times. Three or four of those cheques would be drawn in my favour. One or twice Mr. Rosenberg accompanied me to the bank, because I had to give him the money to place in another bank. Mr. Goldstein speaks English quite well, and I understand and speak Yiddish. Mr. Goldstein was not in the office when I was there. I did not hear Laitner tell me to bring notes. I went to the bank about 1.20. On my way I met Rosenberg, but he did not go to the bank with me. I put my cheque down and one of the cashiers picked it up and handed it to the other, and said to me, "Gold?" and I said, "Yes." I asked for a bag and put it in, and put the bag in an outside pocket because I wanted to take the £4 18s. 9d. away when I got round the corner, according to instructions. Laitner had told me, "Take £4 18s. 9d. and put it separately, and do not do it on the bank premises." I do not know why. It would be impertinent for me to ask his business, because his business is rather funny. I put the money in an outside pocket because it was nearer.

I was not in a hurry to get out. When I missed the money I did not see a policeman. I did not look for one; I lost my head. I was not afraid of being accused of stealing it. I did not call out that I had been robbed or ask anybody to assist me to find the thief. I went up to the Park, which I left about 8.45.

HARRY ROSENBERG , clerk to Mr. Laitner. I have known prisoner between five and six years, and he has always borne the reputation of an honest and straightforward man.

JOSEPH ROSENBAUM , 91, Church Street, Shoreditch, ISAAC CLEMENS, 275, Brick Lane, and SOLOMON VINER, also gave evidence as to character.

Verdict, Guilty.

Sentence was postponed till Monday next in order to ascertain whether the money could be recovered.

On Monday, October 17, prisoner was again brought up. It was stated that prisoner had been able to raise £20. Judge Rentoul said that his meaning on Friday was that the whole £48 must b returned if mitigation of sentence was to be considered. This, however, had apparently not been made clear, and prisoner would now be released on his own recognisances in £10 and one surety in £20 to come up for judgment if called upon.

Reference Number: t19101011-47

KANAPHAN, Harry (30, furrier) , pleaded guilty of stealing 200 skins entrusted to him by his employers, Weinstein and Company.

Mr. Purcell prosecuted, and Mr. Leonard Costello appeared for prisoner.

Mr. Purcell explained that the senior partner of the firm was defendant's uncle, and they did not wish defendant to be sent to prison. He asked that he should be released, and that the other indictments, to which prisoner had not pleaded guilty, should remain on the file.

Mr. Costello withdrew all imputations made against the prosecutor, and expressed defendant's contrition.

Prisoner was released on his own recognisances in £25 and one surety in £10 to come up for judgment if called upon.

BEFORE THE RECORDER.

(Saturday, October 15.)

Reference Number: t19101011-48

PATERSON, William Mollindinia (45, warehouseman) , forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a bill of exchange for £28 12s. 8d., and the acceptance thereof, and causing and procuring to be paid to himself £28 12s. 8d. by virtue of a forged instrument, knowing the same to be forged, and with intent in each case to defraud; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a bill of exchange for £35 10s. 6d., and causing and procuring to be paid to himself £35 10s. 6d., by virtue of an altered instrument, knowing the same to be altered, and with intent in each case to defraud;forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a bill of exchange for £48 12s. 7d., with intent in each case to defraud; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a bill of exchange for £39 8s. 10d., and the acceptance thereof, and causing and procuring to be paid to W. M. Paterson and Company, Limited, £39 8s. 10d. by virtue of a forged instrument, knowing the same to be forged, and with intent in each case to defraud; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a bill of exchange for £39 18s. 2d., and causing and procuring to be paid to himself £39 18s. 2d. by virtue of a forged instrument, knowing the same to be forged, and with intent in each case to defraud; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a bill of exchange for £14 18s. 11d., and the acceptance thereof, with intent in each case to defraud; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a bill of exchange for £19 15s. 2d., and the acceptance thereof, and causing and procuring to be paid to himself £19 15s. 2d. by virtue of a forged instrument, knowing the same to be forged, and with intent in each case to defraud; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a bill of exchange for £45 8s. 10d., and causing and procuring to be paid to W. M. Paterson and Company, Limited, £45 8s. 10d., by virtue of an altered instrument, knowing the same to be altered, and with intent in each case to defraud; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a bill of exchange for £49 19s. 11d., with intent in each case to defraud; forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a bill of exchange for £54 15s. 6d., and the acceptance thereof, and causing and procuring to be paid to W. M. Paterson and Company, Limited, £54 15s. 6d., by virtue of a forged instrument, knowing the same to be forged, and with intent in each case to defraud.

Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Symmons, and Mr. Montague Shearman, junior, prosecuted; Mr. George Elliott, K.C., and Mr. Travers Humphreys defended.

Prisoner was tried on the first indictment with regard to bill for £28 12s. 8d. drawn by James Spiers on and accepted by Frederick Fremantle.

FREEDERICK FREMANTLE , upholsterer, Romsey, Kent. I have done business for three or four years with W. M. Paterson and Co., Limited, never exceeding £20 in a year. At first I paid by cheque; in the last 12 months they sent me two bills for acceptance—on April 26, 1910, a three months' bill due July 29 for £5 2s. 8d., and May 26, 1910, a bill due August 29 for £5 2s. 6d. at the Capital and Counties Bank, Romsey, which I paid. On January 5, 1910, Williams Deacon and Co. communicated with me with reference to a bill of exchange and I received letter from prisoner on January 8, stating that the bill had been received from Townley. I did not reply, as the bill had nothing to do with me. Bill produced for £28 12s. 8d. purporting to be drawn by James Spiers upon and accepted by me payable at the Capital and Counties Bank I first saw on its due date, April 12. It is not my signature—it is a poor imitation. I know no one of the name of Townley or James Spiers. Neither of them were entitled to draw upon me.

Cross-examined. I have no customer of the name of Townsend. I have had no dealings with Townsend, Kite, Howard, the Lit Company E. Stone, Hackett and Co., Joshua Hackett, A. Raphael, J. Howard, Coleman, or Louvre and Co.

WALTER JOHN MIDDLEWICK , 142, High Street, Crediton, antique dealer. I have dealt with W. M. Paterson and Co., Limited, for the last three or four years to an amount of £16 or £17 a year for upholstery trimmings. Cheque produced of December 3, 1909, is a genuine cheque paid by me to Paterson for 18s. 8d.; it is drawn on Fox, Fowler and Co., Crediton, and bears the stamp of Williams Deacons and Co. Bill of exchange drawn by E. Smith upon and purporting to be accepted by me for £19 15s. 2d. is a forgery. I have had no dealing with E. Smith. The bill is endorsed "W. M. Paterson, Managing Director of W. M. Paterson and Co., Ltd.," and "W. M. Paterson," and bears the stamp of the Metropolitan Bank of England and Wales, Reading. I have no knowledge of anyone named Townley.

Cross-examined. The signature "W. J. Middlewick" bears no resemblance whatever to my writing. I have had no dealings with Townsend, Kite, the Lit Co., E. Stone, J. Hackett and Co., Joshua Hackett, A. Raphael, J. Howard, Coleman, or Louvre and Co.

JOHN LEONARD WHIFFEN , Clare, Suffolk, upholsterer. I have dealt with W. M. Paterson and Co., Ltd., for five or six years to an amount of about £50 a year and have paid by postal orders or cheques drawn on the Capital and Counties Bank, Sudbury. Cheque produced is the last one I paid. The acceptance of bill produced purporting to be drawn by W. M. Paterson on me for £25 13s. 8d. and to be accepted by me payable at the Capital and Counties Bank, Sudbury, is a forgery. I first saw it when it was presented to me by the manager of the bank at Sudbury. I know no one of the name of Townley. Bill purporting to be drawn by W. M. Paterson and Co., Ltd., for £25 13s. 7d. and accepted payable at the Capital and Counties Bank, Sudbury, is also a forgery of my signature. It is nothing like my signature. I do not know Louvre and Co.

HARRY AMOS MACE , London Road, Bognor, house furnisher. I have dealt with Paterson and Co., Ltd., for eight years for about £30 or £40 a year, and have paid them by cheque on the London and County Bank, Bognor, of which cheques produced are samples. Bill produced for £34 15s. 3d. purporting to be accepted by me at the London and County Bank, Bognor, is a forgery. I know no one of the name of Townley.

Cross-examined. The signature has no real resemblance to mine. I have done no business with Townsend, Kite, Howard, the Lit Co., E. Stone, Hackett and Co., Joshua Hackett, A. Raphael, J. Howard, Coleman, or Louvre and Co.

EDWARD KIDDLE , trading as Kiddle and Son, house furnisher, St. Ives, gave similar evidence with regard to a bill presented June 20, I received letter produced from prisoner, stating that he had received a number of bills from a man named Townley. I have never dealt with any person of that name.

Cross-examined. I have had no dealings with Townsend, Kite, Howard, the Lit Co., E. Stone, Hackett and Co., Joshua Hacket, A. Raphael, J. Howard, Coleman, or Louvre and Co.

ALEXANDER MCNEILL , manager, Metropolitan Bank of England and Wales, Reading. Prisoner formerly had an account at my branch in the name of F. Vaughan—he was trading in that name at Reading. He afterwards sold his business, but retained the account in his own name. Through that account my bank discounted a large number of bills drawn by W. M. Paterson and Co., Ltd., and endorsed by prisoner in his own name and that of the company. As some of the bills were not honoured I wrote to prisoner. He informed me that he had had a fire at his premises in Paul Street, Finsbury, which had disarranged his business, and he was unable to finance his customers so as to meet the bills; that there was an arbitration, and as soon as the compensation was paid he should be able to put matters straight. Middlewick's bill for £19 15s. 2d. was discounted on November 9 by my bank, presented at Fox, Fowler and Co., Crediton, and returned marked "Signature differs." Prisoner wrote that the bill had been given to his company by a Mr. Townley, of New Brighton, and that he could not trace his correct address. The endorsements are in prisoner's writing. Similar bill for £25 13s. 8d. was discounted on November 24, 1909; on the due date it was presented and returned "Signature forged." On March 17 prisoner wrote stating that it was taken by his company in the ordinary course of business from Townley. Bill on Mace for £34 15s. 3d. was discounted on November 29, 1909, presented and returned marked "Return to acceptor." Prisoner again wrote stating that those bills had been received from Townley, of New Brighton, and that he had been unable to find Townley. Fremantle's bill for £28 12s. 8d. was discounted and returned marked "Not signed by addressee." Prisoner wrote that that also had been received from Townley. My bank held policies of insurance on prisoner's life as security for an overdraft of £600 and bills discounted. The surrender value of the policies is about £1,100, the debt of prisoner to my bank being £2,300.

Cross-examined. Prisoner had credit for the amount of the discounted bills. I cannot say if that credit was in place of genuine bills which had been dishonoured.

FRANK BRITTAIN MASON , Tenby, South Wales, house furnisher. I have done business for some years with W. M. Paterson and Co., Ltd., to the amount of £8 or £9 a year and have paid by cheque on the London and Provincial Bank. Bill for £39 8s. 10d. produced, purporting to be accepted by me, is a forgery. I know no one of the name of Townley. I have only give one bill to prisoner's firm for £5 5s. 2d., which they pressed me to sign; I was entitled to 2 1/2 per cent, discount, which they refused to give me and asked me to sign the bill.

Cross-examined. I have never done business with Townsend, Kite, Howard, the Lit Co., E. Stone, Hackett and Co., Joshua Hackett, Raphael, J. Howard, Coleman, or Louvre and Co.

(Monday, October 17.)

Prisoner pleaded guilty on the second count, to uttering the bill for £28 12s. 8d., which plea was accepted by the prosecution; a verdict of Guilty was returned; Not guilty on the first count (forgery).

Mr. Symmons stated that the other indictments related to forgeries of a different character to the one now dealt with, and these would have to be mentioned to the Recorder next session.

Sentence was postponed till next session, prisoner to remain in custody.

BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.

(Saturday, October 15.)

Reference Number: t19101011-49

PEACH, John Edward (46, labourer) , feloniously marrying Mary Louisa Sowerby, his wife being then alive.

Mr. A. M. Wilshere prosecuted.

Detective-sergeant HODGSON. On September 26 I was on duty at Southwark Police Station. Prisoner came in and said, "I wish to give myself up for bigamy," and I took a statement from him. I produce certificate of marriage of prisoner to Elizabeth Kirdle and also the certificate of his marriage to Mary Louisa Sowerby.

ELIZABETH DALE , wife of Sydney Dale, 66, Barlow Street, Southwark. I was at St. John's Church, Walworth, on May 23, 1886, and saw prisoner then married to Elizabeth Kirdle. I have seen her within the last seven years when I have been in the prisoner's company in the New Kent Road. Prisoner is by brother. Mary Louisa Sowerby was with us. I saw Elizabeth Kirdle walking along on the other side of the road. That was between six and seven years ago. I made no statement to prisoner about it, but I said to Mary Sowerby, "That is my brother's wife." I do not think prisoner saw her.

Cross-examined by prisoner. I have known Mary Sowerby for the last 18 years. I have been present on several occasions when you have told her that you were a married man.

MARY LOUISA SOWERBY . On April 4, 1909, I went through the form of marriage with prisoner at St. Paul's Church, Long Lane, S.E. I had been living with him as his wife for some years and we have a son 16 years old. I did not know he was a married man and he never told me. I left him about three years before we were married.

To prisoner. You never told me and my father and mother that you were married. I did not leave you because you refused to marry me for years as you were already a married man.

(Defence.)

JOHN EDWARD PEACH (prisoner, on oath). In 1886 I got married to my first wife. After six or seven years she ran away with another man and I have not seen her since. I made the acquaintance of last witness about 17 years ago and have lived with her since. She kept on forcing and forcing me to marry her and I would not, but at last I consented on April 4 last year. We have four children and if you release me I will work for them and bring them up.

Cross-examined. I did make inquiries about my real wife for some time after she left me, but as she was such a bad woman to me I took no interest in it.

Verdict, Not guilty.

Reference Number: t19101011-50

BURTON, Frank (23, porter) , robbery with violence upon Jane Hamilton and stealing from her a bag containing 12s., some papers and some keys, the goods and moneys of John Hamilton.

Mr. Curtis Bennett prosecuted; Mr. J. Wells Thatcher defended.

JANE HAMILTON , wife of John Hamilton, 16, Daneville Road, Camberwell Green. About 6.20 p.m. on September 10 I went down into the subway at King's Cross Station, Great Northern Railway. I saw prisoner there. I have no doubt it was he. I inquired of him the way to the Tube for the Elephant and Castle. He directed me in the wrong direction, as I ascertained afterwards, and when I had proceeded about twenty yards I heard somebody coming quickly after me Prisoner caught hold of me and struck me in the back. I turned round and saw him. He then wrestled for my bag (produced), which I had in my hand over my wrist. I would not let go of it and he then struck me in the chest with his fist and cut the bag away with a knife. I was very frightened and screamed and prisoner ran away with the bag. I ran after him as well as I could, but he disappeared. The bag contained keys and letters and a policy and 10s. in gold and 2s. in silver in a purse. The keys are in the bag now, but the letters and the purse and the policy are missing. I next saw the bag" when the detective brought it down to my house for me to identify it. It was then as it is now. I identified prisoner at Clerkenwell on October 7. I picked him out from about nine or 10 other men. I have no doubt at all that prisoner is the man who stole my bag.

Cross-examined. The subway was well lighted. There was nobody else passing at the time. The whole thing happened in about a minute or a minute and a half. Prisoner was dressed in a grey jacket suit and a bowler hat.

FRANK BARNEY , stationmaster at King's Cross Station, Piccadilly and Brompton Railway. On September 10 I was in the subway about 6.30 p.m. and saw prisoner there. I know him quite well by sight. About 10 minutes afterwards I was informed of what had occurred. I have not the slightest doubt I saw prisoner in the subway on that night.

Cross-examined. I know prisoner because I have had to warn him before about frequenting the subway. I took him into my office on the 7th, got his name and address, and told him that the next time I caught him there I should give him into custody. He gave his name as Frank Burton and his address as 10, Walcot Square, Kennington. I have not verified the address.

Police-constable FREDERICK GEORGE, Black Horse Road, Walthamstow, Midland Railway Police. On September 10, about 6.30 p.m., I saw prisoner in the subway leading from St. Pancras Station. He had a grey suit on and a bowler hat. I know him well by sight.

Cross-examined. I have never seen prisoner carrying parcels for anybody. I suspected him of being in the subway for an unlawful purpose—stealing bags, or something.

Re-examined. Prisoner frequents the subway with a friend named Sims. I have seen them changing their jackets and caps, then come up and sit on a seat on the platform until there have been ladies going down the subway and then they have followed them.

Further cross-examined. I have not seen them actually changing clothes, but I have seen them appear with each other's jackets on.

Detective FRED KIMBER, Y Division. On October 5 Mrs. Hamilton identified prisoner at Clerkenwell Police Court out of 10 men. When charged he said, "She has made a mistake, but now I am here I suppose there is no help for it." The bag was picked up outside the subway and brought to Hunter Street Police Station by two lads.

Cross-examined. Prisoner was very earnest in his reply to the charge.

(Defence.)

FRANK BURTON (prisoner, on oath). I am 19 years of age and am a milk carrier. Two months before I was arrested I worked for Mr. Briggs, Catherine Street, Strand, for six weeks. I got 6s. a week and ray food, no lodging. I never worked for anybody before; I used to sell newspapers. After leaving Mr. Briggs I got my living by carrying parcels at the station. I did not go into the subway in question at all on September 10. At 6.30 I was either in the City and South London subway at St. Pancras or in the coffee shop opposite. There is no connection between this subway and the other one in which the offence was committed. I have no other clothes than the dark ones I am wearing and the only hat I possess is the cap produced. I was wearing these clothes and that cap on September 10. I have not worn a bowler hat for years. George told a falsehood when he said Sims and I changed clothes.

Cross-examined. I go regularly to the City and South Lonodn subway. I have not been into the other subway since I was cautioned by the stationmaster. I told him I would keep away. He made a mistake when he said he saw me down there on the 10th. Sims has not worn a bowler hat since I have known him; he always wears a cap.

FREDERICK SIMS . I am 24. I have known prisoner six or seven weeks. I am a french polisher by trade, but get my living carrying parcels. I have been in the subway in question with Burton and we have obtained jobs carrying parcels there. At half-past six on the 10th I was in Stewart's coffee shop, King's Cross Road, having a cup of tea. Burton was not with me. I had been with him that day and he was dressed exactly as he is now. He was wearing the cap produced. I was wearing the clothes I have on now and a cap. I left Burton about 2.30 and saw him again about 7.30 on 10th.

Cross-examined. I gave evidence before the magistrate. The evidence I then gave referred to September 10 and not August 10.

The jury found prisoner Guilty, but recommended him to mercy on account of his youth.

Sergeant BUTTERS. All I know about prisoner is that he worked for three weeks for Mr. Briggs, Catherine Street, and was discharged for dishonesty. I made inquiries there.

Sentence, Six months' hard labour.

BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.

(Saturday, October 15.)

Reference Number: t19101011-51

AMEY, John (62, valuer) , being the trustee of certain property, to wit, the sum of £204 7s. 9d., for the use and benefit of Elizabeth Finch, unlawfully, with intent to defraud her, did convert and appropriate to his own use and benefit £82 18s. 9d., part of the said property.

Mr. Curtis Bennett and Mr. Bircham prosecuted; Mr. G. W, H. Jones defended.

ELIZABETH FINCH , widow, 23, Cornwallis Road, Edmonton. My husband, John Finch, died on October 2, 1908. He left a will which had been drawn up by the prisoner, of which the document produced is a certified copy, leaving all his property to me and nominating prisoner as executor. The gross value of the estate was £204 7s. 9d., which was in the Post Office Savings Bank. Between the date of my husband's death and the end of the year defendant paid me £100 in three sums, £25, £50, and £25. Those payments were made at the office of the solicitor who was then acting for me, Mr. Oliver. That is all the money I have ever received from the estate. On May 11 1909, I put the matter in the hands of Messrs. Windsor and Co., solicitors. About September of last year I went to defendant's house to ask when he was going to pay the remainder of the money. He said he could not be bothered as he was going to catch a train; I walked with him as far as Lower Edmonton Station and he said "Good morning." He has never rendered me any account of this money. I have never asked him to invest any of it; and he never told me he had invested any of it. That was all the money I had left to live on.

Cross-examined. I called at defendant's house very frequently and chatted with his wife as to the possibilities in regard to this money. I never said I thought I would buy a house in the country. When I received the £50 the amount was fixed by Mr. Amey. Mrs. Amey did not suggest £100 being paid. I wanted to get the money out of the Post Office Savings Bank because the interest was so small and over £200 there was no interest. My husband held an off-licence at Edmonton from the brewers; it was not one of the terms of the contract that he should keep the place in repair. My husband was a tenant under the brewers. I said at the police court that he was lessee because I was baffled about and hardly knew what I was saying. The brewery have never raised any question of dilapidations and my husband was not liable for them. We did not have to keep the place in repair. I never discussed with Mrs. Amey the possibility of the brewers making a claim against my husband's estate. Mr. Amey never told me that the solicitor had advised him that there might be a claim for dilapidations. He said he would keep the money till the dead year was out for fear my husband had any debts; but my husband had no debts. He never suggested that I should open an account in my own name with the balance of the money. I never told Mrs. Amey that I wanted the money invented to bring in good interest; she did not tell me that Mr. Amey had found investments for clients of his; she used to say she had asked her husband why he did not give me the other money. I do not know anything about a Mr. Bull; I never told Mr. Amey to invest my money anywhere. I do not know Mrs. Lucas. (Mrs. Lucas came into Court.) I do not know that lady; I have never seen her till I saw her at the Court the day before yesterday. I never saw her at Mrs. Amey's house. I used to see a tall lady sometimes; she used to come in to do the work. Mrs. Amey did not, in the presence of that lady, read the letter of February 16, 1909. (Letter read.) I never saw that letter or had it read to me until to-day. Mrs. Amey did not tell me that Mr. Bull had borrowed money from Mr. Amey's clients before; no appointment was made for me to see Mr. Amey in reference to the matter. I did see Mr. Amey sometimes by arrangement with his wife, but Mr. Bull's name was never mentioned to me at any of the interviews. I cannot recollect whether I saw Mr. Amey in May, 1909; I used to see him so many times. He never told me that he was going to Oliver's because Bull had been burnt out; I did not say, "I have nothing to do with Bull." Mr. Amey asked me if I owed any money; I told him I owed £25 for my husband's tombstone and he said he would pay it for me; Mrs. Amey came down and got the bill, but he did not pay it. I did not receive £25 to pay it. It was the Monday before Christmas when I had the last £25; nothing was said about me paying for the tombstone with it. I asked Mr. Amey when he would settle my case; he said about the second or third week in February—that would be 1909; I went up, but Mr. Amey never came to the office to settle it.

Re-examined. I had never heard the name of Bull mentioned before the Police Court proceedings; I never received that letter suggesting

that 10 to 15 per cent, should be paid; I never received one penny of interest for any money. I went to Finsbury Pavement because Mr. Amey said he would settle the money there; he never paid me any money beyond the £100. I am quite sure I have never seen Mrs. Lucas, or heard of her, until I came here. The last payment I received on December 21; the tombstone was erected just before Christmas. I had the bill when I ordered it. Mrs. Amey came down for the bill and I gave it to her. I never received it back; they gave it to Mr. Jacobs, the stonemason. Mr. Amey never paid that bill; I never received the money from him to pay it; I have now paid part of the bill by instalments.

REGINALD SOUTHGATE BROWN , clerk to Messrs. Windsor, solicitors produced seven letters written by defendant to the solicitors and copies of five letters written by the solicitors to defendant between May 11, 1909, and October 29, 1909, which were read. On November 8 an order was made by his Honour Judge Tindal Atkinson that prisoner should file an account (order produced). That account was not filed. An application was to have been made to commit the prisoner for contempt of court, but notice could not be served on the prisoner. I produce the sanction of the County Court Judge and the fiat of the Attorney-General that criminal proceedings should be taken in this matter. The fiat of the Attorney-General was dated January 15, 1910. I also produce an account which I received from the Edmonton County Court purporting to be an account filed by the prisoner.

Cross-examined. The order for the account would have to be served personally; it was served by Mr. Worrall. Mr. Worrall is an agent of the solicitors; he is the same person who attempted service of the order for committal.

HENRY THOMAS WORRALL , retired police officer. On November 20, 1909, I served the defendant with a copy of an order made by his Honour Judge Tindal Atkinson. I followed him from close to Lower Edmonton Station and served him in the doorway of his own house; it was about midnight. I said, "Here is a paper from the Edmonton County Court"; he made no reply, simply a grunt, and took it. I also received Exhibit 5 from the Court to serve upon him. I tried on several occasions, but was not able to serve that. I tried on 10 or 12 occasions to serve it.

Cross-examined. I could not say whether there would be a previous notice served on prisoner to the one I served on November 20. I believe it was a Friday night; I called at his house first at about 8 o'clock and saw a lady; I believe it was Mrs. Amey. She did not tell me that her husband was away on business and would not be home that night; it was either on the Wednesday or Thursday before that she had told me that. I am quite sure I saw Mr. Amey himself on the Friday night and served him personally; I did not leave the notice with Mrs. Amey. I served him in the porch of the doorway; I have known him for years; he simply made a grunt, "Ugh!" If I said at the Police Court that he replied, "I know all about it; it is about Mrs. Finch,"

that would be correct, but it is so long ago. I believe when I first served him he gave a grunt and as I turned out of the gate he made that remark. I have no note of what he said; I did not think it necessary.

Re-examined. I swore an affidavit of the service. I do remember now my memory is refreshed that Mr. Amey said, "Oh, yes, I know all about it; it is the matter of Finch." I did not mention the name of "Finch."

Detective JOSEPH BRADSHAW, Edmonton. On June 16 of this year, at about half-past 9 in the evening, I was off duty and I saw prisoner in the saloon bar of the "Blackstock" public-house, Finsbury Park. I called him out and told him I held a warrant for his arrest for appropriating a certain sum of money to his own use belonging to Mrs. Finch. He replied, "I do not know anything about it." I conveyed him to Edmonton Police Station, where the charge was read over to him and he said, "I thought the solicitors would have settled it."

Cross-examined. I have known the prisoner for some years; I have seen him going to and fro to the City. I do not know what his business is; I believe he is a valuer. As far as I know he has always held a good character.

(Defence.)

JOHN AMEY (prisoner, on oath). I am 62 years of age, a valuer, and I act as agent for the sale of businesses. I have been in London 40 years and until now have never had any suggestion made against my character. I have known Mr. Finch for many years. He asked me to draw a will for him, leaving all his property to his wife, which I did, on one of Waterlow's forms. I had no benefit under the will. At that time Mr. Finch kept an off-license, of which he told me he had a lease. After his death in October, 1908, Mrs. Finch called on me one morning as I was going to business, bringing the will and a withdrawal notice from the Post Office Savings Bank. She told me she could not get the money from the Post Office unless the will was proved. I advanced her three sums, £25, £50, and £25; the last £25 was to pay for a tombstone. Those sums were all paid at Mr. Oliver's office. She asked for the amounts and she had them. It was on the solicitor's advice I held part of the money back to meet possible claims, such as dilapidations of debts. Mr. Oliver gave this advice in the presence of Mrs. Finch. He said that before the estate could be settled up the amount of liabilities must be ascertained and advertisements inserted in the papers. I offered to let Mrs. Finch have the account in the Post Office transferred, but she said the money was only bringing her in 2 1/2 percent, and she would see if she could buy a house in the country. Then she had the £50 and she asked if I could get her more interest on the balance of the money for the time being. She used to send messages through my wife asking me to find an investment for her money. I went to five or six people I had been doing business with and ultimately Mr. Bull wanted to borrow £100, but I only had a balance of £85.

Eventually 1 received a letter on February 16 from Mr. Bull (produced). I kept that letter to show to Mrs. Finch when she called and afterwards I got a message through my wife from Mrs. Finch making an appointment to see me. When I saw her she said it was good interest and told me to let the money go out. I lent Bull £85 and he gave me a promissory note (produced). The money would have been due in July, but Mr. Bull had a fire on the Saturday night previous to Whit-Sunday. I was away in the country at the time When I returned Mr. Bull wrote me to say that he had had a fire and as I was going to see Mr. Bull I met Mrs. Finch at the station and I said, "Mr. Bull has had a fire; I must go and see about it." Then I took Mr. Bull to Oliver's office about it. Mrs. Finch said it was nothing to do with her. Mr. Bull was insured for £200, which he has not been paid; proceedings were taken and are still pending by Mr. Oliver on behalf of Mr. Bull. With regard to the order which Mr. Worrall says he served me personally with, I was at Mrs. Tomm's on that day at Chiswick. I have done business for her for the last 12 years and I often stay there, usually on Fridays. She is my bail now.

Cross-examined. After advancing the £100 I kept control of the balance to meet any claims that might be made on the estate. I did that on the advice of Mr. Oliver. I did not know that the lease of Mr. Finch's beerhouse had expired 10 years before he died. It was in January, 1909, Mrs. Finch suggested taking a house in the country. At that time I offered to transfer the whole of the balance to her account, but she wanted to draw it all out so that she could get more interest. I lent the money to Mr. Bull with her consent If I had handed the money over to Mrs. Finch I should have lost control of it; she might have spent it; but lending it to Mr. Bull I still kept control when it was repaid. The balance beyond the £85 was taken in expenses connected with the estate. When Mr. Bull had a fire I knew that he was insured for £200, therefore I was not anxious about the repayment when the bill became due. My wife never asked me why I did not pay the balance over to Mrs. Finch. My wife knew the money was lent, so I could not pay it. I filed the account on June 20, after my arrest. The reason that the investment with Mr. Bull is not mentioned in that account is that Mr. Oliver told me that a promissory note was not a legal thing for a trustee to take and that I was still liable for this money. The account was filed by Mr. Medcalf, but Mr. Oliver had prepared the account 12 months ago. It was before October 1, 1909, that I gave instructions to draw up the account. (Letters were read to show that no such instructions had been received on September 27.) I could not get the money to pay, therefore I could not give instructions to pay it. The £25 which I gave Mrs. Finch on December 21 was given to pay for the tombstone. I never received a letter from Messrs. Windsor threatening to sue for it. I cannot swear that I was at Mrs. Tomm's every Friday night, but I am sure that I never had that notice served on me personally.

Re-examined. I never raised any objection to this money being invested so long as I had control of it. I have never disputed my

liability, neither has Mr. Bull; we are both willing to pay it if we can come to terms. None of it has, in fact, gone into my pocket.

ALFRED BULL , antique furniture dealer. I used to carry on business at 141, Holloway Road. I have known prisoner for a good many years; he has advanced me money two or three times. I wrote the letters (produced) on the days on which they are dated. That is my signature on the promissory note. About four months after that I had a fire. I was insured in the National General Company; I sent in a claim for £135. They said they could only pay £20. I threatened to take proceedings, but eventually settled by taking the £20. I have not paid the £85 because I stopped business and could not. I offered to pay £40, but Mr. Amey said, "I cannot break the bill."

Cross-examined. There is nothing owing to me from the insurance company. I took the £20 in full settlement.

(To the Court.) When I gave the note for £85 to the prisoner he gave me £85 in cash; I knew it was Mrs. Finch's money. I never saw Mrs. Finch herself in the matter, or any document from her.

MARY ANNE AMEY (wife of the prisoner). Mrs. Finch called on me several times and we had conversation as to the balance of the estate; she said she wished Mr. Amey could get it out at good interest and she asked me to speak to him about it. I remember the letter of February My husband left it with me to show to Mrs. Finch if she called; she did not call at the time and I left it with Mrs. Lucas, the person who assists me, to show it to her if she called. I showed Mrs. Finch the letter in Mrs. Lucas's presence; I commenced to read it and she said, "That is quite sufficient if he is going to get good interest."

Cross-examined. I think it was about a month ago when I was asked what I could remember about my conversations with Mrs. Finch in February, 1909. I remember Mrs. Finch coming in December, 1908, for some money to pay the stonemason and she had it. I do not remember asking my husband why he did not pay the balance over to Mrs. Finch; when Mrs. Finch came for the £50 I asked her, "Why do not you make it a hundred or more?" and she said, "No; that is sufficient." I know that my husband had done business before with Mr. Bull, but I do not know what it was. Mrs. Lucas was my charwoman. She is a little woman; she is the only person I employ; she was there when Mrs. Finch was there. I never had a tall woman to work for me.

Re-examined. I saw Mr. Medcalf and had a conversation with him at the Police Court in reference to this letter of February 16; he took particulars from me. I remember showing Mrs. Finch the letter of February 16, because it is the only one I ever showed her.

LETITIA LUCAS , widow, 40, Chamberlain Road, Lower Edmonton. I have worked for Mrs. Amey for several years; I have seen Mrs. Finch at Mrs. Amey's house. There has never been any other servant there. I remember seeing the letter of February 16. Mrs. Amey left it with me to show, to Mrs. Finch, but she did not call. The letter produced is the one I had.

Cross-examined. I was asked about a month or six weeks ago to come and give evidence.

ELIZABETH TOMM gave evidence as to the good character of the prisoner and to the effect that he was in the habit of sleeping at her house, being on friendly terms with her sons.

Verdict, Guilty.

Sentence was postponed.

BEFORE THE RECORDER.

(Monday, October 17.)

Reference Number: t19101011-52

BRUSEWITZ, Per Emil (22, lieutenant, Swedish Army) , having charge of a vehicle, by wanton driving and willful conduct causing certain bodily harm to William Thompson.

Mr. Travers Humphreys stated that the prosecution did not propose to offer evidence, prisoner's only act of negligence being that he had driven on the wrong side of a refuge in Hyde Park; compensation had been paid to the prosecutor.

The Recorder said that, having read the depositions, he entirely approved of that course, and a verdict of Not guilty was returned.

Reference Number: t19101011-53

DODD, Henry (31, labourer), EDWARDS, William (29, labourer), and MILES, William (28, dealer) , feloniously assaulting William Gordon with intent to rob him of his goods and money.

WILLIAM GORDON , 535, Holloway Road; insurance agent. On October 5, at 12.40 a.m., I was saying good-bye to Miss Titman outside her house in Caledonian Street when the three prisoners came up and attacked me. Dodd tried to throw my legs from under me, another tried to stuff a pocket handkerchief in my mouth and the third turned out my left trouser pocket. I was wearing a watch and chain. I shouted "murder," "thieves," or "police." Prisoners slunk off. I followed and blew a police whistle three times. Detective Gardiner was at the and of the street. He seized Dodd. To other officers seized the other two who had ran off in different ways. I never lost sight of the prisoners.

LAVINIA TITMAN , Caledonian Road, corroborated. I saw Dodd captured; the others were brought back by other officers. There were no other persons in the street.

Police-constable HALLMAN GARDINER, 194 G. On October 5, at 12.45 a.m., I was on duty in Caledonian Road in plain clothes when I heard a whistle and went towards Caledonian Street. I saw the three prisoners turning the corner into Caledonian Road. Dodd ran across the road; the other two ran right and left. I arrested Dodd Prosecutor came up and said, "That is one of them—they have tried

to rob me." I took Dodd to the station, accompanied by the prosecutor and Miss Titman. He was charged, and said, "I could have got away, only this man brought me here." Edwards and Miles were brought in a few minutes afterwards and identified by prosecutor.

Sergeant GALLOWAY, 316 G. On October 5, at about 1 a.m., I was on patrol duty in the Caledonian Road when I saw the three prisoners coming towards me, prosecutor following blowing a whistle. Prosecutor said, "Those three men have attempted to rob me." I went towards the prisoners, when Edwards and Miles doubled back up the road. I chased Edwards through Caledonian Crescent into Crescent Avenue; I never lost sight of him and caught him as he was getting over a gate leading into Albert Place, where two private persons seized him. I took him to the station. He was identified by prosecutor and Miss Titman, charged, and made no reply.

Police-constable ERNEST STILL, 467 G. On October 5, before 1 a.m., I heard a whistle in Caledonian Road and saw Miles running. I asked what he was running for, he made no reply. I took him to the station, where prosecutor at once, said, "That is one of the men." He was charged, and made no reply.

Verdict (all), Guilty.

Dodd confessed to having been convicted at this Court on May 29, 1899, receiving three years' penal servitude for robbery with violence Six other convictions were proved.

Edwards confessed to having been convicted on May 13, 1904, at the Mansion House in the name of William Jones; 16 other convictions were proved.

Miles confessed to having been convicted on May 29, 1899, at this Court, receiving 12 months and 12 lashes for robbery with violence. Several other convictions were proved.

All prisoners were stated to associate with dangerous thieves. Sentence (each prisoner), five years' penal servitude.

Reference Number: t19101011-54

DAVIDSON, Thomas (38, clerk), MATTHEWS, Frederick (42, bricklayer), GRIFFITHS, James (36, agent), and MEAD, Thomas (38, dealer) , breaking and entering the warehouse No. 8 and 9, Ewer Street, and stealing therein 10 casks of saccharin, the property of the Saccharin Corporation, Limited, and feloniously receiving the same.

Mr. Oddie and Mr. Stanley R. Crawford prosecuted; Mr. C. W. Kent defended Davidson; Mr. Tully-Christie and Mr. P. C. Parry defended Matthews and Griffiths; Mr. C. G. Moran defended Mead.

WILLIAM NOON , 11, Croydon Road, Plaistow, stoker and engine driver to the Saccharin Corporation, Limited, Southwark. On Saturday, September 10, at 1 p.m., I saw our premises secure, the bonded warehouse being fastened with our own lock and by the Revenue Authorities with a padlock. On September 12 at 7.40 a.m. on entering

the yard I saw the gas burning in the office and found the door forced and two cupboards and a drawer broken in the office. The padlock of the bonded warehouse was partly sawn through and wrenched off. Our hack-saw was lying on the ground with the blade broken. I also found jemmy (produced) outside the office. I saw that several casks were missing from the bonded warehouse.

GEORGE JOSEPH JAYE , 20, Outram Street, Plaistow, greengrocer. On Wednesday, September 7, Matthews hired the loft of my stable in Cumberland Road, Plaistow, at 2s. a week; he paid me 1s. deposit, said he wanted it to store general stuff, and I gave him the key. I had in the loft a number of empty apple barrels. On September 12 I noticed that they bulged out and that beneath them there was one iron-banded barrel; they may have been more. On September 17 Matthews asked me to lend him my pony and cart; he wanted it to cart some stuff from the loft to Dalston. I said I should not let it out unless I went myself, and I agreed to do the job for 7s. The next morning at 4.40 a.m. I met him at the stable, went up to the loft, when he uncovered the barrels, and I saw there were 10; we removed five, loaded them into the cart, and I drove under his directions to Lenthal Road, Dalston, where I went into the "Grange" public house and had a drink. Matthews went round the corner, and in about 15 minutes came into the public house, had a glass of ale, and started reading the paper; he said, "The firm is not open yet." He had a second glass of ale and went out again, returned in 10 minutes, and said, "The place is open now—hurry up." We then drove round to 32a, Lenthal Road, where Davidson was standing at the door with a paper and pencil in his hand, Matthews spoke to him and told me to unload, which I did, Davidson directing me where to put the barrels. Matthews went in with Davidson and told me to leave. The detectives then entered; they told me it was stolen property and asked me where I had fetched the stuff from; I told them everything I know about it, and that I had fetched it from my stable at Plaistow under the instructions of Matthews.

Divisional-inspector FRANCIS CARLIN, N Division. On September 18, in company with Chief-inspector Cope, Divisional-inspector Divall, and Detective-sergeant Wright, I was keeping observation in Dalston; on September 19, from 2 to 7 a.m., we were watching 32s. Lenthall Road, from another house. At 7 a.m. Griffiths and Mead came down the road, stopped at 32a, and walked back, apparently on the watch. Hall opened the stable at 7.40; they spoke to him and went in with him; shortly afterwards Davidson arrived and spoke to Griffiths. Griffiths and Mead came out and beckoned forward a van which was driven by Jaye under the direction of Matthews. The van stopped at 32a, Matthews and Jaye carried five casks into the warehouse, Davidson standing at the door with a paper and pencil in his hand. As the last cask was taken in we made a rush for the warehouse, taking Jaye in; I asked Matthews to account for what they were doing. Davidson said, "This is my place, I was going to let it later on." Matthews said, "A man met me at Stratford Market

and asked me to bring this lot here." Jaye was then asked who employed him to bring the goods; he pointed to Matthews. I, with Inspector Divall, then went to Cumberland Road, Plaistow, and found in Jaye's loft five other casks of saccharin. We afterwards found Griffiths and Mead in the bar of the "Prince of Wales" public house. On our approach they jumped up. I told them we were police officers and should arrest them. They made no reply. They were taken back to the warehouse and left with the others in charge of Sergeant Wright and other officers. The prisoners were taken to Dalston Station and detained. I afterwards took Davidson and Griffiths to Borough Police Station in a cab. On the way Davidson said, "What shall I be charged with?" I said, "You will be charged with being concerned with the other men in breaking into the warehouse of the Saccharin Corporation, Limited, and stealing 10 casks of saccharin. You will also be charged with receiving the same well knowing it to be stolen." He said, "Oh!" Griffiths made no remark.

WILLIAM HALL . I was in the employ of Davidson, making mats, at 32a, Lenthall Road. On September 19 at 8.15 a.m. I opened the premises when Davidson, whom I knew, asked me for the governor, I said, "He is not in," and he walked away. Davidson came along the road and I told him he was wanted. He then gave me a key and directed me to go to another warehouse which he had at No. 11, Kingsland Passage, Dalston, to fetch something—which I did. Detective-sergeant GEORGE WRIGHT, K Division, corroborated Carlin. Griffiths and Mead were watching the unloading of the casks. I was afterwards in charge of the prisoners at the stable. Griffiths said, "Well, this, is all right. What have you got me and my pal for. We came up to see a man about a bet. I do not know anything about this stuff. I have never seen these people in my life before" referring to Matthews and Davidson. Mead said, "More have I. What have you got me for?" Before I could reply Griffiths turned to Davidson and said, "We don't know you and you don't know us, do you?" Davidson said, "No, I have never seen you in my life before." I took Matthews to the station. On the way he said, "What is the strength of this, governor? How did you come to be there and rush the show?" I said, "You were told by Mr. Divall that we had complaints." He said, "Where has he been?" I said, "With the carman, Jaye, and recovered some more of the property"—at that time Divall and Carlin had recovered the other five casks. The prisoners had been detained some three hours at the stable. Matthews said, "Oh! That's done it."

EDWARD NEARY , 34, Lenthall Road. In February, 1910, I let coach house, No. 32a, Lenthall Road, to Davidson for making and storing mats, etc. He employed Hall to make mats.

ROBERT HENRY IRONS , licensee, "Red Lion" public house, Plastow. I have known Griffiths and Mead as customers for six or seven years, and have lately seen them together drinking at my house.

ALFRED WILLIAM COPE , Inspector of Customs and Excise. The Saccharin Corporation have a monopoly in this country for the

manufacture of saccharine; it is made from gas tar, is 550 times sweeter than sugar, and is used for making mineral waters which require sweetening. There is a duty of 9s. 4d. a lb., and its selling value is 35s. per lb. The 10 casks, which I identify as having been stolen from the bonded warehouse, contain 10 cwt. of saccharine, and are worth £1,960.

(Defence.)

THOMAS DAVIDSON (prisoner, on oath). I live at 15, Providence Place, Old Ford. I have held five licensed public houses, and have been the manager of two others; have dealt in foreign stamps, and on September 19 rented 32a, Lenthall Road. About 12 months previously a man named Watts had introduced to me a scheme for mat making to assist the fallen; pamphlets were circulated; I found £15 capital and took charge of the business at 30s. a week. Watts said to show his confidence in me I should take the premises in my name, which I did from Neary, paying a deposit of 5s. Watts afterwards introduced me to a man who he said would put £200 into the business. The man said he could not advance it for some little time. I pawned my wife's wedding ring to find the money for an advertisement. Watts then told me he had got a deposit from another person; I have since learned that he got £50 from the man. On August 19 Watts decamped, leaving me £10 and asking me to pay the rent and wages, which I did, and kept £3 for myself. I then determined to sell off the mat-making business, and on Wednesday, September 14, a man approached me at the gate and said, "When are you giving up these premises? I have heard you are leaving." I offered to sell him the office furniture, frames, etc., for 50s. and to hand over the premises. He agreed, gave me 2s. 6d. deposit, and arranged to come in on the following Monday; he did not give me his name. I said, "Shall I give you a receipt?" He said, "No. As you say I can move in on Monday give me a receipt in full then, as I will pay you all up then; but I might see you on the Saturday at 8 o'clock. I said, "All right; I will meet you at 8 o'clock on Saturday—if not, you can move in on Monday." I waited on the Saturday, but he did not come. (To the Recorder.) I should have to introduce him to the landlord; I was going to pay the rent overdue out of the 50s. which he would pay me for the fixtures and fittings.

(Tuesday, October 18.)

THOMAS DAVIDSON (prisoner, on oath), recalled. I applied at Dalston for a warrant against Watts, and made a statement to Sergeant Course; the magistrate would not grant a warrant. On Monday September 19, at 8.40 I arrived at 32a, Lenthall Road. Hall told me that Griffiths had been and wanted to see me. I told Hall to go to No. 11, Kingsland Passage, and get a mat-making frame, because the new tenant' was to buy the fittings. I then was looking at a letter with a pen in my hand, when

Griffiths came in and asked me if I could do with a pawn ticket. I told him I had no money, and he went away. I know Griffiths well—he is well known in Dalston. Shortly after Jaye and Matthews came with the van. Matthews, whom I did not know, said, "I have got some goods to deliver here—the governor is coming along shortly." I understood it was the goods of the new tenant and told them to bring the goods in. They brought the five casks in, the police rushed in; Divall said, "We are police officers," and asked me about some ironmongery in connection with Watts. Then pointing to the casks he said, "What are they?" I said, "I do not know. These men have brought them here; their governor will be here shortly." I also told him I had sold the fixtures and fittings, and pointed to the wooden frames that were tied up. I still had a letter and pen in my hand. I gave a description of the new tenant to Sergeant Wright. Mead and Griffiths were brought in. Divall asked me if either of those was the man who had taken my premises. I said, "No." I never said that I did not know Griffiths. I had no idea the casks were stolen.

Cross-examined. I gave a description of my proposed tenant to the police: a man about 5 feet 9 or 10 inches, well built, middle-aged with a fair moustache, dressed like a master coster. Sergeant Wright took it down. I did not know his name or address and had nothing in his writing. (To the Recorder.) Matthews did not tell me where the casks came from; he told the police that a man met him at Stratford and asked him to take the goods there—I did not hear Griffiths say he had never seen me or Matthews in his life before. (To Mr. Crawford.) I saw Griffiths on Saturday night, September 17, and gave him 2s. The pamphlet produced was issued by Watts and myself to solicit trade. I had a lot of wicker chairs and other goods at 32a, Lenthall Road. We employed Hall regularly and an occasional odd man. I knew Hoskins and Smith; they both paid money to come into the business; they have not had it back.

FREDERICK MATTHEWS (prisoner, on oath). I live at 85, Ridley Road, Custom House, Canning Town. I never saw Jaye before September His evidence about my taking his loft is all false. On September 19, at 6.45, I met him at Stratford Market, when he asked me if I was doing anything and if I would care about having a ride to Dalston with him. I agreed, and we drove in his van to Lenthall Road. We went into a public-house, had a drink, and he asked me to go round to 32a and see if it was open. I found it was not; we had another glass of beer; I again went out and found the warehouse was open. He said, "We will pull round," and I walked with the van. Davidson, whom I had never seen before, told us to unload and put the goods in the warehouse. I assisted in taking the casks in when the police rushed in. I told them that the man asked us to bring the barrels from Stratford Market—that was false. When informed that the other casks had been found I did not say, "That's done it." I did not say, "How did you come to rush the show?" The detective said, "How long have you known Davidson." I said it was the first

time I ever saw him. He said, "We have been after him for some time for having stuff." I never saw Griffiths before that morning. I have known Mead about 18 years.

Cross-examined. I uttered a falsehood in saying to the police that I had met a man at Stratford Market who had told me to bring the casks to Lenthall Road—I first saw the casks when I unloaded them there. I got on the van at Stratford Market. I could not see the casks because they were covered with empties. Sergeant Carlin took me outside and said, "The carman has given the game away; you might as well make a clean breast of it." I said, "I have nothing to make a clean breast about." I have not said this before—I have had no opportunity. Jaye has committed perjury all through the piece.

MARGARET MATTHEWS , wife of the prisoner, and BENJAMIN PRESLAND, 58, Evanson Road, Custom House, stated that Matthews was at home up to 6.30 a.m. on September 19.

JAMES GRIFFITHS (prisoner, on oath). I am a commission agent and live at Rowton House. On September 17 I was at the "Prince of Wales" public-house, Lenthall Road, where I met Davidson and Hall, both of whom I knew. As I was hard up they both gave me a few pence. I told Davidson I had a pawnticket for a diamond ring I could sell for 4s. and would see him on Monday morning. On September 19 I went to 32, Lenthall Road, saw Hall, and he told me Davidson had not arrived, that he would not be long. I went round to the public-house, where I met Mead; he was in company with a woman and was boozed; he asked me to have a drink, which we did, and as we were sitting down looking at a paper the officers came in Divall said, "We are police officers and shall take you on suspicion." He then took us into the warehouse. I had never seen any saccharin and knew nothing about it.

Cross-examined. I never spoke to Matthews until September 19. I did not know Mead before and have not drunk with him at the "Red Lion." When I met him he asked me the way to Aldgate; I told him and he asked me to have a drink. I went there to see a man named Smith about selling him a pawnticket. I did not say to the police, "I know nothing about this stuff, I have never seen these people in my life before." I did not hear Mead say, "More have I. What are we here for?" The evidence of the police is false.

THOMAS MEAD (prisoner, on oath). I have never been convicted, bear a good character, and have been employed for the last 18 months by Mr. Allard, a carrier of wood in barges. I have also been for 11 years employed by George Dallas, a trainer at Epsom. I cannot read or write. On September 19 I was the worse for drink. I was standing at the public-house near Lenthall Road when I met Griffiths and we had a drink. The officers came in and took us to the ware-house—I hardly know how. I afterwards had a sleep on some matting that was there. I know nothing about the saccharin.

Cross-examined. I never saw Matthews on September 19 till I was taken into the warehouse. I knew Matthews in Canning Town by

sight—I did not know where he lived. I did not hear Griffiths say, "I have never seen these people in my life before." I did not say, "More have I." Davidson was asked, "Is this the man that took your warehouse?" He said "No."

Sergeant GEORGE WRIGHT, recalled. Mead was perfectly sober. Mead and Griffiths were together at 7 a.m. before the public-house was open; there was no woman there. (To Mr. Moran.) When I first saw Griffiths and Mead they were together walking down Lenthall Road quite sober. Mead was detained in the warehouse about four hours. (To the Recorder.) Davidson gave no description of the man who had taken his warehouse; had he done so I should have seen the importance of it and taken a note.

WILLIAM HALL , recalled. On September 17 I shut up the ware-house at 12 noon and returned to my lodgings at Davidson's house at 8 p.m. He then told me to open the warehouse, which I did. Griffiths came to the "Prince of Wales" and was talking with Davidson about half an hour. I gave Griffiths 2d. for his lodgings. (To Mr. Kent.) I knew Davidson was trying to let the premises.

Verdict (all), Guilty of receiving, not guilty of stealing.

Matthews confessed to having been convicted at West Ham Quartet Sessions on December 13, 1907, and sentenced to 12 months' hard labour for larceny. Six other convictions were proved, including five years' penal servitude on May 30, 1891, at Middlesex Sessions for housebreaking. Stated to do no regular, work and to be an associate of thieves.

Griffiths was in 1895 sentenced at South London to nine months' hard labour for causing grevious bodily harm; stated to be a chuckerout at common gaming houses, an associate of thieves, and a very dangerous man.

Sentences: Davidson, 18 months' hard labour; Griffiths, 12 months hard labour; Mead, three months' hard labour; Matthews, three years' penal servitude.

BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.

(Monday, October 17.)

Reference Number: t19101011-55

PANKHURST, Louis (26, steeplejack) , forging and uttering a certain indorsement on an order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for the payment of £10 17s., with intent to defraud.

Mr. N. Anderson prosecuted; Mr. Purcell defended.

GLADYS CHARLESWORTH , clerk to Barnes and Company, Limited, 191, Finchley Road, Hampstead. This cheque, for £10 17s. made payable to "J. Morris or order," dated August 10, was made out by me on August 10 for the manager and director to sign. I saw W. W. Killick, the manager, sign it. It would in the ordinary course be posted on the 12th.

Cross-examined. Mr. Killick signed it on the 12th with a batch of other cheques, I think in the afternoon. I did not notice this particular one. I, with others, put them in envelopes on that day and gave them to the posting clerk to post. This was not before 6 p.m. I very often send out cheques to post before that time. There is no record in the office showing the time letters are posted. I first learnt that the cheque had not arrived on September 6.

JOSEPH VENTURA , manager to Joseph Morris, fancy goods dealers, 129, Aldersgate Street. In August, Barnes and Company, Limited, owed us £10 17s. for goods supplied for which we had sent them an account. Our business does not open on Saturdays, I go there on Sundays. I went on August 14 and found that the letter box at the entrance to the premises had been smashed open and the letters gone. I reported it to the police. We never received this cheque, nor is the endorsement on it ours.

Cross-examined. We close on Friday evenings at 6.30 p.m. We sent another account in to Barnes and Company and they replied that they had sent a cheque on August 10.

JAMES MALCOLM FOLKES , licensee, "Roebuck" public-house, Enfield Highway. About 7 p.m. on August 13 prisoner, whom I know by sight as an occasional customer by the name of "John," came in and asked me if I would change a cheque as he had done some chimney work as a steeplejack for John Barnes and Company, of Fulham, who had paid him his money by a crossed cheque, which he was unable to change unless through somebody with a banking account. I first declined to do so, but he said that he had no money to pay his men, so I advanced him £5, and told him that I would pay the balance when the cheque was cleared. He gave me this cheque (exhibit 1). On the Monday following he returned and said that he was still in trouble, and could I let him have the balance. As the cheque had not gone through I advanced him £2 more, and told him again that I could not pay him any more until it was cleared. He endorsed it "John Morrise." The cheque having been cleared on the Tuesday I paid him the balance, £3 17s., when he called on the Wednesday. When he first brought it in I noticed that it was endorsed and the endorsement struck through. He endorsed it "Morrise," and on showing him that he had mispelt the name he struck that through and spelt it properly.

Cross-examined. I knew on the Saturday that the endorsement was of no value, but I trusted him with the £5. He came to the house two or three times after I paid him the last instalment, and I have spoken to him. I should say that the last of his subsequent visits was 14 days after.

Police-sergeant EDWIN BACKHURST, Metropolitan Division, between 6 and 7 p.m. on September 9 I saw prisoner at the Enfield Highway Police Station and said to him, "I understand that you changed a cheque at the 'Roebuck' public-house on August 13." He said "Yes." I said, "Then I may as well tell you that that cheque was stolen." He said, "I did not steal it." I said, "I do not suggest you did." He said, "I will tell you how it was. I was going to Birmingham

on Saturday, August 6, and in the train I got playing cards with four or five other men and I won about £5. One of the men asked me to give him the money back and he gave me that cheque in exchange. He told me to sign his name 'John Morris.' I carried it with me till the following Saturday. When I got back to the Enfield Highway I took it to the 'Roebuck' and got the landlord to let me have £5 on it. He gave me the rest of the money, £2, on the following Tuesday and £3 17s. on the Wednesday." I told him he would be charged with forging and uttering the cheque. When the charge was read to him he said, "Is that what you call forgery—writing another man's name? I admit I wrote the other man's name, which I was told to do, but I done it innocently."

(Defence.)

LOUIS PANKHURST (prisoner, on oath). About 6 p.m. on September 9 I was in the Enfield Highway when a police officer came and asked me if I had changed a cheque at the "Roebuck," and I said I had. I then went with him to the station to explain. I told Backhurst there that I was not sure whether I received the cheque on the 6th or the 13th. His evidence as to what I said is otherwise correct. I know now it was the 13th. I left Euston Station on that day by the 7 a.m. train to go to Birmingham. Three or four men in the carriage asked me to join them in a game of cards and I did so. I guessed the winning card first time and I won £5, which I was paid in gold. One of the men then asked me to hand him back the £5 and he would give me a cheque. I did so, and he gave me this cheque for £10 17s. I went on betting and won another £5, so I gave them 17s. and that made us square. Somebody jumped in the compartment and we stopped playing. They told me to put the same name on the back as on the front. I did not notice that there was a name on the back when it was handed to me. On my return to London that day at 7p.m. I went into the "Roebuck." All Folke's evidence is untrue. I asked him to cash this cheque for me and he said he had not enough cash to do so, but he would give me £5 and the rest on Monday. He said, "What work have you been doing?" and I said, "Chimney work." I went there on the Monday and he asked me to endorse it. I spelt the name wrong and he made me write it again. He gave me £2 and an I. O. U. for £3 17s. On the Tuesday I got the balance. I have been in his house many times since.

Cross-examined. When I told the sergeant that I had carried the cheque till the following Saturday I mistook what he asked me; I thought he wanted to know how long ago it was since I cashed it. I never told Folkes that I had the cheque in payment for work done for Barnes. I have not done any work since August Bank Holiday, but our work is very irregular. I had £11 14s. on me when I went to Birmingham.

Verdict, Not guilty.

BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.

(Monday, October 17.)

Reference Number: t19101011-56

LILLEY, Sidney (40, contractor), and WRIGHT, William Herbert (55, contractor) . Both conspiring together and with Edward Alfred Miller and other persons unknown to defraud Robert Battersby of 26 bullocks; obtaining by false pretences and with intent to defraud 16 bullocks from the said Robert Battersby. (These two prisoners were tried last Sessions on another indictment. See page 552.)

Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Graham-Campbell prosecuted; Mr. Ernest Wild defended Lilley; Mr. Curtis Bennett defended Wright.

After Mr. Bodkin's opening speech, Mr. Curtis Bennett submitted that he had opened no case in law against Wright.

Judge Rentoul. I do not think there is any case. I do not see how the jury could possibly convict him if the evidence was no stronger than has been opened.

Mr. Bodkin said after that expression of opinion he would offer no evidence against Wright.

By direction, the jury returned a verdict of Not guilty.

The case against Lilley was then proceeded with.

ARTHUR VERNON , hay merchant, Harlesden. I am tenant of Twyford Abbey Farm, Park Royal. In July, 1909, I sublet some pasture to Lilley, about 100 acres, with some sheds and stabling. He said he wanted to graze some animals. I afterwards saw some cattle there.

Cross-examined. Lilley gave his correct name, and paid me £40 in advance. The cheque was honoured.

CATHERINE SAWYER , wife of Charles Sawyer. In August, 1909, I lived in a cottage in the farmyard of Twyford Abbey. I saw defendant two or three times a week between August and September. He was looking round the places and talking to Mr. Wright. There were cattle there.

Cross-examined. I saw defendant there up to 10 days before Christmas. Cattle used to come two or three times a week. There was a board up, "Cattle taken in to graze."

ROBERT BATTERSBY , proprietor of the "Central Hotel," Kells, County Meath. I deal in cattle and sheep. On October 2, 1909, I sold 26 bullocks for £377 at Norwich Cattle Market to E. Miller. He paid by cheque (produced) on the London City and Midland Bank, Loughboro Junction. He told me he was a contractor. The cheque was dishonoured. When I parted with my cattle I thought it was a good cheque. I communicated with the police, and on October 29 I went to Park Royal Farm, and saw 16 of my cattle there. Lilley said they were not his, but had been sent to graze to him. I took the cattle away. Lilley asked if I was going to pay for the keep, and I said No; let the man that sent them to him pay for the keep.

Cross-examined. Lilley did not object to my taking the cattle away. He had them from October 2 to October 29.

ALFRED MANNERING , manager of the London and South-Western Bank, Walworth Road branch. In 1909 defendant had an account at my branch. I produce certified extract from the books which shows that on September 25, 1909, a cheque was drawn by S. Lilley for £160. It was paid over the counter in gold. Another extract shows that on October 7 there were paid into his account a £5 note, No 23179, dated 10/9/08, and two £10 notes, Nos. 18216-7, dated 14/7/08.

Cross-examined. Anyone with any knowledge of business would know it is easy to trace a note. Lilley's account is quite substantial; his turnover is about £10,000 to £12,000 a year. It is customary for him, dealing with horses and cattle, to draw out gold. He drew £600 in gold in November, and that would be a fair average. His balance is generally very substantial. He has been a customer for many years.

HENRY JAMES DRUCE , cashier, London City and Midland Bank, Loughboro Junction branch. On September 25, 1909, an account was opened in the name of E. Miller. I produce a certified copy of that account between September 25 and October 23, 1909. The account was opened by a payment in of £60, in sovereigns, and on September 28 there was a further payment in of £100, also in sovereigns. On September 29 the balance was £111 7s. 6d. On the morning of October 6 the balance was £325, and at the close of the day £333. On October 5 £60 was paid in, four £5 notes and four £10 notes.

Mr. Wild. I can shorten this. Out of the £60 in notes, three notes of the value of £25 subsequently went into Lilley's account. The other £35 did not.

Witness. The £10 notes were numbered 18216-9, dated 14/7/08; and the £5 notes 23176-9, dated September 10. The cheque for £377 was presented oh October 6. There was not enough money to meet it, and it was marked, "Refer to drawer," and sent back. The balance was then £325. On October 23 the account came to an end.

Cross-examined. The account was reduced by two cheques paid in for £24 and £112 being dishonored. The balance was an augmenting one up to October 6. The number of the cheque for £377 was 84587. It was dated October 2. There was nothing to prevent the cheque being cleared by October 4. Cheques numbered 84589 to 84593 were cleared between October 4 and October 6. They amounted to £117 odd. The total credits during the month were £646. Miller gave us a correct address.

Detective-inspector EDWARD BARRETT, X Division. I met Mr. Battersby with others on October 29, by appointment, near the farm tad we went on to the farm. I saw defendant there, and said, "I nave reason to believe you have some bullocks here obtained by fraud. I am going round the place." He said, "This place and what is here belongs to me." Mr. Battersby picked out 16 bullocks. I said, "These have been identified by Mr. Battersby." He said, "I am feeding them for a man who let me have them to keep." Afterwards

I had a consultation with Inspector Neill, and Neill said, "On October 2 26 bullocks were obtained by frau by means of a worthless cheque at Norwich. We propose to take possession of them." Lilley then said, "I am grazing them for a Mr. Wilson, a contractor of Hanwell, at a shilling per head." Neill said, "Where does he live?" Lilley replied, "I do not know. He comes here sometimes and looks at them." He was again told Battersby would take possession, and he said, "Who am I going to look to for the keep?" Neill said, "You had better go to Mr. Wilson for it." The bullocks were taken possession of. Lilley accompanied us some distance towards Park Royal District Station. On the way he said, "Are you going to have a drink, Mr. Barrett?" I said, "No, thank you." He said, "What are you going to do?" I said, "You need have no fear of me if you carry on your business straightforwardly," and left him.

Cross-examined. The conversation took place a good time ago. I took no notes. It had been raining very heavily and we adjourned to the public-house, but not with the prisoner. I do not know whether Miller has been prosecuted for obtaining these bullocks by false pretences, but I do not think so.

ROBERT BATTERSBY , recalled, further cross-examined. I never took proceedings against Miller.

Mr. Graham-Campbell asked leave to recall the officer, as Mr. Wild made a point about the non-prosecution of Miller.

Mr. Wild objected, but Judge Rentoul ruled that the evidence was admissible.

Detective-inspector BARRETT, recalled. Miller was convicted on another charge at Aylesbury Assizes in June, 1910.

ARTHUR WILSON , contractor, Uxbridge Road, Hanwell. I have known Lilley six or seven years. I have never had bullocks out at grazing with him.

Cross-examined. We know each other quite well, and he knows my name and address.

Re-examined. I know no other contractor in Hanwell named Wilson. To the Court.) The population is about 20,000, I think.

Mr. Ernest Wild submitted that there was no case to be answered. There was no proof that the bullocks had been obtained by fraud. If the cheque had been presented when it might reasonably have been expected to have been there would have been more than sufficient money in the bank to pay it, so that even if this were a charge against Miller, he submitted His Honour would have ruled that there was no case. The present case rested upon the assumption that the transaction by Miller was fraudulent, and no proceedings had been taken against Miller.

Mr. Bodkin said that if the cheque had been presented on October 2, 3, or 4 there was not enough money to meet it. If presented on October 5 there would have been. But the cheque was given to an Irish trader, and it would take longer to clear it from Ireland, and if the cheque for £60 was cashed, intending to reduce the balance to an amount less than would meet the £377 cheque, Miller would rightly have been convicted for obtaining the cattle by false pretences.

Judge Rentoul said he would only be justified in stopping the case if it were one on which no jury could possibly convict. He would leave it to the jury.

(Defence.)

SIDNEY LILLEY (prisoner, on oath.). In July, 1909, I hired Twyford Abbey Farm for (amongst other purposes) grazing cattle, and put up a notice, "Cattle taken in to graze." The sixteen bullocks were brought a week before they were taken away by a man giving the name of Wilson. It was not Mr. Arthur Wilson. He said he came from Hanwell. I did not know him. We arranged for a shilling a head. He came once or twice before the police came, and I heard he came afterwards. I told the police I was only grazing them, and barring their keep I made no trouble about parting with them. I did not say that Mr. Wilson was a contractor. It is not true that I financed Miller. It is usual to draw sums in gold from the bank, because in plenty of cases people will not take cheques or bank notes in dealings with cattle. The three notes which came into my account which were in Miller's account I took of Miller, senior, as I had sold him a horse for £26 about October 6, 1909.

Cross-examined. My man Lucas took the cattle in. I saw them later in the day. I had never known the man Wilson before. He appeared something like a dealing man. He never gave me his address. He told me he wanted to leave the animals there for the time being. I did not tell Inspector Barrett that Wilson was a contractor. I know both Millers, father and son. They are dealers in horses. I have never known them to deal in cattle. I do not think, Miller, senior, is here. I did not give him a receipt. I do not keep books. I sold him a horse for £26 outside the repository in the New Kent Road. I have heard since that Miller, junior, has been dealt with at Aylesbury Assizes. On September 26 I drew out £160. I went into Wales to buy some cobs. I paid the £160 to people in the market at Carmarthen. I did not know them. I sold the cobs again, I cannot say to whom. I know nothing about the Millers' business. At the time in question I had no knowledge that either of them had a banking account. I have inquired about Wilson when I have been at different places in Hanwell.

Mr. Bodkin said he did not propose to say anything more.

On Mr. Wild rising to address the Court,

The foreman of the jury said: The jury have all come to the conclusion that the man is Not guilty.

Reference Number: t19101011-57

GARNETT, Charles William (27, jeweller) , have been entrusted with certain property, to wit, jewellery of the value of £90 11s. 10d., the goods of Louis Frederick Weir and others, in order that he might retain the same in safe custody, and sell to purchaser, and deliver the proceeds thereof to the said L. F. Weir, did fraudulently convert the said property and the proceeds thereof to his own use and benefit.

Mr. Purcell prosecuted; Mr. Daniel Warde defended.

LOUIS FREDERICK WEIR , jeweller, 117, Fortess Road, Kentish Town. Down to July I was in partnership in the jewellery business with Mr. Richard Crosby, when we agreed to dissolve partnership. On July 20 I went to the Safe Deposit in Chancery Lane. I saw

defendant there. I had known him for some years. I told him I was giving up the business and that I had some goods for sale under cost price; would he like to see them. He said, "Yes." When he saw them he said they were just the things he could do with. I said I should want cash for them as I was giving up business and only a third belonged to me. He said he could sell them for me and he took the goods away. I gave him a list (produced) which I had already made out. I knew he carried on business in Poland Street. I expected to see him next day. I told him my private address, and he knew that he would see me in Chancery Lane, because he would be there next day. The list was not for the whole of the property. I did not see him again till July 25, when he called at my home. Mr. Crosby was there. He said he wanted a diamond ring about £12. We had not one about that price. He asked us if we had any other goods, and I said, "Yes," and I brought them. I made out a complete list. (Produced.) It is made out on my billhead because it was the only book I had and I wanted a duplicate of it. I had a carbon copy in that way. He said he would see us next day and settle up with the goods or the money. He took the goods away. I did not see him next day. I did not sell him the goods.

Mr. Purcell. What did you give him them for?

Mr. Warde objected. There was a document in writing, an invoice for the sale of the goods, and he submitted that unless fraud could be proved in obtaining that document, parole evidence could not be given to set it aside.

Judge Rentoul: We have had evidence that this transaction was, goods to be sold on commission. Then there is a document which might seem to contradict that, and the witness is asked, "What do you mean by it?" I think that may be asked.

Examination continued. I did not see him again until August 3, when Mr. Crosby was present. It was at the "Wellington Hotel," Strand. I said, "What have you done about the goods?" and that we wanted them. He said he had sold £21 worth and that he would give us a cheque for £21 and return the other goods on the Friday or Saturday at latest. We agreed to that. Neither the cheque nor the goods came, and on the Saturday I went to his father's place, after I had been to his office without finding him, several times. I was not able to ascertain where he lived. I then took the advice of a solicitor. After some correspondence with defendant, as I did not see him at all after that I applied for a warrant. Inquiries were made by the police and I was taken to a pawnbroker named Lawrence and some of the goods I had handed defendant to sell. (The goods were produced by Mr. Stanford, manager to the executors of Mr. Lawrence.)

Cross-examined. I have known defendant five or six years as an honest, respectable man. I have not done business with him before. He was honest and respectable so far as I know. I understand the methods of selling goods in the jewellery trade. They are sale or return; on approval; and out and out sale. Under "sale or return" goods very often come back. When I saw defendant he said he could sell the goods for me as he had already a customer that he was selling similar goods too and he could put my lot in with them. I told him

some of the goods belonged to my partner. If he had paid me in a fortnight I would not have minded. He was to pay me for the goods or return them. I made out the list and put against the various items what I expected to receive for them. They were under cost price and he could make what he could. Nothing was said about remuneration. Some of the articles were not in a saleable condition; they wanted finishing. They could be sold for old gold. I thought he would be able to make them up, as he had a workshop. There were only six bracelets unfinished. There would be no advantage in his selling them for old gold, but he took the whole lot together. After the transaction at Chancery Lane my partner gave him a diamond ring to dispose of, valued £26. I got it back from his father after going to his father for it several times. I did not write about it. I said at the police court that I would not give him credit because the firm of Dettmer would not give him credit. It is true he owes them £10, but he has been owing them that for some time, and the way he got these goods was really by false pretences. I happen to be Dettmer's nephew. On July 25 defendant told me that the price of some of the goods delivered to him on the 20th would have to be altered and I did lower them. In the second list I put new prices to some of the articles, added more articles, and totaled it at £90 11s. 10d. That document reads, "Chancery Lane Safe Deposit, London, W. C., 25/7/10. Mr. Garnett, 18, Poland Street, W. Bought of Lewis and Richards (the trading name of the firm) Wholesale Jewellers," and then a list of the goods we have been talking about. I say that was not an out and out sale of the goods. It is an invoice, but it was never intended as an invoice when it was given. If he had handed me the amount I would have considered that document an invoice. I know that a portion of the goods was not pawned till after he received that invoice. It is common for jewellers to pawn their own goods. I did not know that the Poland Street business was a good one. I never knew he had eight men and two girls working there this year. I do not think it is wholly in consequence of this prosecution that the business is all broken up, the workpeople discharged, and the premises closed. There are several other people after him besides myself. It makes you spiteful when a man does you down for £90. I did not tell my solicitor before the Bow Street proceedings anything about the invoice; I told him about the list of goods. I believe I told him afterwards.

The information says "list." I am not sure whether the magistrate saw the document or not. I suppose the first time he saw it was when defendant's advocate put it in. There may have been a proposal last week that defendant should pay £25 and the rest in instalments. It was not because no more than £25 could be paid down that the offer was not accepted; it was because we would not accept the bills. This prosecution has been taken at Bow Street and here for the purpose of getting speedy payment of my account.

Re-examined. When the matter was before Sir A. de Rutzen on September 23 he suggested an adjournment to see if an arrangement could be made. Nothing came of that suggestion. An offer was made which my partner and I would not accept. I would not have

given this man credit to the amount of £90. I have not heard the name of a customer to whom he sold the £21 worth of goods. He did not tell me that he had pawned the things the day before.

RICHARD CROSBY , jeweller, Market Street, Maidenhead. On July 25 defendant called on my partner, Weir, and myself at Fortess Road and asked if we had any more jewellery. He was shown some, and he said they were just the things he could do with. He said he would be able to sell them and pay the money or return them the next day. On those conditions we let him have the goods. We told him we wanted cash for anything that was sold. He saw me wearing a ring at the time and he asked me for that, because he thought he could dispose of it. There was a little list given to him, but I do not remember really what it was. I saw the list and identified it. We could not give him credit because some of the goods were not ours. On August 2 we had a letter from him and we afterwards met him at Wallis's. I asked him for the goods or the money and he said he could not see his customer, but he would see him that afternoon and get a cheque for £21. In the evening we met him outside the Hotel Cecil and he said he was very sorry, but his customer was up North and he could not get the cheque and he could not get the other goods back either. He said Friday would be the latest he would return them. We told him it was the last of our goods and that we had failed in business and he wanted the cash and wanted to get a job of some sort. I asked defendant to give me his address, but he would not. Afterwards we called at his business place quite five times and waited hours at a stretch, but could not find him. On the Friday I thought the best thing I could do was to try to follow him home. I followed him to Highgate by tube and he took a cab there to Finchley. That was his father's address it appears. I asked the cabby if I could jump up on the back and I followed him to his father's place. I did not see his father that night, but afterwards I did and we got the diamond ring back.

Cross-examined. I have known defendant about two years. So far as I knew he had always been a respectable man up to the latter part of our transactions with him.

GEORGE STANFORD , manager to the executors of W. Lawrence, pawnbrokers and jewellers, Seven Sisters Road, Holloway. I produce jewellery pledged with me on August 2 by William Garnett for £65. There are five scarf pins, a pendant, two pairs of earrings, a stud, and 14 rings.

Cross-examined. I have known defendant as a customer for a considerable time. He has always appeared to be honest. Jewellers pawn with us provided we can satisfy ourselves that they are men in business and that the goods are their own. When defendant first did business with us I went down to his business premises and found he was a wholesale manufacturing jeweller and had a staff at work. I also tock other precautions. I went to Stubbs and found there was nothing against him. I felt justified in dealing with him as his transactions seemed very fair and straightforward to me. I have done £2,500 worth of business with him and it has all proved satisfactory up to these affairs.

Detective-sergeant ALFRED COLLINS, E Division. At 9 a.m. on September 8 I was with Detective Grace, and saw defendant at Sidney Road, Muswell Hill. I told him I was a police officer and had a warrant for the fraudulent conversion of jewellery value £90 11s. 10d. I read the warrant. He said, "This is all a mistake. I bought these goods. I can produce an invoice which he gave me for them. This is quite a civil matter." At Bow Street he said nothing in answer to the charge. I found on him £2 19s., pawntickets, and some jewellery. The pawntickets did not relate to this case at all.

This concluded the case for the prosecution.

Mr. Warde said he would have to submit that there was no case to go to the jury. Judge Rentoul said he would hear the argument to-morrow.

(Tuesday, October 18.)

Mr. Purcell said that, having considered the case and consulted the prosecution, he did not propose to proceed further with the charge.

Verdict (by direction of the Judge), Not guilty.

BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.

(Tuesday, October 18)

Reference Number: t19101011-58

MANSFIELD, Jack (43, horsekeeper) , obtaining by false pretences from Charles Warner two horses and from William Waitson one cob, in each case with intent to defraud.

Mr. Curtis Bennett prosecuted.

GEORGE FULLER , horse dealer, 13, Victory Place, Old Kent Road. On July 31 last year I saw prisoner at Stapleton's Repository, Spitalfields, with a short man I did not know (Cooper brought in). I would not like to swear that that was the man. Mansfield asked me if I knew where they had got any horses to sell; I told him there were some at Pomeroy Street, New Cross, and after some more conversation I left him. I then had a visit from Warner. Some three or four months later I saw Mansfield again, and I told him he had got me into trouble. He said he knew nothing about it.

Cross-examined by prisoner. I have known you for 12 or 14 years. I have never known you to be dishonest in horse dealings all the time I have known you.

CHARLES WARNER , manager to James Shirley and Son, carmen, 43, Pomeroy Street, New Cross. On July 31 last year I had a telephone message; later on two men came to see me; prisoner was one of them; the other man gave the name of Waitson. I knew prisoner by sight. He asked if I had got some horses for sale; I told him I had got four; he looked at them and picked out two; he paid by cheque £35. I believed the cheque to be genuine. That is the cheque (Exhibit 1). I sent it to the bank and it was returned marked, "No account." Waitson wrote the cheque out, prisoner was outside the door; he said it was all right. I have not been able to trace the horses.

To Prisoner. You were outside when the cheque was given to me; you did not write the cheque. I gave you a sovereign when you took he horses away for what we call sale money.

WILLIAM WAITSON , horse dealer, Bermondsey. On August 27 last year prisoner, with a man named Cooper, came to see me at about half-past six; then they came again at half-past seven. Cooper said, "I believe you have got a cob to sell." I said, "Yes, I have got two to sell." He saw them, picked out one, and gave me a cheque for £34 for it. I believed it to be a good cheque. I have lost my horse and lost the money.

To Prisoner. I am quite certain you are the man who was at my place that morning. I did tell the magistrate I was not sure; it was rather dark that night; but now I am certain.

ERNEST COOPER . I am at present undergoing a sentence of three years' penal servitude. I met Mansfield about the end of June last year. He asked me if I would put a cheque down; I told him I had no cheques. He said that would be all right. Then he said, "I know a man that has got a horse I can do with if I can get a cheque." Subsequently I bought a cheque book for 5s. and told him so; but he had previously obtained one himself. We went round to Shirley's and bought two horses from Mr. Warner, for which I wrote out the cheque; Mansfield told me what to do. He said there was a firm over the water who had got some horses for sale and he told me to get on the telephone and ask them what time would be convenient to go; I did so. Later on we went to Charlton and picked out two horses; Mansfield told me to write the cheque out for them. I have never seen the horses since. Mansfield gave me £3 out of the transaction. Some weeks afterwards I went with Mansfield to Waitson's at Bermondsey; we bought a horse for £35, which was also paid for by a cheque out of the same book. I received £3 next morning.

To prisoner. I know that you say you cannot read or write; I have never seen you do any writing. I did, unfortunately, get into trouble about four years ago for stealing money; I have not done terms for bank frauds or forgery. The only other conviction is for welshing at the beginning of the present year.

Re-examined. I wrote out altogether about 14 or 15 cheques from the book I bought; prisoner was with me on several occasions, but he was concerned in all. I was sentenced to three years' penal servitude for cheque frauds.

SYDNEY CUNNINGHAM , Cashier of the London and South-Western Bank, Mile End branch. The two cheques (Exhibits 1 and 2) are drawn on our cheque forms. The cheque book from which they are taken was issued to J. Holmes and Company on January 19, 1904; the account was closed in March, 1904.

Detective-sergeant JOHN BISSEL, B Division. On August 31 at about nine o'clock I saw prisoner at New Cross. I said to him, "I am a police officer and shall take you into custody on warrant for obtaining two horses by means of a worthless cheque on July 31, 1909. I read the warrant to him. He replied, "I never wrote the cheque, the other man did; I examined the horses and told him they would suit; I took the two horses away by myself to a yard close to the "Green Man" public house, High Street, Stratford, where I saw a dealer

named Sid Lillie, who bought the horses and paid the other man for them; he gave me £2 for my share." He was charged and made no reply.

Detective WALTER GOOD, M Division. On September 6 at 10.45 in the morning I told prisoner he would be further charged with obtaining a cob from Mr. Waitson. He said, "Yes, all right." In answer to the charge he said, "Yes." Later on he said, "Cooper led me astray; I shall tell the truth to the magistrate."

(Defence.)

JACK MANSFIELD (prisoner, on oath). I was in Commercial Road on July 31, 1909, where I met a man named Cooper. He asked me if I knew anyone who had any horses for sale. I told him I had heard of some at New Cross. He then went to the telephone; when he came back he told me he could not see them till between four and five o'clock. He then asked if I had got any work to do that day. I said "No." He said, "If you care to come with me to buy them I will pay you a day's work for your trouble." We went to Pomeroy Street and saw the horses. Cooper wrote out a cheque and Mr. Warner gave me a sovereign. I led the horses to Stratford, where I met Cooper and the other man. Cooper said, "You will have to wait a little while, I have not done my business yet." Later on I met him and he said, "I sold the horse to a man named Lillie." I saw Mr. Lillie that night and he gave me a sovereign and I never saw the horse any more. As for that Waitson job, I know nothing about it; I was not there.

Cross-examined. I do not remember Mr. Warner asking me if the cheque was all right. I did not introduce Cooper to Mr. Warner; he made his arrangements on the telephone. The account Cooper has given is all untrue. I have never seen Mr. Waitson before. I do not know what became of the horses. I never saw this cheque book in my life except when Cooper was writing the cheque in Mr. Warner's office. I never had a cheque book myself. I heard Mr. Warner's evidence. I did not buy the horses or have any hand in paying for them.

R. MANSFIELD, prisoner's brother, and Mr. PLATTEN, cab proprietor, gave evidence to character.

Verdict, Guilty.

Sentence, 18 months' hard labour.

BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.

(Wednesday, October 19.)

Reference Number: t19101011-59

STERN, Jack (19, watchmaker) , being entrusted with certain property, to wit, three diamond rings, the goods of Kate Nelson, in order that he might deliver for any purpose, did fraudulently convert the same to his own use and benefit.

Mr. Curtis Bennett prosecuted; Mr. Purcell defended.

KATE NELSON . I am a single woman and live with my father at 29, Biddulph Mansions, Maida Vale. On August 17 I had three rings which I valued at £125. I was not present when they were handed to prisoner. On September 1 I went to his shop and asked him what he had done with them. He said, "I have already told your father about the rings and I am not going to tell you." I said, "You must tell me. I am the owner of the rings." Then he was impudent. I said, "If you were an honest man you would not have looked the way you did when I came into the shop." He said, "Did you expect me to turn red?" I said, "Why did you look so pale when I came in?"

Cross-examined. It was not until the morning of that day that my father told me how the rings had been lost. My father was with me when I saw prisoner. I asked prisoner to show me the coat in which he had said there was a hole and he threw it down and said, "There it is." I was annoyed at the time at my loss and I treated him as if I did not think he was honest, but I gave him a chance to explain. I was convinced he was the thief. He had been working for my father two or three months.

GEORGE NELSON , retired merchant, 29, Biddulph Mansions, Maida Vale. Since last June I have given prisoner, who is a working jeweller, work to do for me. Up to August 16 I had never let him have anything more valuable than £3. On August 16 I went to his shop and finding him out left a message. Between 11 and 12 p.m. on August 17 he called and I gave him two silver cigarette cases, two silver fruit knives, two silver cigar holders to have my monogram put on them, and also the three rings that my daughter has mentioned to clean and tighten the stones. He took them, saying he could do the work himself and would bring them back next day. I saw him about 5.30 p.m. next day about 300 yards from my house. He told me that he had brought the silver articles, but he had lost the rings. I asked him how he could have done so without losing the rest of the property. I think he said he had lost them out of his pocket and had gone to the police-station and reported it. I went to his shop with him, where I asked him to tell me clearly what had happened to them and he said he had lost them through his right-hand coat pocket. I asked to see the coat and he said the tailor had it repairing it. The tailor, who was sitting on the opposite side of the shop, came up and said he had cut the pockets out. I told prisoner he might have let me see it before he allowed that to be done. I called again on the Monday and found them both out. I saw him again after that and inquired I he had heard anything of them and he said he had not. With a view to offering a reward he went to the police-station to get a form, but I do not think he ever filled it up. I then communicated with the police. On August 24 I went with Sergeant Rowbottom to see prisoner. He produced the coat and we examined it. We found that the bottoms of each of the pockets had been ripped open. There was no hole at all in the lining of the right-hand side pocket and

there was a little one in the lining of the other side. The coat was split up the back, so that the rings could not have gone across from one side of the lining to the other. The lining has been recently cut, as can easily be seen. There is no sign of a hole having been worn on the right-hand side. One of the stones in the ring I remember had a yellowish tinge about it.

Cross-examined. I am certain I never gave him a hatpin to repair on August 17; it was some little time before. He never told me on August 18 where he had taken the rings to be repaired. We said very little to one another on our way from where I met him to his shop; I was thinking. The tailor said he had cut the pockets out of the coat to repair it. He spoke from where he was sitting; he did not come forward. He said he had cut the pockets out so that prisoner would never lose anything through them again. Prisoner was not then wearing it. I never saw it on that day at all. The tailor was not there when I called with the police on the 24th. The tailor never said that he had pulled the lining and that it had torn. I believe he is the "father" of the trick. On the 18th, when I asked prisoner from which pocket he had lost the rings, he seemed confused, and then the tailor struck in by saying he had taken away the coat to repair.

SOLOMON WEITZMAN , diamond setter, 122, St. John Street, EC. On the afternoon of August 18,1 could not say exactly what time, but it was after dinner, prisoner brought in three rings, the stones of which he wanted me to tighten. He asked me to value them, and after examining them carefully I said the price would be between £50 and £60. He left them to be done. I was not in the shop when they were taken away.

Cross-examined. People often ask me the value of the things they bring to be repaired. I have really no recollection at all as to what time of day he came.

SOLOMON SCHONBERG , jeweller, 30b, Great Sutton Street, Clerkenwell. I have known prisoner 4 1/2 years; he was my apprentice. Between 12 and 1 p.m. on August 18 he brought three diamond rings for cleaning. He told me he had been to Weitzman to have the stones reset. I cleaned them in about ten minutes and he took them away again. Between 6 and 7 p.m. that evening he returned, saying he had lost them. I said I could not believe it. He never said how he had lost them. He went away and the next time I saw him was on August 24, when he came and offered to sell me his shop for £5, as he was too young to manage the work satisfactorily. I told him he had better try and get a man. The next day he came to me with two jobs to do for him. He said he was going to see his solicitor, and asked me, in case Mr. Nelson and the detective came to see me, to say a good word for him. I said, "How can I say a good word for you? You produce the rings two days later than the day you said you lost them." He said, "Mind your own business." "Stern" is prisoner's trade name; Lebovitch is his real name.

Cross-examined. My memory was first called back to these incidents on September 1. I am quite certain it was between 12 and 1

prisoner called with the rings. When he returned at 6 p.m. he never asked if he had left them at my shop. I do not know why he should have come back to me. On the morning of the 25th I asked Goldstein, who is a friend of mine and often in my shop, whether he would recommend my buying prisoner's shop. He then asked me why prisoner should want to sell it and I said it was about the rings he said he had lost on the 18th. He then said that he had seen them in prisoner's hand on the 20th. I know Isaac Walter. I do not remember his calling on me on the 24th. It is not true that I told him about these rings and that if prisoner made it right with me and Goldstein there would be no trouble. I did not say to him, "I have a grudge against him and intend to pay him out for it." On August 29 I told Mr. Nelson what Goldstein had told me as to having seen the rings. I do not remember Walter calling on me the day after prisoner's arrest and saying, "You have had a hand in this," and I do not remember saying, "Well, Jack was very nasty to me and Goldstein the day after you called. He threatened to report us for blackmail, because in order to frighten him we had said we had got a warrant for his arrest and that if he would return the rings to us we could get £20 from Nelson." I have no grudge against prisoner. I did say to him I had a warrant, but that was to frighten him. He ought not to have spoken to me as he did—I was his gov'nor. I know Bernard Smith, a jeweller. I did not call on him and say, "I am glad Jack is in trouble. I am going to see the detective and make it hot for him, as I have a grudge against him." I know Barnett Davies, a jeweller, I called on him, but I cannot remember on what date. I did not tell him I was a witness against prisoner—he would know it. He did not ask me why, and I did not say I had made a statement which I would not withdraw even if I had to swear falsely, nor that Jack had insulted Goldstein and myself and he would have to suffer for it.

MAURICE GOLDSTEIN , assistant to Levett and Sons, jewellers, 21, Clerkenwell Road. The shop is about two minutes' walk from Schonberg's. I have known prisoner about five years. On August 20 he came to the shop, bringing a brooch to be gilt. He came back on the same day for it. He put his hand in his pocket and I saw some rings in tissue paper. I noticed one half-hoop diamond ring which had three or four stones of a yellowish tinge. He said, "There's stuff for you," and I said, "It looks all right." He put them in his pocket and went out. My boy also saw the rings. The next time I saw him was on the 25th at Schonberg's. He asked Schonberg whether the detective and Mr. Nelson had been. Schonberg said they had been when he was out and they were coming again. He then said, "When they come will you put a good word in for me? Schonberg said, "How can I put a good word in for you when the rings were seen on the 20th and you lost them on the 18th." We told him to be truthful, and he said, "Mind your own business. If I get prison you'll not suffer." He came into my shop on September 1 and said to me, "Do you know blackmail is a serious

thing?" I asked him what he was talking about and he said if I had put it in another way he might have done something for me. I told him I did not want his money.

Cross-examined. Schonberg spoke to me about prisoner wishing to sell his shop after I heard him asked by prisoner to put in a good word for him. I told Schonberg about my having seen the rings on the Wednesday after the 20th. I did not know that he was saying he had lost them when he showed them to me on the 20th. I heard Schonberg say that he had a warrant for prisoner's arrest; he said that because he, Schonberg, had been so worried with detectives calling on him. He went on to say, "But you will not be locked up if you give back the rings." He did not say, "We can get £20 from Nelson." I do not know Isaac Walter or Bernard Smith. I know Barnett Davies by name.

Re-examined. I have never tried to get money from prisoner over this matter. I have no ill-feeling against him.

Sergeant FREDERICK PUTLAND, G Division. At 4.30 p.m. on August 18 prisoner came to the City Road Police Station, which is about ten minutes' walk from Schonberg's place. He said, "I have lost three lady's diamond rings in the Clerkenwell Road, from my jacket pocket." I asked him how he had lost them and he said he did not know. I asked him how long ago he had lost them and he said about an hour. I asked him where he had lost them, but he said he did not know. I asked him if he had been in any crowd, and he said he had not.

Detective-sergeant JOHN ROWBOTTOM, X Division. On August 24 I went with Nelson to prisoner's shop. I said I was a police officer and was making inquiries respecting three valuable rings which Mr. Nelson had entrusted to him to repair. He said, "I took them the same day as I got them to Mr. Weitzman, of St. John Street, Clerkenwell Road, to have the stones tightened. I afterwards took them to Mr. Schonberg, of Great Sutton Street, to have them cleaned. I then put the rings, which were in a piece of tissue paper, inside my right coat pocket. About one o'clock I went along Clerkenwell Road, and when nearing City Road Police Station I found I had lost the rings through a hole in my pocket, and I went to the City Road Police Station to report my loss about four o'clock." I asked him to show me the coat and he pointed out to me the right-hand inside pocket as the pocket from which he had lost the rings. It appeared as if the stitches had been cut right through, but there was no indication of a hole having been worn through which rings could have slipped. There was a small hole in the lining on the left side. I said to him, "If you had put the rings into this right-hand pocket as you say they would have fallen down into the lining and you would still have them." He replied, "I have lost them, and I am not going to kill myself over it." At 11 a.m. on September 5 I arrested him and said I should take him into custody for stealing the rings. He said, "All right." I took possession of his coat, which was lying on the counter. On examining it I found that the lining underneath the pocket where he said the rings had been had had a hole cut

in it. I am certain it was not there when I examined it on August 24. I pointed it out to him, but neither he nor the tailor who was in the shop made any reply. He made no reply when charged.

Cross-examined. I find the prisoner up to this time has borne an excellent character. Levy, the tailor, never spoke to me about the coat at all. I heard Goldstein say in Schonberg's shop on August 25 that he had seen the rings on the 20th. They told me also that prisoner had asked Schonberg to put in a good word for him.

(Defence.)

JACK STERN (prisoner, on oath), working jeweller, 73, Cambridge Road. I am a Roumanian and have lived ten years in England. I was apprenticed for four years to Barnett Davies, of 311, Euston Road, and later I managed one of his shops. At the beginning of this year I started for myself. There never has up to this time been any sort of charge against me. In consequence of a message I received on August 17 I went to prosecutor's house, where he gave me the things that he has mentioned, with a hatpin to repair. On the following day I took the rings to Weitzman for resetting. He remarked how nice they were. I thereupon asked him what they were worth, and he said about £60. I received them back at about 3 p.m. I had previously shown them to Goldstein, to whom I gave the hatpin to repair. On getting the rings from Weitzman I went to Schonberg between three and four and he cleaned them for me. I put them in my right-hand breast pocket wrapped up in tissue paper as they were. I felt for them when I got outside Farringdon Street Station, which is about five minutes away, and found they were gone. My fingers went through a hole in the pocket. I also found a hole in the lining, which was not then so big as it is now. I went back to Schonberg's, looking along the road to see if I had dropped them. I told Schonberg about it, but he only laughed. I then went to the Gray's Inn Road Police Station and they sent me to the Shepherdess Walk Police Station, where I reported the matter to the sergeant, who took down what I said in a notebook. I then went to see Mr. Nelson and met him near his house, told him about it, and went with him to my shop. He never asked me from which pocket I had lost them. After he left Levy the tailor cut the pockets open so that I should not lose anything more out of them; nothing else was done to the coat but that. I never showed Goldstein the rings on the 20th. On the 25th I went to Schonberg's. I did not ask them to put in a good word for me if the officer came. Goldstein, who was present, said "Mr. Nelson and the detective have been there and we hold a warrant for your arrest. We have got you tight." Schonberg said, "I am older than you and I can advise you. We want a few pounds each and we are going to have it. We are going to make you sit up for this." I told them I had done no wrong, swore at them, and called them blackmailers. When I was leaving Schonberg rushed after me and said, "Maurice is going to swear that he saw you with the rings

after you say you lost them." I have never done Schonberg any wrong and I do not know why he should have acted like this. I have never asked him to buy my business; no such idea has ever entered my mind.

Cross-examined. I have had the misfortune to lose the most valuable things that Mr. Nelson has let me have. Schonberg is mistaken when he says that I took the rings to him between 12 and 1 p.m. on August 18. I have never lost anything else through that pocket, although I have been wearing the coat a long time; I had not noticed the hole before. I think I told the sergeant that I had lost them through the pocket, but I was so excited at the time that I would not be sure; I simply answered his questions. I told him I had put them in my pocket. When the detective saw the hole in the lining it was exactly the same as when I found it on the 18th. He did not point out to me that there was no hole there; not a word was said about the lining. He did not point out to me that the rings would have fallen into the lining. He did not point out anything about holes at all; he simply took particulars in a notebook. I admit that the pocket shows no signs of it having worn through to a hole; the only way I can account for it is that the cotton had got weak. Mr. Nelson never saw the coat at all on the 18th. It was on the 24th that I had the conversation with Schonberg. I certainly should not have asked him to put in a good word for me; I would have gone to Weitzman, who has a bigger shop. The only reason I can suggest for Schonberg telling lies against me is that when I left his apprenticeship to go to Davies, Davies gave me the work to do that he had previously given to Schonberg. I know of no ill-feeling that Goldstein can have against me.

GLERSON LEVY , tailor, 73, Cambridge Road. I have been in business at the same address 11 years. At the beginning of this year prisoner, whom I have known five years, rented a portion of my shop. He has always borne the character of a steady and hardworking man. I remember on August 18 Mr. Nelson coming in with prisoner and saying that prisoner had lost his rings. Nothing was said at till about the way in which they were lost. When he was gone I asked prisoner how he had lost them and he took off his coat and showed me a pocket on the right-hand side. There was a hole about 1 1/2 inches in size. I caught hold of it and tore it to the size it is now, saying, "You will not be able to put such things in this pocket again." There was also a large hole in the lining on the same side. I examined the coat and whilst trying the lining to see if it was strong enough I made the hole larger. I told Nelson afterwards what I had done, when the detective was there, and they said I ought not to have touched it.

Cross-examined. I do not know that prisoner is walking out with my daughter. When I first saw the coat the stitching in the pocket had gone. I tore both pockets open. When the officer and Nelson first saw it the holes had not been touched by me. They were both about 1 1/2 inches in size. I also told the officer what I had done and said I was very sorry. I pulled the stitches in the pocket to see if they would hold.

BARNETT DAVIES , jeweller, 311, Euston Road. I have known prisoner about six years. He was in my employment for four years, latterly as manager to one of my shops. I have trusted property worth over £1,000 to him and have always found him honest and hardworking. On September 9 Schonberg came and told me about prisoner having lost the rings that had been entrusted to him and that he was going to give false evidence against him; that he was very sorry to do so, but he had a grudge against the prisoner and would do so to pay him back, because he had been insulted. I told him that he would have to swear to it and he said, "I cannot help that, because I have given the statement already to the detective and Mr. Nelson."

Cross-examined. I have known Schonberg 10 years. He is very friendly with me because I am in business and he is only a workman who wants my work. I suggest the reason why he came and told me this was to that I could help prisoner. I did not go and tell the police about it. I am a very busy man. I was at the police court and found out what evidence Schonberg had given there. I did not then go to the police.

ISAAC WALTER , jeweller, 10, Goldhawk Road. I have known prisoner five years and he has always borne the character of being steady and honest. On some day after August 24 I called on Schonberg and on my pledging my word of honour to keep it secret he told me that prisoner had come in the week before and brought him some rings to be cleaned, and that on the following day he had called, saying he had lost the rings and that he had then said to him, "Temptation made you say you lost them. Be a good boy and give the rings up"; and the prisoner said he had really lost them. On the following Saturday he called again on me and said that prisoner had been arrested, but that if he had been a good boy and had come down to him and offered him a few pounds he could speak "good" for him. He told me that prisoner had behaved very badly to him up at his place when he was with Goldstein and they had said they had a warrant for his arrest.

Cross-examined. Schonberg told me all this simply as a friend.

BERNARD SMITH , jeweller, 51, Theobald's Road. I have known prisoner for over a year. Schonberg came one day and asked me if I had heard about prisoner's loss. I said, "Well, I daresay he lost them." He then said, "He is a liar. What's more, I have told the police that." I asked him how he knew prisoner was a liar and he said, "Well, I have a grudge against the fellow and that's what I said it for—nothing else."

Verdict, Guilty, with strong recommendation to mercy on account of prisoner's youth and previous good character.

Sentence was postponed to next sessions with a view to seeing whether any of the property could be recovered, failing which, Judge Rentoul said, the sentence would have to be a severe one.

BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.

(Thursday, October 20.)

Reference Number: t19101011-60

WELCH, William (48, labourer), WELLS, Samuel (54, labourer), and REED, Walter (39, labourer) , all being then armed with offensive weapons, to wit, a bludgeon and stones, and with another man whose name is unknown, unlawfully entering a certain close of land then in the occupation of William Gundry and were there by night armed as aforesaid for the purpose of taking and destroying game and rabbits; all inflicting certain grievous bodily harm upon Charles William Boxford ; all assaulting Charles Redgers thereby occasioning him actual bodily harm.

Mr. Pickersgill, M.P., prosecuted; Mr. Werninck defended Wells; Mr. Cruickshank defended Reed.

CHARLES WILLIAM BOXFORD , gamekeeper to William Gundry, Enfield. About 11.30 p.m. on September 16 I was in the 22-acre field near the nine-acre wood and about half a mile from the Enfield Road, being separated from it by a field, when I saw three men in the nine-acre field with a net 100 yards long stretched out with sticks; they were standing at intervals along it. Another man was in the field driving in the rabbits. I went back to the police-constable's house about half a mile away and called him up. I then returned with him to the field after about 40 minutes, where I saw the four men very much in the same position, but on the point of leaving. They were facing us. We got within about 15 yards from them when they walked towards us and began throwing stones, which they took from their pockets. There were no stones lying about at the time, it being a grass field. Two of them hit me on the chest, two on the leg, and two on the ribs, which were fractured. I fell down and called to the constable, "Redgers, I'm done, mate." Two of them were using sticks on him and two were throwing stones. He came to my assistance and lifted me up. He went for them again, but they made off. It was a moonlight night. I picked out Wells and Welch, whom I had never seen before, from nine other men on the following Tuesday. There are rabbits in the 22-acre field.

Cross-examined by Mr. Werninck. I have caught many poachers before; Wells is not one of them. There are trees which throw a shadow near where I saw the men. When I returned with the policeman, Wells, who is known as "Hertford," was carrying the net on his left arm. I cannot say who threw the stones which struck me, nor which of the four men were using sticks on Redgers. The men from whom I picked out Wells and Welch were not better dressed than they. I cannot say that there is anything peculiar about Wells that I should recognise him.

Cross-examined by Mr. Cruickshank. When I was on the ground I saw all that was going on. I was not unconscious. I could see better than Redgers because he had to look after himself. On October 8 I failed to identify Reed.

To the Court. They left nothing behind them, except the stones which were picked up.

Police-constable CHARLES REDGERS, Potter's Bar. About midnight on September 16 I was called up by Boxford. I went with him to a meadow near the nine-acre wood, where I saw, about 50 yards in the meadow and about 15 yards from the wood, the three prisoners with another man. We walked towards them and they walked towards us. When we were about 10 yards from each other they started throwing stones, which they took from their pockets. I said to Welch, whom I know as "Ginger Welch," "All right, 'Ginger,' "and they said, "We will ginger you, you b—," and started throwing stones again. On approaching nearer, Reed struck me across the left shoulder with a stick he was carrying. I have not got the proper use of that arm yet. I hit him on the left side of the head, knocking him to the ground. Blood came from his head. His hat having fallen off, I saw he was bald. Wells, whom I knew before as "Hertford," was aiming stones. He struck at me. In guarding the blow with my truncheon his stick was broken. Welch threw a stone and hit me in the left ear and another stone hit me between the eyes. I closed with Wells and tried to get him to the ground, when I heard the gamekeeper call out, "I am done, mate," and I went to his assistance and lifted him up. I then went for the poachers again, who were still throwing stones, but they made off. I was on the sick list from that night until September 29. It was a moonlight night and I could see plainly. On October 8 I identified Reed at the Enfield police station from nine other men of the same build and appearance. I saw that he had a scar on the left side of his head When I identified Reed he asked me how I identified him and I told him from his build and the manner in which he dressed himself. I said to the inspector that he was bald and an officer took off his cap and he was so.

Cross-examined by Welch. I have known you two years. I did not speak to you when I passed you the next day because no warrant was then issued.

Cross-examined by Mr. Werninck. I have known Wells for about two years. I hear that he has been employed on a sewage farm. I cannot say whether he has recently been working for Billing and Howard, who I know are coal merchants; they very seldom employ casual labour. I noticed nothing peculiar about him on this night before they began throwing stones. He had a net over his left arm and a stick in his right hand. When I was within eight yards of him he put his stick into his left hand and started throwing stones with his right. The stick was in his right hand when he struck me, and the blow was sufficient to break it. I suggest that a man with the middle finger bent as the prisoner's is could use that amount of force. I have seen him brushing horses as well as I can. At times he does do work. If he sees a rabbit about the road he does not mind having a try for it, but I have never known him to be in trouble before, except that he was once summoned by ferreting. At Enfield Police Station Wells and Welch asked me to get them some water when they were in the

cells. I never asked them who the other two men were. They said "You had better look further a field to try and get the other men in." Reed was not arrested till October. We never caught the fourth man. I have not been able to find the net.

Cross-examined by Mr. Cruikshank. While Boxford was on the ground I should say he had a very good opportunity of seeing who the men were. On the same night or the morning I reported the matter at the police-station, naming Wells and Welch, and describing Reed as the man I had hit. I did not see Reed again until October 8. I had not forgotten the scar I had given him. There was nothing peculiar about its appearance. When I identified him I was looking for a man of the description I had given, who possibly had a scar. I described him as wearing a black coat and vest to the best of my recollection, but I did not identify him by his clothes. When he asked me how I knew him I said, "By your face and build, and also you have no hair on the top of your head." It is not the fact that I was looking at another man, and the Inspector said, "Is not the man that you knew here?" and I touched the prisoner in a half-hearted way.

THOMAS BISSET , gardener to William Gundry. About 9 a.m. on September 17 I went with Redgers to the field adjoining the nine-acre wood, where I found these stones, two broken sticks, this police whistle, and this handkerchief (produced), all within a space of 10 to 15 yards. The grass showed signs of there having been a scuffle.

DR. WILLIAM CLAUGHTON DOUGLAS , potter's Bar. On the afternoon of September 17 I examined Boxford, and found bruising on the right arm and leg, and extensive bruising of the left ribs. The whole of the left side of his chest was painful and swollen. I subsequently found two ribs on the left side were fractured. On the same day I found Redgers to be suffering from a very severely lacerated eye, contusions between the eyes, bruising of the left forearm, considerable loss of power in his left hand, which he has not yet regained, and minor bruises on other parts of the body. He was on the sick-list till September On October 10 I was in court, when I noticed that Reed had a comparatively fresh scar above the left eyebrow.

Cross-examined by Mr. Werninck. The injuries to the two men showed that considerable violence had been used. Wells would be more likely to get a better grip if his hand were all right.

Cross-examined by Mr. Cruickshank. I am not in a position to say what caused Reed's scar; it may have been a fall.

Detective-constable ARTHUR WHITE, East Barking. About 7 p.m on September 19 I saw Wells in Baker Street, Potter's Bar. I told him I held a warrant for his arrest for night poaching on the last Friday night. He said, "lam innocent of that. Me—night poaching? I've never done such a thing in my life, and I have never been on Mr. Gundry's land in my life, and if I am punished for it I shall be punished innocent." On reading the warrant to him at the station he said, "lam innocent. I was in the 'Railway' public-house till 11 o'clock, and after I came out I went to the stables and slept till seven o'clock next morning." I said, "Was anyone with you?" and

he said, "No." I said, "Whose stables?" and he said, "Mr. Croxton's, where I look after the racehorses."

Cross-examined by Mr. Werninck. No doubt the story of this night poaching would soon become public property in Potter's Bar, and people would know whose land had been poached upon. It is true that he had been that night in the Railway" public-house from eight to eleven. I believe that is about two-and-a-half to three miles from where this affray occurred. I was told by the owner of the stables that prisoner was in the habit of staying there; I cannot say from my inquiries that he did on that night; they are a mile and a half from the public-house.

Re-examined. There is nobody else that I know whose habit it is to sleep in these stables.

Detective ALBERT COURT, Southgate. About 9 a.m. on October 8 I was with Sergeant Woodfield in the High Road, Hadley, riding bicycles, when I saw Reed walking 200 or 300 yards ahead on the footpath, with his back to us. I spoke to Woodfield. Reed went across the road on to the common. Woodfield went in one direction and I tried to cut him off. He then turned on to the golf links. I should say he had seen me by this time. He started running away from me and I ran after him for about 400 yards, when I caught him up. I shouted "Brewer," the name I knew him by, and he stopped. I said, "You are wanted on a warrant for night poaching and assaulting a police constable and gamekeeper on Mr. Gundry's estate." He said, "I know nothing about it." I said, "I shall take you to the station." He lifted his foot, saying, "You shan't f—g well take me." I drew my truncheon. Woodfield then came up and we took him to the police station, where I read the warrant to him. He made no reply.

Cross-examined by Mr. Cruickshank. He told me himself that he heard we were out there picking up all the navvies and he thought he would give us a run. Half-way to the station I told him that I had not the warrant with me and then he said he did not see in that case why he should come with me to the station.

Detective-sergeant FRANCIS HALL, Southgate. About 5.30 p.m. on September 19 I was with Detective White and the last witness in the Great North Road, Potter's Bar, when I saw Welch. I told him we held a warrant for his arrest and he made no reply. White took him to the station. I read the warrant to him there and he said, "I know nothing about it. I wasn't there. I went for a walk with a strange man that night." The following morning he and Wells were put up for identification among nine others, the appearance of whom they were satisfied with. Boxford picked them out. On October 8 Reed was placed among nine other men similar in appearance to himself. He told Inspector Twigg that he was quite satisfied with them. Redgers identified him, saying, "That's the third man I saw on the night of the 16th. That's the man I hit with my stick." Reed said, "You say I was there. I was never there. How do you identify me?" Redgers said, "By your face and your build and your clothes,

and the man I struck, when he fell his cap flew off and I saw he was nearly bald." I removed Reed's cap and saw he was bald. Referring to the cut over his left eye, Reed said, "I had a drop of 'booze' on the night of September 17 and fell on the pavement near the 'Angel.' "He was charged and made no reply. On October 9 I saw Reed and asked him if there were any witnesses he would like me to ask to attend for him and if he could give me any information about himself. He said that the address of the man who had knocked him down was at King's Cross and that was where he had got his soar. He said, "We had a game of cards with him and we had a row about money. He hit me and knocked me down." He said he did not know his name or address.

Cross-examined by Welch. I wrote down what you said when I read the warrant to you and I produce the note. You did not say that you went from your brother's at 9 p.m. that night, went to Potter's Bar station by yourself, and laid in the loft there till 5 o'clock in the morning.

Cross-examined by Mr. Cruickshank. Reed gave me the name of Chandler he said he would like called and he is here.

Welch's statement before the Magistrate. "I am an innocent man. On the night of the 16th I went from Waley Road, Potter's Bar, from my brother's at 9 o'clock in the evening by myself. I walked to Potter's Bar station. There I went and laid down in Messrs. Billing and Howard's loft. I remained there till five in the morning, when I went to meet one of Billing and Howard's men. He came to London with me. At 5.30 in the morning I went to London with him to Highbury Crescent, and from there back to Potter's Bar, and arrived at Potter's Bar shortly before 5. About 5.30 Police-constable Redgers passed me three times, but did not speak. I went to my brother's at 7 o'clock on Saturday evening. As soon as I got inside my wife asked me if I was out with poachers the night previous, the Friday night, and I said I was out with no one. I think it is a singular thing that that man should pass me three times on the Saturday evening between 5 and 6 and not speak to me."

Wells's statement. "All I have got to say is I am innocent of the job. I knew nothing at all about it, not before Sunday at 2.30. This happened on Friday night. Mr. Docherer was in the 'Railway Tavern' at Potter's Bar station on Sunday afternoon, and said someone had been about Mr. Gundry's ground again. I said, 'What have they been up to now?' and he said, 'A poaching affair.' I said, 'I expect some of the lads from Enfield have been there.' I heard nothing more till Monday, when the inspector came with a warrant to apprehend me, and I told him I had never done such a thing in my life. I cannot hold a stick in my right hand or throw stones with it. The middle finger is turned round and I cannot grasp anything."

Reed made no statement before the magistrate.

ARTHUR WHITE (recalled, further cross-examined by Mr. Werninck). I learnt that Wells sometimes also slept in the stable belonging to Billing and Howard.

(Defence.)

WILLIAM WELCH (prisoner, not on oath). I do not want to go into the box and I do not want to call witnesses.

SAMUEL WELLS (prisoner, on oath). I am a labourer. I have been five years in the Army. I was employed on a sewage farm in Potter's Bar and on leaving there I have worked for different people, amongst them being Billing and Howard. For eight or nine months I looked after Mr. Croxton's racehorses. Sometimes I sleep at his place and sometimes at Billing and Howard's. Between five and six that evening, after having seen Welch, I tried to borrow 6d. from one of Rodrick's men, but could not do so. I stayed in the "Railway Tavern" till 11 p.m., and then went to Billing and Howard's stables. I was confused when I told Detective White that I slept at Croxton's that night. I never went to this nine-acre field on that night; I do not even know where it is. I swear I was not in that direction at all. I cannot hold a stick firmly in my hand to strike hard.

Cross-examined. I asked Welch at 6 p.m. that night what time Rodrick's men knocked off. He is not a companion of mine. My nickname is "Hertford." I have no witness to say that he saw me between 11 p.m. that night and five o'clock next morning, when a man named Hill called me up and we went to London together.

Re-examined. Welch sometimes works for Rodrick's.

To the Court. It is true I said to the police-constable when I was in the cell that he had better look further a field to find the other men. I could not get from Potter's Bar to this place where this thing happened in the time.

WALTER REED (prisoner on oath), 127, Loren co Street, White Hart Lane, Tottenham. I have worked on a number of tubes in London, and am known as "Brewer." On the afternoon of September 16 I met a friend, Ted Chandler, in Tottenham, and with him drank at different public-houses. We got home to my place at about 8 or 9 p.m. We went to bed at 11 p.m. We put Mm up on a chairbedstead in the kitchen. George Woods also slept in my house, and I have to go through his bedroom to get to mine. I went to London with Chandler in the morning, stopped with him all day, and then went to his place. We had a game of cards. We had been drinking a good deal, and there was a quarrel. At 11 p.m. I was leaving his house when h)e gave me a push and I fell over, hitting my head on the pavement. That is how I got the scar. On the day I was arrested I was not running; I was walking fast to try and catch some men I wanted to see before they went. I heard someone running behind me, and I turned round and saw the officer with his truncheon drawn. I did not want to go at first because he had no warrant. The officer asked me in the cell how I got the cut on my eye, and I told him, and also gave him Chandler's name and address. I know nothing about this poaching affair.

Cross-examined. Chandler is not exactly an old friend of mine, had not seen him for some time before this. I first knew him about

eight years ago by working with him. I did not notice whether Woods was sleeping with anyone on this night; I slept with my missus. I did not assume a threatening attitude towards Court when he arrested me. I did not tell Hall that it was near the "Angel" where I fell, striking my head; I told him Northdown Street. I did not tell him that I did not know the name and address of the man with whom I had had a row at cards.

EDWARD CHANDLER , 89, Northdown Street, Caledonian Road, King's Cross. I remember the night of September 16 because I had been travelling and had made a note of the different places I had been through. I find on the 16th I had come to Ponders End. A little after 2 p.m. I met Reed in White Hart Lane, Tottenham. We went to various public houses and had drinks and then went to his place, arriving there some time before 11 p.m. There were a few more there and we had more drink. He invited me to stop the night and I did so. The next morning we went to town and eventually went to my place at Northdown Street. We played cards and I was under the impression that he was trying to cheat me. I told him to go, but he wanted to argue the point at the door. I gave him a push and h fell down and cut his head. My missus attended to the wound.

Cross-examined. It would not be true to say that I met Reed between 3 and 4 on September 16. It was about 11 o'clock that we left the last public-house and went to his place. It is true I said at the police court that on that night I persuaded him to leave his boots with me. The reason I did so was because on the previous occasion when I stopped with him he left before I got up and the landlady wanted to know what I was doing there. It is true my diary begins on September 12 and finishes on the 17th.

GEORGE WOOD , marine store dealer, 127, Lorenco Street, Tottenham. I am a lodger at Reed's house. On the night of September 16 we were having a "jollification" there. Between 5 and 7 p.m. he and a grey-haired man came in. We continued the jollification till 10.45 and then went to bed. I sleep in the middle room, through which Reed would have to go to get to his bed. He went through on this evening. The grey-haired man slept in the kitchen. Reed got up about 7.45 next morning and came through my room and went to the kitchen. I got up about 8.15 and went about my business—"ragging." I am certain it was the 16th, because that day was my birthday.

Cross-examined. I have no shop; I get rags and bones and sort them at the back of this house and then sell them again. I was convicted in April, 1906, for stealing iron and got one month; again in January, 1907, for stealing buffers from railway carriages, when I got 18 months' hard labour; in April, 1909, I was fined 10s. and costs or 14 days for being drunk. I have not been living with a convicted prostitute.

Verdict, all Guilty; Wells recommended to mercy on account of his age and apparent feebleness.

Detective-sergeant HALL gave Wells a fairly good character. As to Welch, there were five summary convictions for trespassing in pursuit of game; he only worked during the haymaking time. As to Reed, there was a previous conviction for poaching on December 18 1907, with two months' hard labour; he was stated to be very violent on that occasion. On November 30, 1908, for stealing 28 fowls h received six months' hard labour. He was a very hard-working man when at work, but was a very desperate poacher at night. A large number of fowls had been stolen in the neighbourhood, in which thefts Reed and Welch were said to be implicated.

Detective COURT proved the 1907 conviction against Reed. Reed strenuously denied having used violence on that occasion.

JOSEPH BRADSHAW stated that Wood was not living with Reed at the time of his, Wood's, convictions.

Sentences, Reed and Welch, 12 months' hard labour each; Wells, Five months' hard labour. Sentences in each case on each count were to run concurrently.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE SCRUTTON.

(Saturday, October 22.)

Reference Number: t19101011-61

TRIBE, John (40, house decorator) , feloniously shooting at Annie Elizabeth Pope, with intent to kill and murder her.

Mr. Muir, Mr. Graham-Campbell, and Mr. Ingpen prosecuted; Mr. Kent and Mr. Moran defended.

ALICE MAUD MESSENGER , wife of William George Messenger, carman, 86, Darwin Street, daughter of the prosecutrix. My mother lives at 35, Runham Street, Walworth. I have known prisoner four or five years; he used to decorate my mother's place; he became on friendly terms with her and visited her two or three times a week. In September, 1910, they became unfriendly. Just after the midnight of September 16-17 prisoner came to my house and afterwards went to my mother's house; he wanted to come in but we would not let him. My mother was in bed. He stood outside the window and annoyed her and wanted to come in; he pulled the window down. He went away, returned and said he was going to shoot my mother and himself too—that he would "do her in." He said he had a revolve and was going to shoot mother's brains out. He ultimately went away. The next day between 12 and 1 p.m. I saw him in Stamford Road talking to my husband. At 3 p.m. he knocked at my mother's door. I told him she was out; he said she was not and tried to get in, and went away. About 5 p.m. he came again and my mother told him she would not have any more of it and asked him to go away; he said he would not, he was going to shoot mother and himself too. My mother ran into the house. On September 24, in the afternoon, he asked us to have a drink and we went into the "Clarence" public house. He asked us to get some fish; my mother did so and we ate

it. My mother told him to go home, but he insisted on coming with us; he wanted to go home with her. She said, "You are not coming with me. I have been up since half-past six this morning, and I am tired." He said, "Let us go and see Maud home and I can come home with you." She said if he did not get away she would hit him. and she would fetch a policeman; he said he did not care. My mother went with me towards my home, as I thought my husband would be there. When I arrived I told prisoner that he could not come into my house because the landlady would not let him. I went to put the key in the door to let ourselves in, my mother was just behind me; I heard a report and saw fire and smoke; my mother screamed: "Oh, my head," and fell into my arms. I then heard another shot. Prisoner had a revolver. The second shot was fired in the air. I called out for help; some men came up across the road and took him from us. My mother was bleeding very much in the head and was taken upstairs.

Cross-examined. Prisoner had been in the habit of coming to my mother for two years. He had only taken that liberty since' my brother has been away. We were not friendly with prisoner in the public house; we had one drink with prisoner. Prisoner wanted my mother to go home with him; I did not want her to—I knew what was brewing. I and my sister and the family tried to prevent prisoner seeing my mother because we were frightened of him. When my husband was arrested for being drunk prisoner bailed him out. I blamed prisoner for getting my husband to drink. At 3 p.m. prisoner was sober. Later on he was drunk.

MARY ELIZABETH, HASEN , 42, Inville Road, daughter of prosecutrix. On September 17 prisoner came to my mother's house and wanted to see her. She went out to get a policeman to get him shifted. At 5 p.m. I again saw him when he said that he would shoot my mother if she did not come out and speak to him. He went away and came back several times but did not see her.

EDWARD FINN , 6, Wells Place, Camberwell. On September 24 I was in Darwin Street when I saw the prisoner in a gateway with a woman; they appeared to be struggling. I heard two reports of a firearm and saw the prisoner had fired them. I rushed in and took the revolver from him; it was in his right hand; he was holding the woman and seemed to fire at her. I gave the revolver to the police.

Cross-examined. I had a very good view—I was 10 yards away on the same side of the road. I did not say at the police court I saw the man holding the woman—I was not asked. He fired two shots. The revolver was still loaded in one chamber.

SAMUEL GROOMBRIDGE , 12, Wellington House, Prospect Street, printers' assistant. On September 25 at 12.15 a.m. I was in Darwin Street when I heard two reports. I ran across the road; saw the prisoner, and assisted to detain him till the constable came.

RICHARD MORGAN , 9, Moot Place, Kilburn, vanboy. On September 25 at 12.15 a.m. I was in Darwin Street when I saw prisoner holding

a pistol in his hand; there were two women with him in a doorway. I heard two reports; ran up and saw one of the women in the other woman's arms bleeding.

WILLIAM THOMPSON , police-constable, 378 L. On September 25 at 12.30 a.m. I was called to Darwin Street, arrested the prisoner, and took him to the station. On the way he said, "I intended to do it"; I cautioned him; he said, "That is all right, I intended to do her in and myself as well, as she has ruined me." He was formally charged with attempted murder and said, "That is all right."

Inspector JOHN HOCKING, L Division. On September 25 at 12.30 prisoner was brought to Rodney Road Police Station. Prosecutrix, who was suffering from a bullet wound in the head, was then called in and in his presence made a statement.

(Mr. Justice Scrutton held, following R. v. Norton (5 Cr. App. R., p. 65) that the statement of the prosecutrix had better not be given in evidence.)

Examination continued. I told prisoner I should charge him with shooting with intent to commit murder; he said, "very well, I shall say nothing now." I then charged him and he said, "All right." Finn handed me five-chambered revolver (produced); two shots had been apparently fired; one cartridge remained in the revolver.

CHARLES PRIDDLE GALLEY , 125, Camberwell Road, Divisional Surgeon. On September 25 at 12.45 a.m. I examined prosecutrix at Rodney Road Police Station. I found a small wound on the right side of the head; on probing it I found a cavity about the size of half-a-crown under the skin going upwards and backwards. On enlarging the wound I extracted a flattened bullet (produced) laying on the bone. On probing I found the bone was bare. The bullet might have come from the revolver produced. Fired close to the head such a revolver might cause serious injury. The prosecutrix was faint; the amount of blood lost was not great. I examined prisoner; he appeared to be quite sober.

Cross-examined. Prisoner might have become sobered through the shock of the occurrence and the arrest. There was no fracture of the bone and no splinter, but the bone was bared.

HAROLD WILSON BRUCE , Medical Superintendent, Southwark Union Infirmary. On September 26 prosecutrix was admitted to the infirmary. She had a wound on the right side of the scalp penetrating to the bone, which had become inflamed. She is now in a satisfactory condition, but not completely out of danger. The bone injured by the bullet is dead and will have to work out, during which there may be a dangerous complication in the nature of inflammation of the brain. She is not able to be present to give evidence. The revolver is an extremely feeble one and the bullet would have a very low velocity. It might inflict fatal injury.

Cross-examined. I think any serious complication is now extremely improbable. I should not call it a serious wound though there is a possibility of complication.

This closed the case for the prosecution.

ANNIE TRIBE (wife of the prisoner). I have been married to prisoner for 19 years. I knew he had been carrying on with the prosecutrix otherwise he had been a kind husband to me and to the children until he got acquainted with prosecutrix.

ELIZABETH RUTH TRIBE (wife of the prisoner's brother). I have known prisoner for 17 years; he has always been a respectable kind man and a good husband and father.

Verdict, Guilty.

Sentence, Six months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19101011-62

KING, Emily (39, charwoman) , attempting to kill and murder Herbert King ; attempting to commit suicide.

Mr. J. Wells Thatcher prosecuted.

ANNIE HARNETTY , wife of John Harnetty, 31, Aintree Street, Fulham. On September 12, 1910, at 2 p.m., I heard cries of little children, and went to the prisoner. She stood at her parlour door with a razor in her hand and her throat bleeding. I pressed her back into the room and she fell on to the bed. I still heard the children crying. I went into the backyard and I saw the little boy Herbert standing over the sink holding his throat, which was bleeding. I picked him up in my arms and wrapped a piece of clean cloth round his throat. I had seen prisoner that morning; she seemed very much depressed. She told me she had had no food, and no rent for her landlord. I have known her eight or nine months. She is a very industrious woman, getting her living by charing. She has seven children. I have lent her money when she has asked me. Her husband died on May 9, 1910. They were then living in good circumstances.

HARRIET GAINE , wife of Richard Gaine, 17, Aintree Street, Fulham. On September 12, about two o'clock, I went to 27, Aintree Street, where prisoner lives, and found her lying on the bed with her throat cut. I bound her neck with a piece of cloth. She had a razor in her right hand, which fell on the bed. I asked what she did it for? She said, "They" (meaning the children) "asked me for something to eat," and she said, "Worry, worry, worry."

Police-constable WESTLEY STACEY, 657 B. On September 12, at 2 p.m., I was called to the prisoner at 27, Aintree Street; she was lying on the bed in the front parlour with her throat cut; razor (produced) was on the pillow. The little boy Herbert was being held by another woman. Prisoner said, "It is all through worry; I cannot get any work." She was taken to the West London Hospital. The room was clean but very poorly furnished.

ERNEST WOOL LEWIS , divisional surgeon. On September 12 I was called to prisoner's house. When I went into the room the child was on a woman's knee and had a piece of blood-stained cloth round its neck. On removing it I found a ragged wound (about 6 in. long) across the centre of the throat, and above it another small wound of no importance. The big wound extended down to and into the windpipe. There was no important vessel cut. The child was in a very collapsed condition, and it seemed practically dying. I temporarily dressed the wound and sent the child and the woman in a taxi-cab

with the policeman to the West London Hospital, where he was admitted, I then attended the prisoner. She had a wound about 2 in. long across the centre of the throat, extending down to the windpipe, but it had not cut any important blood vessels. She was in a very collapsed condition and unable to speak. She made no statement. She has been attending the West London Hospital. (To the Judge.) The wound to the child was a very dangerous one, close to the arteries. If the arteries had been cut the child would have bled to death before anyone could have rendered assistance.

MARY ANN ROSE , 76, Holford Road, Fulham, widow; and CLARA LESTRELLE, 70, Obtain Road, gave the prisoner a very high character as an industrious woman and kind and good mother to her children.

Verdict, Guilty, with the strongest possible recommendation to mercy.

Sentenced postponed to next Sessions.

ESSEX CASES.

BEFORE MR. JUSTICE SCRUTTON.

(Friday, October 14.)

Reference Number: t19101011-63

BALL, William Henry (42, waiter), and BALL, Edith Lilian (23); William Henry Ball, carnally knowing Edith Lilian Ball, who was to his knowledge his sister; Edith Lilian Ball, unlawfully permitting the said William Henry Ball to carnally know her, well knowing him to be her brother. (Heard in camera; Punishment of Incest Act, 1908, sec. 5).

Mr. Graham-Campbell prosecuted; Mr. Forrest Fulton defended. Verdict, Guilty.

Sentence, William Henry Ball, Three years' penal servitude; Edith Lilian Ball, Six months' imprisonment, second division.

BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.

(Friday, October 14.)

Reference Number: t19101011-64

RENNIE, Charles (35, stoker) , feloniously robbing with another person unknown Donald James Herbert Gregory and stealing from him 7s.

Mr. Metcalf prosecuted.

DONALD JAMES HERBERT GREGORY , machinist, Kenthole Road, Leytonstone. On the afternoon of October 1, slightly the worse for liquor, I was at the corner of Junction Road and Buxton Road, carrying a parcel, when prisoner and another man crossed the road and commenced to hustle me. The other man put his hand in my right-hand

trousers pocket and found nothing. Prisoner struck me on the left temple, knocking me down, and then put his hand in my left-hand trousers pocket and took out 7s. in silver and some pennies. The other man held me down. Both men made off in opposite directions. Prisoner walked very sharply up Buxton Road and I followed with Mrs. Mitchell. We saw a mounted policeman, to whom we gave information, and he took him in charge. I never lost sight of him.

Cross-examined by prisoner. I did not meet you in Jordan Road and we did not go to the "Dew Drop" and have drinks with you. I did not ask you to come to the "Buxton Arms" so that I could treat you. There was not discussion about my not having the necessary money. I was not fetched into the station drunk after you had been brought there. I was not charged with being drunk. The reason why they did not take my charge at once was because they were waiting for the further evidence.

To the Court. I had been in the "Queen's Head" and from there I went to the "Eagle." I had about four glasses of beer altogether that afternoon. I finished work at 11 and then I went home to dinner and came out again.

MARY MITCHELL , 46, Albert Square, Stratford. Between 5 and 5.15 on October 1 I was near the corner of Junction Road and Buxton Road when I saw prisoner, who was with another man, feeling round the left-hand pocket of the prosecutor, who was standing by the wall. I asked him what he was doing and he said, "He was going to treat us and now he says he has no money." I told him that was no reason for his interfering with prosecutor and he then hit him on the left side of his face, knocking him to the ground. Prisoner then walked sharply away down Buxton Road. The other man went in the opposite direction. I followed prisoner and eventually came up to a mounted policeman, who took him in charge. I never lost sight of him. I went to the station on the Monday morning and identified him.

To prisoner. Prosecutor was drunk and you were sober. You did not interfere with him after you knocked him down. When I spoke to you you asked me if I had any sons of my own.

Police-constable EDWARD NOAD, 609 K. On October 1 I was on mounted duty in Buxton Road, when prosecutor and Mrs. Mitchell made a complaint and pointed out prisoner to me. He was walking sharply. I took his into custody, the prosecutor saying, "That is the man that robbed me." He made no reply. I took him to Maryland Road, where I handed him over to two foot constables. He dropped this iron poker (produced) on the way. It was picked up by a boy and I showed it to prisoner, who said he did not drop it. Later he said he was carrying it for protection; he had been booted by "Darkie Taylor" and meant to get his own back. When searched 1s. 6d. in silver was found upon him. Prosecutor had been drinking, but he was not drunk. It was from him that I learnt what had happened. I did not see how he entered the station.

Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate. "All I say is I met the prosecutor in the 'Dew Drop.' We had two drinks. He said,

'Come down to the "Buxton Arms" and I will return it' There were a lot of children following up. When we got to Jordan Road the constable asked if that man was with me as he could not stand. I said 'Yes.' We crossed the road and went to the 'Buxton.' When outside he felt in his pocket and said, 'I have not got any money.' I shoved him and told him I had a good mind to knock his head off after receiving two drinks from me and then get me to go down to the 'Buxton Arms' and say he had no money. I shoved him on the side of the face and he fell. I walked away then."

(Defence.)

CHARLES RENNIE (prisoner, on oath) repeated the statement that he had made before the magistrate and added: As for the poker found on me, two weeks previous I had been having a fight with "Darkie Taylor" and was getting the best of him when two of his friends came and kicked me. Taylor was fined 7s. 6d. and they said they were going to do for me when they got the chance.

Cross-examined. I do not know the name of the barman who served us in the "Dew Drop." Another man came up when I was talking to the prosecutor at the "Buxton Arms," but he was not with me. They had to keep the prosecutor till 8.30 p.m. before he was sober enough to charge me.

Verdict, Not guilty.

BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.

(Monday, October 17.)

Reference Number: t19101011-65

FIELDER, Thomas (23, fireman) , stealing 3s. 10d., the moneys of the Gas Light. and Coke Company.

Mr. Travers Humphreys and Mr. Roland Oliver prosecuted.

ELIZABETH BURTON . I am married, and living apart from my husband. I was on September 11 living with prisoner at 13, Peter Street, Canning Town. There was an automatic gas meter on the landing outside the room which I occupied with him. It supplied the top half of the house. Between 5 and 6 p.m. on September 27 I was sitting in the room when prisoner came and said, "I am going to knock off that 'dew-drop,'" meaning the lock of the gas meter. I told him not to do so, as he would get into trouble, and he said he did not care, and that he was not going to go hungry when there was money out there. He asked me to go downstairs and get a bottle of water and a staple out of the sink. I refused to do so, and he went down himself with the bottle, which he filled and brought up with the staple. He broke the lock of the meter off with the staple, and brought the drawer into the room and tipped the money out on to the quilt so that people should not hear the money rattle. There was 3s. 8d. He put 1s. in his own pocket, gave me 2s. for food, and put 8d. back. I

spent 1s. 3d. of the 2s., and later gave the rest back to him and Fry, a friend of his, at 4d. a time. He had four drinks four times. On the Wednesday following I put 2d. in the meter. On the following Saturday morning we left the house.

Cross-examined by prisoner. On the night of September 27 Fry and you took Beatrice Mills and me to the "Eastern Hotel" and other places where sailors go to find sailors to rob. I gave you a few coppers besides the 9d. change to pay for drinks. I have taken men into Peter Street when you have been out. On the night before you broke this lock I took one in. You knew I was bringing him in. You used to know about it, go out and then return and demand the money from me. I cannot call anybody to prove it.

ELIZABETH PEGRAM . I live in the middle room downstairs at 13, Peter Street. Between 5 and 6 p.m. on September 27 I was coming out of my door when I saw prisoner go upstairs with this bottle of water. There was a staple in the sink, which is not there now. I do not know when I first missed it. On September 29 I was standing against my street door, between 9 and 10 p.m., when I saw prisoner and another man go upstairs. Prisoner said to the other man, "You go into that room. I won't be long. I will have some money somehow." I went into my room and shut the door. I then heard the meter upstairs being tapped.

To prisoner. I have used the water bottle myself. I heard the tapping at the meter when my door was shut.

JANE WILLIAMS . I live on the ground floor of 13, Peter Street. Between 9 and 10 p.m. on September 29 I was in my front room, just going to bed, when I saw prisoner and another man whom I did not see go upstairs, and then I heard the sound of knocking. When they were coming downstairs I heard prisoner say to the other man, "Come along. We are all right; we've got the gas." I lifted up my blind and saw them go out and run over to the "Beckton Arms." (To prisoner.) You went upstairs at about 8 p.m. I did not see you come in, but I saw you go out. I did not say just now I saw you come in. I saw you go upstairs; that is not coming in. I did not see you go upstairs and I have never said so. You went upstairs about 8.20 and came down at about 9.30. I heard you go upstairs, but I did not see you. I know you were knocking at the meter, because it fell and I heard the money rattle. I saw you walking fast to the "Beckton Arms," not running. You turned round and I saw your face.

ALBERT WILLIAM KINGS , collector, Gas Light and Coke Co. On September 30 I went to 13, Peter Street to examine the meter and I found the lock wrenched off and the contents missing. There should have been 3s. 10d. We collect every two months.

Detective JOSEPH PAYNE, K Division. On October 6 I saw prisoner at 35, Martindale Road and told him I should take him into custody for stealing money from an automatic gas meter at 13, Peter Street on September 27. He made no reply.

Prisoner's statement before the magistrate. "I ask for a remand. I can prove an alibi on the day the gas was broken open on September 27. I can prove an alibi for Wednesday as well."

(Defence.)

JANE WILLIAMS (recalled. To prisoner). I have never seen Mrs. Burton bring strange men into the house.

ELIZABETH PEGRAM (recalled) made a statement to the like effect.

THOMAS FIELDER (prisoner, on oath). On July 19 I arrived here from Australia and went to live with Mrs. Burton, with whom I had been living before I went abroad. We lived at Peter Street, and beginning to dislike her two or three days before September 27 I told her to go and live by herself. On September 27 I went out after dinner and met a friend named Tinling. I went with him to another friend's house, 35, Martindale Road, and stopped there from 3 p.m. till 10.30 p.m. We left there and went to different public-houses. At about 12.15 p.m. on the way home we met Burton and Beatrice Mills at a coffee stall, both intoxicated. I went home with them. I went out at dinner time the next day and met two friends I had seen in Australia and I was with them all that Wednesday evening drinking. Burton did not give information against me till 10 days after I left Peter Street, on October 1. Burton having sold all the furniture and being in drink, I went to 35, Martindale Road, where Fry, the landlord, allowed her and Mills to lodge till October 3. On that day she tried to cause a row so that I should get locked up. On the next day she threatened to kick Mills if she saw her with me again, and on the next day to that she gave information. Mills cannot come here to give evidence for me as she is in Holloway. I never robbed this gas-meter.

Cross-examined. On September 27 I was playing cards with Fry and Tinling at 35, Martindale Road. Jessie Johnston, who lives in the house, was running in and out and Mrs. Fry and Mrs. Johnston were there nearly all the time. The names of the Australian friends I met on the next day are Jack Smith and Jack Maxwell; they have now gone away to sea. Fry was with me that day also, but not Tinling. I was with Fry and Tinling on the next day, Thursday, the 29th. This is the first time I have mentioned that; I do not want to prove an alibi for the Thursday. I went out on that day at dinner time and went to Fry's house. Mrs. Williams's evidence as to seeing me go upstairs on that day is all untrue; I was outside the "Liverpool Arms" from 8 p.m. till nearly 9 o'clock and then I went to the "Beckton Arms" with a man named Ward, who left me about 10.15. I left the "Beckton Arms" at about 10.30 and returned to the "Liverpool Arms" and stayed there till closing time.

RICHAD FRY , boiler sealer, 35, Martindale Road. At about 1.30 p.m. on September 27 I met prisoner with two other men who had just been paid off from sea, and they asked me and another fellow to drink with them. We had two or three drinks. Fielder, Tinling and I then went to my house at between 2.30 and 3 p.m. and played cards till 10.15 or 10.30 p.m. We then went out and on meeting some fellows at the top of the Marsh stayed drinking till 11 p.m. We then came over to the other side of the bridge and stayed drinking

till 11.45. We parted from prisoner and went home. On the next day, 28th, I went round to prisoner's house and had dinner with him and Mrs. Burton and stayed till 3 p.m. I never saw him on the 29th.

Cross-examined. One of prisoner's friends that I met him with on the 27th was named Jack Smith. I was with prisoner on either the 28th or 29th; I do not remember which it was now. I was with him on Monday, the 26th, and then again on the Tuesday, but I am not sure whether it was the Wednesday or Thursday I was with him. I now say I was with him on the 26th, 27th, and the 29th. I was indoors on the 28th and never saw him. At 5,30 p.m. on the 29th I was in prisoner's house having tea with prisoner and Mrs. Burton. I did not see him before that time on that day. I went there at about 4.30.

ALBERT TINLING , ship's fireman, 33, Martindale Road. About 1 p.m. on September 27 I went to see Fry, who lives next door to me, and he and I went to the "Liverpool Arms," where we saw, at about 1.30, prisoner with three other men. We had some' drinks, and then went to Fry's house, where we played cards till 10.30 p.m. We then went out and had drinks. We left the "Iron Bridge Tavern" at 11.45 p.m., when we met Mrs. Burton and another woman. I said "Good-night" to prisoner, who went off with them.

Cross-examined. Mrs. Fry was not playing cards with us; there were only Fielder, Fry, and myself. There were no men called Jack Smith or Jack Maxwell playing with us. I am quite sure I was not with prisoner on Thursday, the 29th.

DAISY JOHNSTON , 35, Martindale Road. As far as I know on September 27 Fry, Tinling, and prisoner came in between 2.30 and 3 p.m. I was scrubbing the room out, and they told me to get out. When I came back they were playing cards. At 10.30 or 10.45 p.m. they called out, "Good night," and that is all I know.

Cross-examined. There were only the three of them playing cards. Mrs. Fry was not in the room more than five minutes. I went into the room about two or three times.

Verdict, Guilty.

Prisoner confessed to a previous conviction of felony at the West Ham Quarter Sessions on August 2, 1907, four months' hard labour.

Detective PAYNE proved following further convictions: December 11, 1905, at this court, robber with violence, three months' hard labour; January 18, 1908, suspected person, three months' hard labour; Thames Police Court, July 1, 1908, causing grievous bodily harm to Elizabeth Burton, 18 months' hard labour; and four summary convictions for gaming. It was stated that he is a dangerous man, and an associate of the worst thieves frequenting the docks, and that his habit is to prey on seamen with prostitutes.

Sentence, 12 months' hard labour.

BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.

(Tuesday, October 18.)

Reference Number: t19101011-66

HOVELL, Arthur (62, decorator) , forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain receipt purporting to be a receipt from William Oliver Cormack for the payment of certain goods, to wit, two brushes, with intent to defraud.

Mr. Metcalfe prosecuted; Mr. Purcell defended.

LAURENCE FREDERICK ROSE , 5, Romford Road, Stratford. I am manager in the colour department of Messrs. Young and Marten, builders' merchants. On July 30 I received a case of distemper brushes, which were stored in the colour department (brushes produced). They had the name of the firm branded on them. The brushes produced have traces of the name, but it has been taken off. The value is 30s. a pair. Up to September 1 we had not sold any of the brushes. After I had been called to the police court I went back and examined the case; I found it had been opened and two brushes taken out. I found one of the wrappers with the manufacturer's name on it on the floor. (Mr. Purcell said he was not raising the question of identity.) The public have no access to our colour department; I have never seen prisoner till I saw him at the police court.

Cross-examined. I had not missed any of the brushes until the police came to me. I opened the box myself when it came in on July 30; the box was nailed up again. The box was nailed up when I went to examine it on September 1. The two brushes might have been removed at any time between those dates. An ordinary person, not knowing there had been a brand on them, would see nothing to arouse his suspicion.

PERCY HOARE , assistant to George Fish and Company, pawnbrokers, 720, High Road, Leytonstone. On Thursday, September 1, between 1 and a quarter-past, prisoner came into our shop with a pair of stock brushes and wanted to pledge them for 10s. We asked him if they were his brushes and where he bought them; he said he bought them at Cormack and Milner's. We asked him for his receipt. He left the shop to fetch the receipt; we kept the brushes. He returned in about five or ten minutes and showed the document (produced) purporting to be a receipt. I was not satisfied with that, and I went round to Cormack and Milner's. When I returned prisoner was still in the shop; I sent for a policeman and said to prisoner, in the policeman's presence, "Where did you buy them from?" He said he bought them from Cormack and Milner's. We declined to take the articles in pledge, and prisoner was taken into custody.

Cross-examined. I could see that they were new brushes. I am certain that I asked prisoner where he bought them, and he said Cormack and Milner's. I do not quite remember whether he mentioned Cormack and Milner's name before he brought the receipt or not. I was not asked that question at the police court. I am quite certain

that when the prisoner went for the receipt he left the brushes with us. When I went to Cormack and Milner's I was not away from the shop so long as ten minutes; prisoner was in the shop. I saw a woman outside the shop; I afterwards knew her to be Mrs. Rogers.

Re-examined. Prisoner, when he brought back the receipt, was not in the shop more than five minutes altogether.

WILLIAM OLIVER CORMACK , of Cormack and Milner, builder's merchants, 708, High Road, Leytonstone. Prisoner came to our place at about one o'clock on September 1, about a quarter of an hour before the pawnbroker's assistant came round. I was in the office and Mr. Milner was in the shop serving. Prisoner said to Mr. Milner, "Here you are, governor, the last pair you shall have for 10s." Mr. Milner said, "No; I do not want them." Prisoner turned round and said, "Oh, here's the governor; I will go and ask him." He came up to me and said, "Here you are, governor; you shall have them for 10s." I said, "Get along; you have pinched them." He walked over to Milner and said, "The governor won't buy them," and he said, "I am all right for pound brushes; if you give me a bill I will send you the particulars." Milner was serving some ladies; he had got some memorandum forms beside him; he picked one up and gave it to him. (Receipt produced.) That is the kind of thing. There was no writing upon it then. We never sold the prisoner two brushes as described in the alleged receipt, and never received 10s. 6d. each for them. That is not my handwriting, nor like it. Prisoner was sober. The brushes would cost me 13s. 2 1/2 d. each wholesale.

Cross-examined. I am quite certain prisoner showed the brushes to me. I do not think Mr. Milner took the brushes from prisoner to look at them; Mr. Milner never buys anything; he did not bring them to me; prisoner showed them first to Milner and then to me. I had seen prisoner about before, but I never had any business dealings with him.

GEORGE BANKS , painter, 130, Ashville Road, Leytonstone. I have known prisoner for 25 or 30 years. (Brushes produced.) I have never had those two brushes in my possession; I did not sell them, or either of them, to prisoner; I have never done any business with him in my life; he did not pay me 2s. on account for them. I saw prisoner on September 1 between 11 and 12 o'clock; I was in the "Cowley," and he came in with Mrs. Rogers; I did not speak to him then. About a quarter of an hour afterwards I saw him in the "Bell"; he asked me for a penny for a drink, and I gave him one; I had no further conversation with him. I went from there to Hall's timber yard to get the price of some timber and when I left there I went straight home. On leaving the timber yard I went into West Street, where I met an old gentleman and stood talking to him; then two other young fellows came up and we stood talking some considerable time; while we were talking prisoner came across the top of the road and called me. He asked me how I was fixed for a job; I told him I was doing nothing in his line; then I came away. At that time he had a kettle in his hand and a parcel under his arm. Those are the

only occasions on which I saw him that day. He did not ask me if I had such a thing as a pair of stock brushes; I did not say, "Wait here ten minutes and I will be back with them"; I did not hand him a parcel; I did not undo a parcel; I did not go into the "Cowley Arms" with him at that time; I returned from him calling me and went straight home to dinner with the witnesses who are coming, Joyce and Stuart.

Cross-examined. Prisoner is a man of good character, as far as I know. I have never been in a Court before in my life. I have never, on any occasion, sold anything to prisoner. The parcel that he had under his arm when I saw him was large enough to contain a coat and apron. The first intimation I had that he was charged in connection with the two brushes was when the detective came to my house. I know Mrs. Rogers; she was the woman who was with prisoner in the "Cowley"; she was standing some distance off when he came to me in West Street. She did not come round to me on the day he was Arrested.

ALFRED STUART , bricklayer, 54, Lindley Road, Leyton. On September 1, at about 12.30, I saw Mr. Banks outside the "Cowley Arms" with my friend Mr. Joyce; I stood talking to him for about ten minutes, when the prisoner came up; I had never seen him before; he called Banks away; he was carrying a paint pot and had a parcel under his arm; Banks had no parcel; he gave nothing to the prisoner. When Banks left him he rejoined us, and we all went down West Street and parted at the bottom of Cathall Bridge Road. Banks had no parcel, or anything, in his possession then. Banks went in the direction of Ashville Road, and we went in the other direction.

Cross-examined. It was near the "Cowley Arms" where Banks stood talking to prisoner. I saw no more of Banks that day after he left us then.

WILLIAM JOYCE , painter, 123 3/4, Sidmouth Road, Leyton. On September 1 I was with Stuart, and we met Banks at the corner of West Street at about half-past 12; we stood talking to him and after some time prisoner came along. I knew him by sight; he had a paint pot in one hand and a parcel under his arm; he called Banks away and they spoke together; Banks did not give prisoner anything, he had nothing to give him. Banks came back to us and we went away together; we left Banks at the corner of Cathall Bridge. Prisoner was sober.

Cross-examined. Banks was talking to prisoner about five or six minutes.

Police-constable ARTHUR PRENTISS, 656 J. At about a quarter-past one on September 1 I was called to a pawnbroker's shop, 720, High Road, Leytonstone. I saw prisoner in the pledge department; he said to Mr. Hoare, "They are my brushes." I went outside, prisoner followed me; I said to him, "Where did you get those brushes from?" He said, "They are my brushes, I bought them." I told him I was a constable and I should take him to the station for unlawful possession. At the station he said he bought the brushes

off George Banks, who lived in Ashville Road, about three doors from the church. Prisoner was sober. When the charge was read he said, "I am not guilty." The receipt and the two brushes were handed to me by Mr. Hoare. The inspector showed prisoner the receipt and he denied all knowledge of it. He said, "I do not know anything about it."

Cross-examined. I have no notes of what was said. I know Mrs. Rogers; I did not see her when prisoner was arrested. She made no statement to me.

Detective-sergeant JOHN MARSHALL, K. At a quarter-past ten on September 2 I saw prisoner in Great Eastern Road; I showed him the brushes and said to him, "Those brushes have been identified as the property of Messrs. Young and Marten. I am a police officer, and shall arrest you for stealing and receiving the same during the past ten days. Mr. Rose is here to identify them; you will be charged and will have to go with me to West Ham." When I told him the charge he said, "I know nothing about it; I bought them from a man named George Banks yesterday." I took him to West Ham Police Station and confronted him with Banks he said, "That is the man Banks I bought them from for 11s.; he has 2s. deposit." Banks then denied selling the brushes or receiving the money or knowing anything at all about them. On September 13 I further charged prisoner with forging and uttering and attempting to obtain money from the pawn-brokers. When the charge was read over to him he said, "I admit I am guilty of writing out the order, but not guilty of intent to defraud."

Cross-examined. Hitherto there is nothing against prisoner, or against Banks. I know the woman Rogers as a witness. She did not make a statement to me about Banks. There was another detective, of the J Division, concerned with the charge of unlawful possession; he is not here.

CHARLES THORNTON , labourer, 61a, Francis Road, Leyton. On September 4 I was in the "Lord Rookwood" public-house at about ten minutes to ten in the evening; prisoner came in and spoke about the brushes; he said he had bought them off Banks in the "Bell" at Leytonstone. He asked me to be a witness for him; I said, "Decidedly not." (To the Court. I do not know what he wanted me as a witness for.)

Cross-examined. Prisoner did not say he was in trouble over some brushes he had bought off Banks. I knew Banks 14 or 15 years ago; I might have told the prisoner I knew him. Prisoner said he bought the brushes and had given him 2s. deposit. He said nothing about being on bail. He did not say, "I wish you had been in the "Bell" on Thursday morning, I could have had you as a witness."

(Defence.)

ARTHUR HOVELL (prisoner, on oath). I have lived for 25 years in Leytonstone, I am a house decorator, sign-writer, and grainer

I have never before had a charge of dishonesty brought against me. I have been in custody since September 13. I have known Banks for about 20 years; I have never known anything wrong with him. I have bought several things from him. The first was when I was at work in Murchison Road and I wanted a self-setting kitcheners: I asked him if he knew where there was a second-hand one for sale; he said, "Yes, I have got one." That is six years ago. I bought the kitchener; about six months afterwards I bought two little kitchen ranges; I bought a couple of brushes off him once in the "Northcote," paint brushes; and I have had some gold-leaf off him. When I first saw him on September 1 he was outside the "Cowley" talking to the two witnesses who have just given evidence, at about 12 o'clock. I called him across and said, "Have you got any gold-leaf by you?" because I had got a job to do a hairdresser's shop facial. He said, "Yes, I have got some, but it is pale." I said, "That does not matter; that will do." Then I said, "Have you got such a thing as a pair of stock brushes; if you have I know a friend who wants them?" He said, "Yes, I have got a pair." I said, "What do you want for them?" He said, "I will take 12s. for them." I said, "That is too much." He said, "Well, I have got to pay 10s., I must have 11s. for them." I said, "Where are they?" He said, "Not far away; if you will wait here about a quarter of an hour I will go and fetch them." I said, "Very well, then, I will wait at the Cowley" for you." He then left me. Mrs. Rogers joined me and we walked up and down the road till Banks came back. He had the two brushes under his arm. We went inside the "Cowley." I called for two glasses of ale and a bottle of ginger beer. I looked at the brushes and I said, "Yes, George, I will have them for 11s. Here is 2s. deposit; if you like to wait here till I come back I will go and get you the other 9s." He said, "No; I will come with you as I want the money." I said, "All right, we will go as far as the 'Bell.' "We went to the "Bell"; Mrs. Rogers was there all the time. I wanted to see a man called Charlie Heddlewick; he was not there. I said, "He is not here, he may have gone to the 'Elms.' "We went to the "Elms"; he was not there; I said, "It is no good hanging about, George; I will go down to the pawnshop and get you your money." There were about a dozen men in the "Bell" that had a look at the brushes; it was in the dinner hour. I did not know that if I had given the names to the governor of the prison he would have brought those men here. Banks said, "All right; we will go down the road." I went into the pawnshop; the manager undid the parcel, he said, "What do you want here?" I said, "10s. please." He looked at them and said "No; I will make it 8s." I said, "No, make it 10s. please, I have got 9s. to pay away." He walked back into the shop and had a look at them; he said, "I see they are new." I said, "Yes, they are new, but they are mine, I have bought them." He said, "I cannot take them in without a receipt; have you got one?" I said, "No, I have not, but I can get one." He said, "Well, go and get the receipt; I will take them"; and he handed the brushes back to me over the counter. I went back towards the "Crown," where I had left Banks,

to ask him for a receipt. I saw Mr. Milner standing in the doorway; I said, "Here you are, governor; will you buy a pair like these?" not thinking what I was saying; I says, "Here you are; look at them; they are all right." I said, "I bought them right enough; have a look at them." He said, "No; we don't do business like that, I don't think." Anyway he looked at them. Mr. Cormack was about 10 yards down the shop talking to some man; I said, "Perhaps he will have a look at them." Whether he looked at them or not I do not know; when he came back to me I said, "Well, my friend has got some paint brushes; I said if you give me a card or something I will let you know what they are." He gave me a card and it was printed both sides. I said, "Give me a billhead; this is printed, I cannot write on that," and he gave me that blank receipt. I then went down to the "Crown"; I found Banks had gone down the road; I did not know what to do, so I took the pen and wrote that receipt; took it to the pawnshop and said to the manager, "Here you are; here is the receipt." I did it to get the money, not with intent to defraud anybody. When I was at the pawnbrokers the first time, I told them I had bought the brushes from George Banks; I never mentioned the name of Cormack and Milner. (To the Court. I am not sure that I mentioned the name of George Banks to the pawnbroker; they did not ask me that question.) I was then taken to the police station and charged. I saw Mrs. Rogers next morning; I had no chance to speak to her.

Cross-examined. Mrs. Rogers is the woman I have been living with. I wrote to the sergeant and gave the name of two of the men who had seen the brushes; one said he did not care to be mixed up in it, the other was too ill. I did not tell my solicitor about it. I did tell the pawnbroker that I had bought the brushes from George Banks. I never asked Banks for a penny in my life. Charlie Heddlewick asked me if I had a pair of stock brushes to sell; I told him I would see if I could get a pair; knowing Banks had such things I went to him. I do not know where Heddlewick lives; he is not here to-day; I have not seen him since I have been in prison. Mrs. Rogers did not come to see me in prison; I was out on bail two days; I went to Woodford but could not find him. I went to Cormack and Milners after the pawnbrokers. I filled the receipt up in the "Crown" public house; I did not know I was doing any harm; I did not get the billhead on purpose to fill it up. I could have gone to Young and Marten's if I wanted a good receipt. I knew they were Young and Marten's rushes because I saw their name on them. It is on them now. (Brushes produced and handed to prisoner to find the name.) It was on with a little steel die somewhere here; it is not on now.

Re-examined. When I first saw the brushes there was a paper on them with the makers' name. There was nothing on the brush itself but what is on it now. I did say just now that the name was stamped on the brushes.

PERCY HOARE , recalled by the jury, said the name of Banks was never mentioned in the pawnshop.

EMILY ROGERS , 108, Woodhouse Road, Leytonstone. I have been living with prisoner as his wife. I was with him when he met Banks at about quarter-past 12 by the "Cowley Arms"; prisoner asked Banks if he had got any stock brushes for sale. Banks said, "Yes," he had not got them with him. He went and fetched them and we all went into the public house. Prisoner gave Banks 2s. deposit on them; we went to the "Bell" to find the man who would buy them; he was not there, and we went on to the "Elms"; prisoner there showed the brushes to a lot of men. Then I saw a friend of mine; I went to speak to her and when I came back Banks and the prisoner had gone. Afterwards I heard prisoner was arrested. I made a statement to a detective. That was before I had seen prisoner after his arrest.

Cross-examined. I have never mentioned before to-day that I made a statement to the detective. I have not tried to get the people who were in the "Elms" to come as witnesses. This is the first time I have said anything about it.

Verdict, Guilty.

Sentence, Six months' hard labour.

Reference Number: t19101011-67

LEE, John (48, labourer) , stealing 6s. 4d., the moneys of the Gas Light and Coke Company.

Mr. Roland Oliver prosecuted.

HENRY LEE , 3, Ford Street, Canning Town. On October 1 I was at home with my father; he said, "Go to the door while I just tap the meter and I will give you 2s. for a pair of pigeons if you do not tell your mother," and he said, "Go to the door and keep the children away and watch if your mother is coming along while I just tap the meter." He went in the front room with a poker and I heard a sound like tapping a tank. I ran and told my mother; when my mother came up we just see father coming out of the door with the drawer of the gas meter in his hand. There was money in the drawer. My father ran out; I do not know where he went to.

Cross-examined. You did send me to a man who was going to buy a donkey and harness from you and I sold it. I bought a pigeon with 5d. that I got from a baker; I wanted a box and you gave me 4d. to buy it with; but you said you would buy me a pair of pigeons out of the gas meter money if I did not tell mother. You were a bit drunk at the time. You did not take any money out of the drawer. I do not know how much money was in the drawer.

ALBERT WILLIAM KING , collector to the Gas, Light and Coke Company. I examined the meter on October 1; I found the lock wrenched off. There should have been 6s. 4d. in the box. If the money is short the tenant of the house is responsible to the company, so he was practically stealing from his own wife.

Detective-sergeant George Reed, Canning Town. At 8 p.m. on October 1 I went to 3, Ford Street, where I saw the prisoner. I told him I should take him into custody on a charge of breaking open a gas meter and stealing money there from. He said, "I know nothing about it; I did not do it." I took him to the police-station, where

he was charged. When the charge was read over to him he said, "That's all right, "The following morning, when I was taking-him to the police court, he said, "I admit that I did the meter, but it was put into my head by my daughter; I had no intention of stealing it." There was 5s. 5d. found spread about.

Cross-examined. The money was brought to the station by your wife.

JOH LEE (prisoner, not on oath). I was in drink at the time. Me and my wife on the previous night were arguing that we were not getting enough gas for the money we put in; we put in 4d.; we had no fires alight and we boiled one kettle of water, that took about four minutes, and we had about four hours, light from one single burner for the 4d. We said we would use it no more; so I said, "All right, to-morrow I will buy a paraffin lamp, we cannot afford it, "The next day I got a little drink. This meter lay on the floor at the side of the fire place; I picked up the poker and broke the lock in a wild temper, but I had no intention of taking the money whatever, and I do not think I ever did take the money. I have been in the house two years using this meter and never attempted to do anything with it.

Verdict, Guilty.

Several previous convictions were proved.

Sentence, Three weeks, hard labour.

SURREY CASES.

BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.

(Wednesday, October 12.)

Reference Number: t19101011-68

ELLISON, Stephen (23, carman) , pleaded guilty of breaking and entering the dwelling house of Geraldine Lambert and stealing there in one table gong, one watch stand, and other articles.

Police-constable FREDERICK WELSH, 457 V, stated that prisoner, whom he had known several years, went round collecting rags and bones and never did any real work.

Sentence, Six months, hard labour.

BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.

(Thursday, October 13.)

Reference Number: t19101011-69

PHELPS, Claude (36, agent) , unlawfully obtaining from Charles Cook the sum of 15s. by means of false pretences and with intent to defraud.

Mr. E. L. Hadfield prosecuted: Mr. Clarke Hall defended.

CHARLES COOK , licensee, "Prince of Wales" public-house, Fulham. On August 3 prisoner called and said to me, "I am agent for a barman's agency and I have been to your chairman (the Licensed Victuallers' Society), Mr. White, and I have also been to Mr. Deane, the treasurer, and they have become subscribers to our society." He gave me a card (Exhibit 1), "Robert Young and Co., agents, 17, Seely Road, Mitcham Road, Tooting, and also 324, Kennington Road, Hotel Staff Agents. Presented by Mr. Phelps." I said, "Well, if it's good enough for them, it's good though for me." I paid him 15s., the annual subscription, and he gave me this receipt (Exhibit 2) with two envelopes with Young and Co.'s address at Tooting printed on them, I told him I wanted a barman and potman and he said he would send them to me on the morrow morning. I never saw him again till at the police court. As a consequence of seeing White and Deane I communicated with the police. In parting with my 15s. I believed prisoner's statements to be genuine.

Cross-examined. I knew him by name as a member of the Central Board of the Licensed Victuallers. I did not know him by sight. I did not know who he was when he called until he explained himself to me. Licensed victuallers often find difficulty in getting servants. My grievance is that he failed to get me a servant.

WILLIAM ALEXANDER WHITE , licensee, "Crabtree Hotel, "Fulham, and chairman West of London Licensed Victuallers, Society. On August 3 prisoner called on me and asked whether I did not recollect him as a member of the Central Board. I asked him what committee he was on and he said, I think, the Publications Committee. He said that he had been unfortunate and was now starting an employment agency. He gave me a card similar to Exhibit 1 and an envelope and asked me to subscribe, saying that Deane at the "Greyhound" had done so. As I knew Deane, who is my wife's uncle, was away, I asked him if he was sure that he had seen him and he said, "Yes; I have seen him. He has paid me." I did not like the look of it and I did not subscribe.' I did not give him permission to use my name. He said he was going to see Cook.

Cross-examined. I knew Deane was away because I had had a letter from him a night or two before, apologising for not being able to attend a meeting. He was taking a vacation. He does some times come up to town when he is on a vacation. He did not tell me that he might get a servant for me if I was willing to pay 4s. I have never had anything to do with agents. I do not doubt that he is a member of the Central Board.

FRANK MARSHALL , manager to Robert Deane, "Greyhound Hotel, Fulham. At the beginning of August prisoner called and I saw him. Deane was away. He asked if we would subscribe to his association to supply barmen and hotel staff, Young and Co. I did not subscribe on that day, but on his calling a week later I gave him 7s. 6d., a half-year's subscription. Deane had not then returned, nor had he come and gone away again since the 3rd. Prisoner told me that White, Cook, and Deane's manager of the "Dartmouth Castle, "Hammersmith,

had subscribed. He gave me this receipt (Exhibit 5). When paying my money I though he could supply me with servants.

Cross-examined. I am positive he said Cook had subscribed. I was not asked about Cook before the magistrate. I did not make any note of my conversation with prisoner. On the 3rd he showed me a book containing a list of the subscribers, but I did not look in it, and I did not see their names. He was telling me the names of the various people he had called upon. I have had dealings with agencies before. It is not particularly difficult to get servants in our trade. It is the usual thing to pay an agency so much for a certain time, during which they supply you with what servants you require. 10s. 6d. for the half year would be about the usual fee.

JOHN GORDON VENNING , licensee, "Buck's Head" public-house, Mitcham. On either June 1 or 21 prisoner called on me and said he represented Robert Young and Co., an hotel staff agency. I paid him half a guinea and he sent me a servant. Having another vacancy I wrote to prisoner and he replied he would send me another servant in a day or two. Not getting one I wrote to 17, Seely Road, the address he had given me. I received no reply. About September 12 I wrote him to the same address and the letter came back. I sent another letter by hand, which was opened by a lady, who said they had left about two months.

Cross-examined. Seely Road was the only address he gave me. It is sometimes difficult to get an adequate supply of skilled servants.

EDWARD ROBERT AUCKLAND , licensee, "Thurston Arms," West Norwood. On either June 13 or July 13 prisoner called and said he was running an employment agency, Robert Young and Co., and would I subscribe to it, and that he was an ex-licensed victualler and a past committeeman of the Society of the East London Licensed Victuallers' Protection Society. I gave him 10s. 6d. and got a receipt, bearing the addresses 17, Seely Road, and 324, Kennington Road. Requiring two barmaids, I wrote to Seely Road on August 17 and received no reply. On August 24 I wrote again, with the same result. I went to my Protection Society and went with the secretary to 324, Kennington Road, which we found to be an empty shop. There was a bill on the window, saying, "These premises will be opened by Robert Young and Co. as soon as alterations are completed."

Cross-examined. I never wrote to the Kennington address. I saw no alterations being carried on.

SYDNEY HALL , clerk to Philip and George Geen, estate agents, 57, Waterloo Road. Prisoner called at the end of June, wishing to take 324, Kennington Road. He gave us two references, which we inquired into. The replies did not warrant us in giving him an agreement and we wrote him to that effect on July 11 (Exhibit 9). The negotiations ultimately fell through at the end of July. We never gave him permission to put up any bill.

Cross-examined. We were willing to allow him to become a weekly tenant if he paid a deposit, but this he did not do. We never gave him possession of the premises. He got the key from the woman who looked after the premises for us, that he might go in and view. I

saw the bill in the window at the end of July and I made a complaint about it.

Re-examined. I wrote him on July 26 about the bill, but got no reply. It was taken down by us immediately.

Further cross-examined. He wanted some repairs done, but what repairs were done would have been necessary for any tenant. One of the rooms was coloured according to his wish.

Detective-constable CONSTANTINE WOODS, V Division. On September 12 I received a warrant for prisoner's arrest and at 8 a.m. on the 13th I went to 30a, Albert Bridge Road, where I saw him and read the warrant. He asked me who had taken it out and I said, "Mr. Savage, of 'Raynes Park Hotel.' "He said, "What were the false pretences?" and I said that he had said that he was carrying of a genuine business as an hotel staff agent at 324, Kennington Road, and that Mr. Savage had applied there by letter and personally, but had been unable to see him to get any servants. He said, "I have carried on a genuine business and have sent him one girl and written to others to go to him, but it was too far away." I said, "I have made inquiries and ascertained that you carried on no business at 324, Kennington Road." He said, "I did not represent to Mr. Savage that I carried on business there. It was 326a." I said, "I have got the correspondence and a card from you to him with the address at 324 on it. I have ascertained that you had two rooms at 326a, Kennington Road for a week and left without paying the rent." When charged at the station he said, "It's all false." I found 17, Seely Road to be a small house; he had no office there. At the time of his arrest he had moved to 65, Long Acre, where he went to on September 7. I found no business books at either place.

Cross-examined. He went to Seely Road on April 27 and stopped there till August 13. He was a licensed victualler and had been a delegate of the Central Board of Licensed Victuallers.

(Defence.)

CLADUDE PHELPS (prisoner, on oath). Up to the end of 1908 I carried on a licensed victualler's business at the" George Hotel," Millwall Docks. I then traveled for a whisky firm. On April 23 I went to 17, Seely Road, when I had the idea of starting this hotel staff agency on the usual lines and had cards printed. About the end of June I negotiated with Messrs. Geen with a view to taking 324, Kennington Road, purely for business purposes, but they would not let me have a yearly agreement, which was the only thing I wanted. I interviewed one or two of the barmaids there, having obtained the key from Mrs. Pierce. This continued up to the end of July, when the negotiations ceased. She knew of the bill on the window and what I was doing. It was a genuine agency business I carried on and these are some of the advertisements for barmaids I put in the papers about July. With the permission of Messrs. Geen, I arranged with Mrs. Pierce to have the use of No. 326a, Kennington Road for seeing people

while waiting to go into 324, which was being repaired. This was the state of things when I called on Cook. He said he would send me on particulars of what servants he required, but he did not do so. He inserted an advertisement in the paper the next day. I did not tell him that White and Deane had subscribed. I only told him that I had been to see White and the people at the "Greyhound." I had, in fact, seen White and Marshall, Deane's manager. Marshall agreed to join and his wife paid me on August 10. I never mentioned White's name, nor the name of Deane's other manager to Marshall. I sent a second servant to Venning, but I do not know whether he engaged him. I was trustee of the East London Victuallers' Society. I had no intention of defrauding anybody.

Cross-examined. I carried on business at 326a for 10 days. It is not true that I told White I had seen Deane personally. Marshall did not tell me he wanted a servant.

FREDERICK DOVE , manager, "Prince of Wales" public-house, Drury Lane. I gave up the position three weeks ago. I paid prisoner 7s. 6d. as a half-yearly subscription. He found me a cook, who was quite satisfactory. I applied to him for another servant, but, having been arrested, he could not supply me.

The Jury at this point stopped the case and returned a verdict of Not guilty.

Reference Number: t19101011-70

BOYS, Frederick (25, labourer) , robbery with violence upon James Weston, and stealing from him his watch, his goods.

Mr. Hughes prosecuted.

JAMES WESTON , bricklayer, 21, Grove Road, Merton. About 9.40 p.m. on September 17 I was in High Street, Merton, when I was stopped by prisoner and another man. Prisoner asked me for a penny. I said I had not one, and he asked me again. He put his left hand on my shoulder and pushed me up against the wall, saying, "I know you have got a copper. I have a penny to treat myself with and I want a penny to treat my mate with." With his right hand he took my watch out of my pocket. He left the chain swinging. I asked him for it back two or three times or else there would be trouble. He said I must have made a mistake. They then walked quickly away into Abbey Road and down Picot Road, where they parted. Prisoner then came into High Street again. I followed him. He crossed the High Street and went into the Recreation Ground and into Hayden Road. There was a lad with me, and he called a policeman. I told him what had happened and he took prisoner into custody.

Cross-examined. You had not the watch in your possession when at the police-station?

Police-constable BENJAMIN GOLD, 723 V. I was on duty on September 17 in Hayden Road, Wimbledon, when prosecutor gave prisoner into my custody for stealing his watch. Prisoner said, "I did not have the watch." On the way to the station he said, "I know who took the watch. Ramper had it." He made no reply to the charge.

JOHN WILSON , 1, Park View Villas. Between 10 and 11 p.m. on September 17 I found prosecutor's watch between the "Nelson" and

a butcher's shop in the High Street. I took it to the station. (To the Court.) It was not in Abbey Road nor Pincott Road I found it.

GEORGE GOLD (further examined.) (To the Court.) Wilson did not show me where he found the watch.

JAMES WESTON (further examined.) To the Court. It was between Pincott and Abbey Roads that prisoner came up and stopped me. "The Nelson" is where prisoner turned round again.

Prisoner's statement before the magistrate. "I did not do it."

FREDERICK BOYS . (prisoner, not on oath). At 10.30 p.m. on this evening I was about half-way down Hayden Road when a police-constable said that the prosecutor was giving me in charge for stealing a watch, and he would have to take me to the station. I went willingly with him. On the way I holloa'd to a man to go and tell my father about it. I thought he might come up and prove who it was that had taken the watch.

Verdict, Not guilty.

BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.

(Friday, October 21.)

Reference Number: t19101011-71

BECKINGTON, Percival Randolph (24) , stealing one portmanteau containing one suit and other articles, the goods of the London and South-Western Railway Co.

Mr. Bircham prosecuted; Mr. Weller defended.

HARRY FRANK HEAD , stockjobbers' clerk, Runnymede, Westcliffeon-Sea. I had been staying at Lyndhurst Road and by the 1.30 p.m. train on July 9 I was coming back to London, with this portmanteau containing my things, which I value at £20. It was locked and the key was in my pocket. I arrived at Southampton West, where I had to change, at 2 p.m. I gave the bag to a porter and that was the last I saw of it. I went on by the 2.45 train to Waterloo and when I got there it could not be found. I gave information to the Lost Property office. The next time I saw it was at the Richmond police station. There were a good many articles missing from it. My name was on my clothes.

Cross-examined. It is quite an ordinary sort of bag. My initials are not on it, but it was labeled with my name and address.

VIDA WADE , boarding-house keeper, 1, St. John's Road, Richmond. In July prisoner was lodging with me in the name of Lieut. Napier. On Friday, July 8, he went away, saying he was going to Southampton. Just after 5 p.m., I think, on the next day he returned, bringing with him this portmanteau. I did not notice any label on it. He was unable to open it, saying the lock had sprung, and I lent him this tin-opener, but he was unsuccessful with that. I saw it open that evening—I noticed a great many very nice things inside, marked "Head." Some days after I asked him why so many of his things were so marked and he said he had taken them for a debt from a

brother officer. He left the house on July 30. I identified the bag at the Richmond police station.

Cross-examined. I did not take him to mean the bag as well when he said he had got the things for a debt. He did not mention the name of the officer. I was not quite certain at Richmond whether it was the Thursday or the Friday that he went away, but I am certain now that it was the Friday.

To the Court. He would generally take his meals with us.

Detective-sergeant THOMAS COCK, Metropolitan Police. On September 27 I went to the Central Police Station, Glasgow, to arrest prisoner on another charge. I saw the trunk now in question, another trunk, two handbags, and a hat box, all of which I took to the Richmond police station, where I turned out the contents of this bag before prisoner. I pointed out to him that some of the shirts were marked "G. H. Head," saying, "That is not your name." He said, "That may be." On the next day on our way to the police court prisoner said to me, "About that trunk of Head's; I got that at Southampton." I said, "Where—Southampton Town?" and he said, "No, Southampton West." Then he said, "Do you think the South-western will prosecute me?" I said, "I don't know." He said, "I hope they will not be too hard on me." He had not then been charged with stealing this portmanteau.

Cross-examined. He did not tell me that he got the bag from a brother officer. At the time the Glasgow police arrested him he was acting as a steward on board one of the Anchor Line ships, which was in Glasgow. I have said every word of the conversation that passed between us with regard to this particular bag. I was in the train with him some hours. I purposely refrained from questioning him with reference to the other luggage for a good reason. Miss Wade told me two days after prisoner's arrest that he had told her he had got it from a brother officer. Sergeant Long first dealt with this case; he is not going to be called.

Inspector JOHN FINLAY SCOTT, South-Western Railway Police. The loss of this portmanteau was reported to me. On October 6 I saw prisoner at the Richmond police station and told him who I was and said I should charge him with stealing it on July 9 in transit between Lyndhurst Road and Waterloo. I showed it to him. He said, "I know nothing about it." When charged he made-no reply.

Cross-examined. A great many things at the lost property office are never claimed.

(Defence.)

PERCY RANDOLPH BECKINGTON (prisoner, on oath). I have been a steward for the last seven-and-a-half years. On July 7 I was at the Southampton Docks to try and get an engagement, when I met Musgrave Black, a friend of mine, a steward. About 1905 we were shipmates in a boat that went to Japan, and whilst there I lent him some money, which I bad not since then been able to recover. I asked him for it on this day, and he gave me the portmanteau, saying there were

things in it which I could take in part payment. He did not explain how he had got it. It is a common practice for passengers to give stewards a lot of clothing by way of tips. He said, on my asking him, that the things would be worth about £20. I closed with him at that and took the bag. He said that he had lost the keys to it. I took it home and Miss Wade lent me a tin-opener with which I opened it. Afterwards I went to Glasgow and joined the "Columbia "as steward. On the way to Richmond police station the next day the detectives told me I might as well own up, but I did not know what they meant. I said I had got it from Southampton. Sergeant Cock asked me several questions, endeavouring to make me commit myself. I did not say that I hoped the South-Western would not be hard on me. Three detectives questioned me at different times.

Cross-examined. I had seen Black previous to that about 10 days before, and the time before that on board the "Pedicles" two years before. He owed me something like £100 or £120. I saw the bag between 12 and 2 on the Saturday morning at the White Star Docks. I asked no questions about it and I did not open it to see if the contents were worth £20. I got to Waterloo on that day between 5 and 6 p.m., getting to Richmond about 7.30. Miss Wade is incorrect in saying I got there a little after 5. I may be mistaken as to the correct time I saw the bag. I did not ask Sergeant Cock whether the South-Western were going to prosecute. He did not give the whole gist of our conversation.

Re-examined. I knew I was not likely to get much of my money from Black so I accepted this bag without any question. There were no marks whatever on the bag to designate the owner or where it came from.

To the Jury. There was nothing on it to show it had been on long sea voyages.

Verdict, Guilty.

Prisoner confessed to a previous conviction for stealing luggage at the London Sessions on November 16, 1909, where he received nine months' hard labour.

Detective JOHN DUNCAN, F mentioned this conviction, stating that prisoner came out of prison on June 25 last, that altogether on that occasion he was concerned in six similar cases, on three of which he was charged, the luggage amounting in value to £400. On November 3, 1902, he was discharged on his own recognisances for stealing a bicycle; on October 17, 1903, he received three months' hard labour at Kingston for a similar offence, and on February 20, 1904, he had 12 months under the Borstal system for larceny.

Cross-examined. In 1909 he was actually charged with stealing £125 worth of luggage. He gave us every assistance in recovering the property. His discharges say he is of very good character.

Sergeant J. F. Scott stated that, in addition to the trunk which the prisoner was convicted of stealing, there was another large trunk, the contents of which were valued at £49. The North-Western Railway,

the owners, were at present undecided as to what steps they would take. He had a good character apart from this failing.

Prisoner stated that he had only committed the theft in order to get sufficient money to get to Glasgow, where he had a berth awaiting him.

Sentence, 18 months, hard labour.

Mr. St. John McDonald stated that there was a further indictment against prisoner for stealing a cheque for 10 guineas from Vida Wade.

Judge Rentoul said that, although he had no power to deal with the matter, if this money were refunded by prisoner it would doubtless be considered as a strong point in his favour in the matter of whether or not proceedings should be taken against him on his coming out of prison. That indictment with any others that there might be must remain on the files of the Court.

LONDON AND MIDDLESEX CASES

.—(CONTINUED).

BEFOREW MR. JUSTICE SCRUTTON.

(Saturday, October 15.)

Reference Number: t19101011-73

SWANN, Francis Ernest (46, solicitor) , being trustee of certain property, to wit, £4,500 in money, belonging to Howard William Mackinder and others, did unlawfully convert and appropriate part thereof to his own use and benefit and to the use and benefit of persons other than the said H. W. Mackinder and others, to wit, on January 3, 1907, £500, on March 9, 1907, £1,200, and on June 7, 1907, £1,400, in each case with intent to defraud.

Mr. Muir, Mr. Leycester, and Mr. Ingpen prosecuted; Mr. P. R. Simner defended.

GEORGE HARRY WILLIS , of Willis and Willis, solicitors, Chancery Lane. I have acted as solicitor for Howard William Mackinder and his children in an action in the Chancery Division against prisoner and Giles, his co-trustee. I have known prisoner as member of the firm of Swann, Bradley, and Co., of 6, East India Avenue, Leadenhall Street. I produce a sealed copy of the will and codical of Eliza Dawber and of the Act of Probate. Mrs. Dawber died on June 17, 1910, and probate was granted to prisoner and Giles, who were trustees and executors under the will, on July 16. The codicil to the will, after providing for certain annuities, directs that the residuary estate is to be invested and the interest paid in equal shares to Howard William Mackinder and his brother, George Henry Mackinder, during their lives, and upon their deaths their shares were to be divided among their children. They are both still alive. I produce a duplicate of the affidavit for the Inland Revenue handed to me by prisoner. It shows that the gross estate is £29,274 14s. 11d. The executors' account was also handed to me by prisoner. It shows receipts and payments made by the trustees on winding up the estate and a balance at the end, which would be the residue. £4,000 purports to be set aside for the annuity of Mrs. Carter, but as a fact it was not. On June 1, 1909, I received instructions from Howard William Mac-kinder in connection with the transfer of the mortgage upon his life interest and I communicated with prisoner's firm. I wanted to know what the investments were. On the 9th he called on me; I asked him to tell me what the trust funds of the residue of the estate consisted of and what Mr. Mackinder's interest was in them. He said that Mr. Mackinder has a life interest in a moiety of the income produced from the following investments: £292 6s. 1d. new Consols; £7,000 mortgage on 33 and 35, Endell Street; £700 4£ per cent mortgage on Dartmouth Park Road, which was a long leasehold; £1,200 5 per cent, mortgage on 348, King Street, Hammersmith, freehold; £250, 5 per cent, on freehold land at Pitsea; £700, 6 per cent., on a life interest and policies by Amphlett, and £400 on a similar investment. The total amount is £10,542 6s. 1d. He

informed me that the present trustees were Giles and himself, that the funds arose under the will of Mrs. Dawber, and that the income of the other moiety was payable to the brother in Australia. Before leaving I read over my note of the interview to him and he suggested no alteration in it; in fact, he was overlooking me as I was writing it. On July 7 I called at his office, taking with me Exhibit 3, a letter from F. E. Swann to H. W. Mackinder, and an extract from another letter, which I had received from H. W. Mackinder through his country solicitor. The latter contains a list of investments as at November, 1906, which corresponds with the list he had given me on June 9, except that it contains a mortgage of £4,500 on leasehold premises. Lot 7, Kingsway 4£ per cent, and the mortgages on Endell Street and on Amphlett's policies, appear in Exhibit 3 as £6,000 and £300 respectively, and in the list he gave me as £7,000 and £700. There is a net difference of £3,100—He produced the title deeds or Land Registry certificates for all the securities mentioned in the list of June 9, except the receipt for the Consols, which I took for granted. I asked him to produce the securities for the balance of the trust funds and added that, according to Exhibit 3, the trust estate consisted of £13,000 odd. He said they had been set aside as an appropriation for the annuity given to Mrs. Carter. I asked him to produce them and he said I was not entitled to see them. I asked him how the residue was invested and he said on deposit and share certificates. He stated that £7,000 was on a mortgage of Messrs. Mitchell's property in Endell Street and he produced a charge certificate by Mitchell, Bradley and prisoner to secure that amount, dated January 24, 1905. On July 19 he called on me and I again pressed him for particulars of the securities which he said had been set aside to meet the annuity of Mrs. Carter. He said that an appropriation was made within three months of the death in respect of the annuity; in 1907, when the list was sent in, the appropriated security was the mortgage for £4,500 on property in Kingsway; but the funds which were then the appropriated securities were invested: £1,000 with Mitchell's on leasehold premises at Westoe Hill, by deposit of title deeds; £500 invested on share certificates and transfers, which were deposited; and £1,400 in a similar security. The original appropriation, he said, was in Consols and he thought it was about £4,000; and that all the three deposits above-mentioned had been out for over a year. On my asking him he refused to produce the securities. I asked him for the names of the companies in which the £1,900 was invested and he said he had forgotten them, but they were all quoted securities. I read over to him my note of the interview (Exhibit 102) and he made no alteration. Nothing was said about the difference between the £2,900 and £3,100. On the next day I issued a writ against prisoner and his co-trustee, Giles. Appearance was entered for both by Swann, Bradley, and Co., their solicitors. The claim was, firstly, that they were liable to make good any loss incurred by the non-investment and improper investment of certain funds; secondly, damages for breach of trust; thirdly, for their removal as trustees and appointment of new trustees; and,

fourthly, execution of the trusts forthwith. On July 23 a motion was entered that they should be ordered to pay £2,900 into Court, and an order was made that they should do so on or before September 24. On September 23 prisoner called on me to ask for six weeks' further time. The note produced I made at the time of the interview and he could see me writing it. He said that part of the money was lent to two people, Messrs. Mitchell and Donett, or Donett, and he found that his late partner, Bradley, had returned the securities to them; he had since dissolved partnership with Bradley, and Mitchell and Donett were being sued; the rest of the money had been lent to Benoist, against whom judgment had been obtained Before the Chancery proceedings: Benoist had promised to get a friend to take up the securities, but had failed to keep his promise. This was the first time Benoist's name had been mentioned and he did not say how much had been lent to him. He said that there had been an execution on his own furniture 18 months ago. I said I would take my client's instructions. On October 16 I served a notice of motion for the attachment of the defendants and for the appointment of a receiver. Both actions came on for hearing on October 22. Prisoner appeared in person and Giles was represented by counsel. An order was made for their attachment, not to come into force against prisoner until November 22, and an order appointing H. W. Ellis receiver. On October 25 I called with the receiver at prisoner's office and asked him to hand over all the documents relating to the estate to the receiver. He then handed over deeds in respect of securities mentioned in the list he had given me on June 9. He refused to hand over any documents relating to the balances. I have, in fact, called in the Endell Street mortgage and recovered £7,000. On November 24, the money not having been paid into Court, I issued a writ for prisoner's attachment. On his asking me over the telephone on that day whether the writ had been issued I said yes. That was the last I heard of him. I was unable to serve the writ until he was arrested, I having reported the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions. Prisoner told me that when the Kingsway mortgage was paid off the £4,500 was paid into the trust account, which was kept at the London Joint Stock Bank, Leadenhall Street. I am not sure at what interview he told me that. He delivered no defence to the civil action, which came on for trial on December 21 and 23, and he was not present in any way. No share certificates deposited by Benoist as securities for his advance were ever handed to me. Prisoner at no time suggested to me that the Endell Street mortgage was the security set aside to provide for Mrs. Carter's annuity.

(The cross-examination of this witness was postponed.)

CHARLES STANLEY HARBOR , cashier, J. and C. Simmons Company's Bank, King Street, Beading Vincent Brothers bank with us. The waste book (extract produced) shows that on March 11, 1907, their account was credited with £1,254 7s. 4d. in various items, including one of £1,100 consisting of two £500 Bank of England notes, Nos. 322289 and 33236, dated February 20, 1904, and one £100 note, No. 28251 and dated April 18, 1906.

HENRY ERNEST VINCENT , of Vincent Brothers, motor-car agents, Castle Street, Reading. On March 4, 1907, we advertised a motor-car for sale for £1,200. Prisoner wrote to us and called on the Saturday afternoon, tried the car and bought it for £1,100, paying for it in £100 bank notes, I believe, which I paid into our bank, Messrs. C. and J. Simmons, on the following Monday.

ISAAC NEWTON EDWARDS , cashier, Birkbeck Bank, High Holborn. I produce a correct copy of prisoner's account with us; it shows a credit of £80 under date March 15, 1907. The waste book (extract produced) shows that the £80 credit consisted of four £20 bank notes, Nos. 91010 to 91013, dated March 16, 1906. We changed at the same time another bank note, No-91009, of the same date. On June 8, 1907, the total credit was £70, which consisted in part of a bank note for £50, No. 54242, dated February 17; 1906. On February 25, 1908, there is a credit of £500, which consisted of a draft on the Capital and Counties Bank, Piccadilly.

GEORGE JOHN BUTLER , cashier, Capital and Counties Bank, Piccadilly branch. I produce an extract from the account of V. Benoist, Limited, showing that account was credited on June 7, 1907, with two bank notes of £100 each, dated April 18, 1906, Nos. 94450 and 92539; a £500 note, No. 39630, dated February 20, 1904; another £500 note, No. 38739, of the same date; and a £50 note, No. 54241, dated February 17,1906. Upon the same date we exchanged another £50 note, No. 58186, of the same date, for "V. Benoist" into £5 notes. I produce an extract from the ledger, which shows that on February 26, 1908, a cheque for £500 in favour of "Swann" was debited to V. Benoist's private account, cleared through the Union Bank, the bank through which the Birkbeck Bank clears theirs cheques.

Cross-examined. The account of V. Benoist, Limited, was wound up in March, 1909. I believe V. Benoist drew on the firm's account to meet the cheque for £500 on his private account.

HOWARD WILLIAM MACKINDER , proprietor of the Royal Hotel, Gloucester. I am one of the beneficiaries under the will of my mother, Eliza Dawber. Harriett Carter was her housekeeper and Giles her brother. I got this letter (Exhibit 3) from prisoner with the enclosed accounts. In June, 1909, I instructed Mr. Willis to act for me in connection with my life interest in the estate.

(Monday, October 17.)

AUSTIN F. W. MEEN , clerk at the Leadenhall Street Branch of the London Joint Stock Bank. Giles add prisoner had a joint deposit account at our bank. It was opened on November 19,1906, with a deposit of cash £4,500. Five cheques produced, drawn on that account are: December 10, 1906, to J. Mitchell and Co., £1,000; January 3, 1907, to J. Mitchell and Co., £500; another to Mrs. Ellen Friend, £1,200; another to R. F. Amphlett, £400; another to "selves," £1,4077s. 2d. The first four have been drawn on "order" form, but "order" has been altered to "bearer" (the alterations being initialled by Giles and

Swann), and they bear no endorsements. The body of the cheques is I think in prisoner's writing; the fifth cheque is endorsed by Giles and prisoner; the odd £7 7s. 2d. in this is for interest on the deposit. (The waste book produced showed that the £1,200 Friend cheque was paid in the two £500 notes and one £100 note spoken to by Harbor and Vincent, and the five £20 notes spoken to by Edwards. The cheque for £1,407 7s. 2d. was paid in the notes spoken to by Butler.) Swann, Bradley, and Co. also had an account at our bank. On December 10, 1906, there is a credit entry of £1,000, effected by a cheque drawn on the account of Giles and Swann. On January 3, 1907, there is a credit entry of £568 4s. 8d., effected partly by a cheque for £500 drawn on the account of Giles and Swann in favour of J. Mitchell and Co. (on January 2 Swann-Bradley's account was overdrawn £494 18s. 10d.; by January 5 the account was again overdrawn to the extent of £208 10s. 1d). The £4,500 with which the GilesSwann deposit account was opened was in the form of a cheque for that amount on the London and County Bank, Law Courts branch.

Cross-examined. The Swann-Bradley account ran into very large figures, about £50,000 or £60,000 a year. There was no permanent arrangement about overdraft, but we frequently allowed overdrafts; we do this to support the credit of our customers. And in this case we held securities for specific loans and the margins upon these would be regarded as security for temporary overdrafts. I am not prepared to say that there would never have been any trouble about our allowing an overdraft of £500 or £1,000. With reference to the Mitchell cheque for £1,000, December 10, 1906, there is a cross payment on the same day to "Martin"; the explanation is that cash was required to complete a purchase and we gave a bank draft in favour of Martin and Nicholson. I cannot say whether this was arranged by Swann or by Bradley.

Re-examined. I cannot say without the books whether we actually dishonoured any Swann-Bradley cheques. (Books to be produced.)

CECIL VANE DUNSTAN , senior clerk at the Bank of England, produced extracts from the Consols Ledger relating to the account of Giles and Swann as executors of Eliza Dawber. This started in 1905 with a credit of £13,296; various parcels of Consols were transferred from time to time; in May, 1906, the balance was £292, which in November, 1909, was transferred into the name of Ellis (Receiver in the Chancery proceedings).

GEORGE HARRY WILLIS , recalled, cross-examined. At the interview of July 7 prisoner took up the position that I was not entitled to see the securities for which I asked On July 19 he gave me certain particulars; I will not say that he gave me as "of grace." I had been pressing for them and he gave them. The orders in the Chancery action was made by consent. At the interview of September 23 prisoner informed me that he had dissolved partnership with Bradley at the end of July, matters between them having been brought to a head by prisoner discovering that Bradley had returned the Westoe Hill lease and the Donet securities to the clients. He also told me that proceedings were going on against Mitchells. I am sure that he told me that the

£4,500 had been placed on deposit account at the London Joint Stock Bank in the names of the trustees. Prisoner did at the police court cross-examine me and Mitchell. I do not admit that he then outlined his defence to this charge; he has never given me any intimation of his defence; he never replied to the affidavits filed in the Chancery proceedings.

JOHN MITCHELL . The firm of Mitchell Brothers, engineers, 10, Essex Street, Strand, consists of myself and five brothers; we have also the business of Sykes and Sons and J. Grindle and Co. Swann, Bradley and Co. were our solicitors and we had various financial transactions with them. We were the lessees of 33-35, Endell Street. On November 4, 1904, we gave a charge upon that property for £7,000 to Bradley and Swann. At that time Swann-Bradley were not advancing us money; Bradley owed us money. He had acted for us in obtaining the lease and the deeds were in his possession; we were pressing him to pay what he owed us; he suggested that if we gave this charge he could deposit the deeds with his bank and get money to pay us part of what he owed us. Swann-Bradley have brought an action against us in respect of these transactions and this is still pending. On December 13, 1905, the charge was transferred to Giles and Swann as trustees of the Dawber Estate and we paid interest as it fell due. Eventually the charge was called in and we paid the £7,000 to the Receiver of the Dawber Estate. As to the two bearer cheques to J. Mitchell and Co. for £1,000 and £500 (see Meen's evidence), I know nothing of either; they never came into the hands of my firm. We have property at Westoe Hill; we never pledged that property with Swann-Bradley or any client of theirs. We did give a charge on our Kingsway property for £4,500 to Giles and Swann as the Dawber trustees; that was in existence for six months only. No consideration passed for that £4,500; the charge was given to assist Bradley in (as he put it) temporary difficulties. We had to find the money to pay it off; the £4,500 with £96 3s. 9d. interest was paid on November 10, 1906.

Cross-examined. We are in a very considerable way of business and of good standing. Bradley had been our solicitor from the day he started practising; we had absolute trust in him. In every case in which Bradley attended to matters for us and came into possession of securities he kept them in his safe, and at some later date he always managed by some means or other to get charges upon them and to keep them there or with his friends. Bradley Was a very clever man and exceedingly plausible. I have no reason to think that prisoner knew anything of the £7,000 matter. None of our branches would ever have required to borrow money in a hurry and would not have instructed Bradley to borrow for them. If there are cheques from Bradley to Sykes and Sons or Grindle and Co., they would be for work done for him or on his instructions.

VENANT BENOIST , caterer. I have known prisoner as a solicitor for four or five years. About June, 1907, I borrowed £1,300 from him; he paid me in bank notes, which I paid into my bank, the Capital and Counties, Piccadilly branch. I gave him a bill and a transfer of

1,500 shares in the Monico Hotel and Restaurant Company, Limited; the transfer was signed by me, but the name of transferee was in blank. The interest was to be 6 per cent, and I paid him a year's interest in advance; the loan was reckoned at £1,400; he actually gave me £1,300, retaining £100 for interest and costs. £500 of the loan as repaid about two years ago. I never heard the name of the Dawber Estate or the name of Giles. No proceedings have been taken against me in respect of the loan. I was adjudicated bankrupt about ten years ago and have not had my discharge.

Cross-examined. At the time of the loan I was perfectly solvent. Prior to this transaction prisoner was a stranger to me; he was introduced to me by Choate. I wanted the loan for my company, V. Benoist, Limited, which was at the time in a flourishing condition. I cannot remember whether prisoner investigated the company's books, but I gave him the balance-sheet. The loan was to the company and did not benefit me personally; I gave prisoner a bill for £1,000 and another for £400, drawn by me and accepted by the company. Prisoner actually handed me notes for the whole £1,400 and I returned him £50 for one year's interest and £10 10s. for costs. Choate was present. The £500 was repaid by the company's cheque; I cannot remember the date, but the cheque would be with the Dawber trustees.

Re-examined. I was managing director of Benoist, Limited; I held pretty well all the ordinary shares, but there were preference shares, of which I held none. Benoist, Limited, failed two years after this transaction.

HENRY WILLIAM ELLIS , auctioneer and surveyor, Chancery Lane, Receiver appointed by the Court in the Chancery proceedings, confirmed Mr. Willis's account of the interview of October 25, 1909.

Cross-examined. The balance in respect of which securities were not forthcoming was £2,900. I was not aware that at that time the Court had made an order directing prisoner to bring the £2,900 into Court. I suppose that if prisoner had paid the money into Court and also handed over the securities he would have been paying twice over; but he did not pay it into Court. I am certain that what prisoner told us was, not that he declined to hand over any more securities, but that he had not any more.

AUSTIN F. W. MEEN , recalled, produced the "Cheques Returned Book" of his bank. From June 19, 1906, to January 30, 1907, 48 cheques of Swann-Bradley were dishonoured, totaling £4,908; some of these were returned marked "Endorsement irregular," "Orders not to pay "; others were marked "R. D."

JOHN JAMES CHEESEWRIGHT , clerk at the London and County Bank, Law Courts branch, produced copy of Mitchell's account showing a debit to that account on November 20, 1906, of £4,500.

Detective-inspector JOHN COLLISON, City Police, proved arresting prisoner on July 2; on the warrant being read to him, prisoner said, "Had I have known I had been wanted I would have surrendered."

Cross-examined. I think there is no doubt that Bradley has committed suicide; his body was found on the French coast in March last.

(Defence)

HENRY WILLIAM CHOATE , mortgage broker, 7, Eusted Road, Lee. In June, 1907,1 introduced prisoner to Benoist. I was present when prisoner handed to Benoist £1,400 in notes; Benoist counted them; he then handed back to prisoner £50 for interest and £10 10s. costs and paid me about £20 commission.

Cross-examined. There was also present another agent, named Goffin, who had part of my £20; Goffin had introduced Benoist to me; neither of us took any commission from prisoner; I paid Goffin between £2 and £3. I don't know whether Goffin was paid anything else. No. 7, Eusted Road, is my private address; I use the office of a friend in the City. I decline to give his name or address. It is highly likely that I have a record of this transaction in my books; I do not keep thick ledgers; I mean a book worth "two-dee"; I have not got it here. The £20 was not paid into my banking account; I have no banking account.

FRANCIS ERNEST SWANN (prisoner, on oath). I am 45 years of Age and have six children. I was admitted a solicitor in 1887 and at first assisted my father, who was also a solicitor. I was then living next door to Bradley; he and I and our families got to be upon most intimate terms. He was managing clerk to Morten, Cutler and Co., and became a member of the firm. When my father retired in 1901 Bradley suggested that he and I should go into partnership, and this we did in September, 1901, the capital of the firm being £4,000, contributed in equal shares. We did a very large business, employing eleven clerks, with one articled clerk. Bradley, at his own wish, attended entirely to the financial side of the business. Mitchells were clients of Bradley at the time he joined me; I knew them to be very substantial people; from time to time we did very heavy financial business with them. I was a trustee with Giles of the Dawber Estate. On December 10, 1906, Giles called on me; while he was with me Bradley came into my room and said that Mitchells required a loan of £1,000 on the security of property they had recently purchased at Westoe Hill; that they were willing to deposit the deeds as security, and he would hold them on the trustees' behalf. He had in his hands a bundle of deeds with Mitchells' name on, leading me to believe that they were actually the deeds of the Westoe Hill property; he assured us that Mitchells had only recently paid for the property twice as much as they now required advanced. As the result of the conversation Giles and I agreed to make the advance. An order cheque was filled up and signed by Giles and me; Bradley thereupon said that Mitchells required the money immediately and he had to pay it away that evening and asked us to make the cheque open; we altered the cheque from "order" to "bearer," and it was handed to Bradley. I assumed that he would utilise it for Mitchells' purposes, for which it was obtained. I had absolute trust in Bradley and knew that Mitchells were quite good for the money. On January 3, 1907, while Giles and I were talking in my room, Bradley came in and said that Mitchells were wanting an immediate advance of £500 and he had arranged for a

client of his, the executrix of the late Mr. Donet, to make the advance, but in order to do so she would have to realise certain securities, and he had arranged with her to deposit the securities with Giles and myself as the Dawber trustees if we would make the loan. Bradley produced a letter already prepared setting out the transaction and giving a list of the securities to be held by Swann, Bradley and Co. to secure the repayment of the loan by Giles and Swann. After some discussion Giles and I agreed to make the advance; the cheque was made out (at Bradley's request) to J. Mitchell and Co., or bearer, and handed to Bradley. (Mr. Justice Scrutton: You and Giles as trustees got nothing from Mitchells, in these two transactions, acknowledging the loans?—No. I knew that Bradley had control of their financial affairs and I trusted him implicitly.) The first time I heard that that cheque had been paid into the Swann-Bradley banking account was at the police court last July. As to the £1,200 transaction of March 9,1907, I heard of a motor-car to he had cheap from Vincent, of Reading. After testing the car I obtained an option to purchase it. I saw Bradley and told him I should want to draw £1,000 or so from our firm. (At that time his drawings were £2,000 more than mine; I used only to draw for actual needs, letting my sums accumulate till I wanted some large amount for a special purpose such as this.) Bradley said it could not be managed just then, but he said, "There is that £1,000 due to us on the Endell Street mortgage; if you can get anybody to take it up you can have the declaration of trust." I tried two or three clients; but there was not time to complete matters (my option was only for a day). In the evening I went to Giles and asked him to lend me the money; he said he was locked up and did not want to realise securities. I was at this time investigating for the trust a security for £1,500 upon the life interest of Mrs. Friend. I suggested to Giles that he should let me have £1,000 until the completion of that matter, by which time I should have found someone to take up my own matter, and, if the Friend security fell through, the trustees could take over the declaration of trust (as to £1,000) and become entitled to the whole of the Endell Street mortgage, the balance of £200 to be advanced to Mitchells when they required it. Giles agreed to this. Next morning he and I signed a cheque for £1,200; this I cashed. I went to Reading and bought the car for £1,100. On returning to London I paid in to my bank £80 of the remaining £100. The Friend mortgage did fall through. On May 9, 1907, Bradley told me that Mitchells required the £200 and I gave him a cheque for that sum on my own bank. The trust, of course, became entitled to the full £7,000 on the Endell Street mortgage. This £1,200, in fact, was part of the £7,000 which the trust has actually received, yet I am charged with misappropriating the £1,200. As to the Benoist matter, Choate mentioned to me that Benoist, Limited, required a loan; I knew the company was then doing a flourishing business. I did not know Benoist; he was never a client of mine. I went to the place two or three times and investigated the books and balance-sheets and the loan of £1,400 was arranged, as Benoist has said. I obtained the approval of Giles to making the advance and the cheque on the trust banking account

was signed by both of us. I regarded the transaction as absolutely sound. I attended the completion and handed over the £1,400 in notes, just as I had got them from our bank. Benoist handed me £50 as a deposit for one year's interest and £10 10s. for costs. The interest has been paid away to the beneficiaries.

Mr. Justice Scrutton. The £50 was paid into his private account; are there any books to show that it was paid to the beneficiaries?

Mr. Simner. I will find out before the morning.

Prisoner. There is absolutely no truth in the suggestion that I misappropriated to my own use either the £1,200 or the £1,400.

(Tuesday, October 18.)

FRANCIS ERNEST SWANN , recalled (in response to a request by the Court for further information). I did not know of the existence of the £7,000 mortgage from Swann-Bradley to Mitchell till shortly before the actual transfer, when Bradley suggested to Giles and myself the transfer to the Dawber trustees. Bradley told me that part of the moneys had come from a client of his, a Mr. Wortley. That was early in December, 1905. The beneficiaries had complained about their money being retained in Consols, and I thought it a good opportunity to secure them a higher rate of interest. I arranged an appointment; Giles called; Bradley produced the security and gave us full particulars with regard to the property. It was a duly registered charge in favour of the firm. We ultimately agreed to advance. £6,000 or £7,000. A transfer of the security was to be made to the trustees of the whole amount, leaving £1,000 due to the firm. We instructed Giles's stockbrokers to sell Consols, and they were sold on December 11. The completion took place in my room and the proper instrument of transfer was handed to me in exchange for the £6,000. £7,000 was not paid to Swann and Bradley by the trustees; that part of the recital is wrong. It is not the fact that Swann and Bradley paid £1,000 to the trustees, who then paid £7,000 to Swann and Bradley. I did not prepare that document. Two or three days afterwards Bradley asked me to get a declaration of trust signed by Giles and myself. I demurred at first, but ultimately I gave way and got Giles to sign it. I also signed it and handed it to Bradley. It was a declaration against the £6,000. The trustees thought the security was not sufficient for £7,000, but was for £6,000. That was my stipulation. I insisted on a valuation being made before the advance of £6,000, and the valuer valued it in excess of £6,000 by £400. A copy was supplied to Willis early in the proceedings. The amount is £6,400, being two-thirds of the gross value, which shows it is a trustee's valuation. It is dated December 8, 1905. By March, 1907, the property had increased in value; Mitchell's had spent some £400 or £500 on the building. The trustees took the additional £1,000 on March 9, 1907. That is the date of the Friend cheque. There is no specific transaction which gives the trustees rights to the additional £1,000 security, except the giving of the Friend cheque and the obtaining of the declaration of trust from Bradley. That was before March 9. In my view those two things

transferred the £1,000 to the trustees. With regard to the £50 and the £500 there has never been a book containing the receipts and payments of the trust fund. The accounts were prepared from the bankers' passbook, the cheque book, and the paying-in book. They were entered by me. The firm had nothing to do with the Dawber trust income accounts. There is a separate trust account. I produce the passbook of the Dawber trust. The £50 interest was not paid into the bank account of the Dawber trust because the interest was deposited with me, as a solicitor and not as trustee, to secure repayment of that interest. I have paid interest on Benoist's loan, though Benoist did not. The £500 repayment was not paid to the Dawber trust account because it was paid to my firm pending the receipt of the balance. It was not paid to me as trustee. With reference to the interview, Mackinder had a mortgage on his interest and two life policies. Miss. Philliden had the mortgage called in and I tried to raise £1,200 on his instructions for him. Mr. Willis thought I was still acting for the mortgagee after I let the thing drop and I explained the position to him in the interview on June 9. The entry in the book (produced) shows £7 7s. 2d. was interest on the Dawber trust. As a fact £5 17s. 2d. was paid. Returning to the Willis interview, I promised him in June I would send him copies of the securities, and I did so. About the end of June a client of mine expressed his willingness to carry the matter through. I told Willis that, and that there were other funds set apart to provide the annuity, which would ultimately increase he residuary estate, but would not necessarily be included in the mortgage security, but there was ample security for the amount required Willis said his client had reconsidered the security and was now prepared to go on with it. I did not object, but left it in his hands, and arranged an appointment with him to inspect the trust securities on July 9. I produce the securities for the £10,000 odd, according to the list I had given him. He knew there was further property set apart to answer the annuity. I said he was not interested in those further securities, because I took it they were absolutely at the discretion of the trustees, and the beneficiaries had no right at all in respect to them. He wrote me on July 12 about the production of the remaining securities and I gave way and made an appointment with him to inspect them on July 13. That morning I told Bradley that, and that I required the deeds relating to Westoe Hill, and also the Donett securities. He said he had not got them—that Mitchell's had asked him for the deeds of Westoe Hill some time previously and he had given them up to them, knowing they were good for the money. He said he had sold the shares of the Donett security and accounted to his client for the proceeds. That was the first I had heard that Mitchell's owed the trustees the £500 as well as the £1,200. I was flabbergasted and went for him very strongly. He said the best thing was to keep quiet and for me to help him to put the matter right by postponing the appointment, which I did. I called on Giles on July 19, having had a discussion with Bradley, in which he suggested I should refuse to produce the securities. I told Giles and he said what a pity it was he had not known there was anything wrong, as he himself would

have advanced the £1,200 required for Mackinder's mortgage. He agreed it was best to enable Bradley to get in the money from Mitchell's. I then saw Willis and told him he was not entitled to the production of the securities. I told him there was a mortgage of £1,000 by equitable deposit of title deeds and securities, £500 on shares and securities, and £1,400 on similar securities. My recollection is I gave him the names. On July 22 proceedings were started. I at once admitted to him that they were not proper trust securities, and if he would give me a short time I would get the matter put right. When I left him I understood he was going to do that It was on Bradley's suggestion that Giles and I consented to the order, on his promise to get in the money. At the end of the month I insisted on a dissolution and Bradley agreed after a struggle. The notice appeared in the "Gazette." I then opened an office at 180, Fleet Street. I saw Mitchell on August 18 and served him with a notice with regard to the £7,000. He said he could not give me the Westoe Hill deeds and that he and his firm had never been financed by Bradley. He said he had not told me before because Bradley was my partner. He was perfectly friendly with me. On September 23 I told Willis everything. I arranged with him the terms of the orders. I was arrested in July of this year. I did not know there was a warrant. I knew there was a writ of attachment out and I admit I was keeping out of the way of the civil court. By consent there was an order against me to pay. £2,900. I was advised by counsel that the order would not have been made if I had disclosed the true facts to Mr. Justice Joyce. I was pressing Bradley to find the money. I was perfectly prepared to go on with my defence at the police court. A remand was granted without the alderman asking me whether I intended to call evidence.

Mr. Justice Scrutton. I cannot here ascertain what was the truth of the proceedings at the police court, but it is very unsatisfactory if it can be said that any prisoner has been stopped from disclosing his evidence. At the preliminary proceedings as well as these proceeding there ought to be every facility for the prisoner, however complicated his story. The more complicated the more necessary it is that it should not be stopped. Having said that, I am not going to comment hostilely on the prisoner through a misunderstanding not having taken a course which he would have been well advised to take, and insist on telling his story. That is substantially what I shall say to the jury.

Witness (continuing). When I came up on the formal remand I was asked for the first time whether I pleaded guilty or not guilty and whether I intended to call witnesses There was no one present representing the Treasury, so far as I am aware. I told the alderman that as he had prevented me cross-examining Mr. Willie it was useless for me to call witnesses there. It was only the second day that he allowed me to pursue my cross-examination at all in the case of Benoist. The first day he would not let me cross-examine unless I actually mentioned the figures. The depositions are most incomplete. They do not contain a lot of answers to my questions in cross-examination

of the witnesses, nor in some cases the answers in examination-in-chief. My defence is exactly the same as I outlined to Willis on December 23 last year. I was arrested on July 2. I did not know for over a week what the charge against me was. The books were not in my custody, and it is only up to last night that I have been able to trace some of these matters in the wreck. I had complete trust in Bradley. I took no part in the financial matters of the firm of Swann and Bradley. At times I used to inspect the passbook and the ledger. That was after a cashier left, in 1904 I think. I assisted Bradley to check the books, which he had at his house, on five or six occasions—It may have been more. I have never supervised the books. I never grasped these heavy financial transactions. I have never had it in my mind to defraud the trust fund or any part of it.

Cross-examined. I do not suggest that the prosecution have prevented me from developing my defence at the police court; they have assisted me in every way since my committal. It is admitted that the £4,500 paid into the joint account of myself and Giles at the London Joint Stock Bank was trust property. I have learned within the last month that £1,500 of that was paid into my firm's account. That is the £1,000 Mitchell, and the £500 Mitchell. The trust had security. £150 in notes of that account have gone into my pocket or into my account at the Birkbeck. Out of the money Benoist had from that London Joint Stock deposit account £500 was repaid, and that also has gone into my private account. £3,100 is lost to the estate of which I was trustee, but the Benoist matter will be put right. I have been trustee of two or three other estates besides this, and am well acquainted with the duties. Giles and I had a legacy of £500 for being trustees, and I was also entitled under the will to charge solicitors, costs for work done. I believe an income account was sent to Mackinder after April, 1907 in May or June, 1908. In the letter book handed to me, up to June 9, 1908, there is no trace of an account sent to the beneficiaries. There ought to have been one sent. Mackinder asked for one in 1909 certainly. He has not had it. Mr. Willis did not ask me in the name of the receiver for an income account. I find from the letter of November 22, 1909, that he did. That is a very late date. The receiver was not appointed till October. I refused on the ground that it was being taken in the action. I have not delivered an income account to anyone at any rate since June, 1908. Nobody but myself could have done so; probably there was no book in which anyone could have found what the income of the estate was, nor any book where a record was kept of how the money was invested. If I had dropped dead Giles would have been able to find out that. I do not know where Giles is and Bradley has committed suicide. If any misfortune had happened to me it would have been impossible to ascertain how the £3,100 was invested. I take it some of Benoist's securities would have been found. There are cheques which show the moneys went in a certain direction Benoist's securities were in my possession and could have been produced at any time. I do not know what the capital of my firm was.

The £7,000, so far as I knew, had nothing to do with the Cloughton estate. I believed it to be the property of Swann and Bradley, and that is still my belief. It was because of the valuation that only £6,000 was advanced on the £7,000 mortgage. By November, 1906, the declaration of trust was worth £1,000 to a trustee. The £4,500 was practically an income account. No valuation was taken of the Westoe Hill property. I took Bradley's word as to their value. I do not suggest that £1,000 paid on deposit of deeds without looking at them, without any documents recording the transaction, and the money paid by cheque to the borrower, altered to "bearer," is a regular transaction for a trustee's solicitor, but it is not a criminal transaction. Bradley was really acting as the trustee's solicitor in that. The deeds remained in his possession. I had no reason to doubt they were in safe custody. Mitchell never paid interest on the mortgage on Westoe Hill, but Dawber got interest, paid by Swann and Bradley. I assume it was debited to Mitchells. It was paid by transfers from their account to the Dawber account. I had nothing in writing showing what interest was payable. With regard to the cheque for £500, January 3, Giles was at my office and Bradley came in by chance, and the result was the transaction with reference to Donett. We were lending it to Mitchells through Donett. Mitchells were responsible for the repayment. Donetts gave the security because they were to make the loan when the securities had been realised. Then they would repay the money we had advanced Mitchells. That arrangement never came off. The agreement I made was, I think, an agreement with the Dawber trustees to lend Mitchell £500, and with the Donet trustees that if I would lend Mitchell that amount and transfer the security to Donetts, when Donetts had realised their securities and got the money Donetts would deposit with me certain shares as security for Mitchells paying the £500. There is a letter evidencing the loan signed by me in the name of the firm, but dictated by Bradley. I did not know it was paid into my firm's account instead of being sent to Mitchells. The shares were to be realised (and they were, in fact) and the loan repaid. We were to have 5 per cent, interest. We were satisfied with the investment. The letter is the only thing in writing which shows what reason was given to Giles for signing the cheque. Bradley apparently revised the letter. There are corrections on it in his writing. We did not want repayment. The ledger shows some of the shares were sold in February, 1907. I do not know when the rest were sold. The sole security I had was the deposit of the shares at Donetts. I did not ascertain from Bradley whether that security had been sold. There was no security, nor anything in writing from Mitchells. I do not suggest that was anything but a hopelessly irregular transaction. In Ledger No. 2, folio 152, I find on December 13, 1905, "By cash of you for advance on mortgage of 33 and 35, Endell Street, £6,000"; "Transferred to Sykes and Co., loan account, £6,000." It purports to be my firm's account, but I am not responsible for it. Until last year I did not know there was an account of the Dawber trustees in our books. The next entry is £1,500 received from the Dawber trustees. It shows.

how that was invested—£300 lent to Amphlett, £1,200 to a man named Cheshire. That was the King Street, Hammersmith, mortgage. There follows £4,500, invested by being lent to Sykes and Co. That is the Kingsway mortgage. The last entry is December 10 1906, "Received of you, £1,000." That is the £1,000 which went on mortgage on Westoe Hill. Ledger No. 3, folio 70, begins, "By transfer to Ledger No. 2, £1,000." That is the Westoe Hill. January 3, "Received of you, £500." That is the Donet. Apparently there is nothing to show what has become of those sums. Upon the face of the account simply Swann-Bradley have received them from the Dawber trustees. I cannot explain why in the case of the £6,000, the £1,500 Amphlett, and the £4,500, the account shows how the money was invested, but does not show how the £1,000 and the £500 were invested. I never knew they were in the firm's hands. These are not my entries. On January 3 I had invested, according to my idea, £1,000 on deposit of Westoe Hill deeds on loan to Mitchell and £500 on deposit of Donetts, securities, money lent to Mitchell. On January 31 I wrote saying the £4,500 was on deposit and inquiries were being made. I did not say £1,500 was invested because it was overlooked, I suppose. There were temporary advances and if a security had been found we should have called in the moneys and invested them on a proper trustees' security. Bradley and I drew amounts as we wanted them. Up to 1904 or 1905 I ticked my amounts in pencil. Summaries were made of the position of the firm. So far as I know they are in existence now. 1903 I think would be the last one. I have been buying and selling motor-cars since about 1896. I did not sell the one I bought at Reading. I had seen it advertised for £1,200. I got the amount in notes before I had seen the car. I got the £1,200 from the Dawber fund, under an arrangement as to security. I asked Giles first. The cheque was made payable to Friend in order to earmark the money. If the Friend matter went through, that money was to be utilised in the amount for the security, plus £300. If the security fell through, the £1,000 the firm had on the Endell Street mortgage was to go into the Dawber trust, and £200 was to be advanced to Mitchells by me. I was going to get it from my bankers. I spent £200 of the trust money, but as to the £1,000 the trust were secured to the extent of £1,000. There is nothing in writing to show it belongs to the Dawber trust beyond the fact that we have allowed them to receive the £1,000, and Bradley has never claimed it from them. I agree it was a hopelessly irregular transaction from a trustees' solicitor point of view. In the result I got a motor-car, which I wanted rather badly. There was nothing in writing to prevent Bradley and me setting up that declaration of trust as entitling us to £1,000 of the Endell Street mortgage. I never gave it to Willis. He never asked for it. It was not released; I was holding it with the trust papers. If Bradley thought there was £1,000 due on that declaration he would have claimed it before he went away.

HENRY JAMES NICHOLSON , solicitor, 29, Queen Street (whose evidence was interposed at this stage). In December, 1906, I was

acting for Mr. Jocelyn, who was the owner of Westoe Hill. I sold it for him to Messrs. Mitchell, the completion being on or about December 10. The draft for £1,000 handed to me bears my signature, I have no doubt by the date it is part of the consideration for the purchase of this property. This was paid on completion. My client received it personally in completion. I endorsed it and passed it on. I never saw Mr. Swann in the matter at all.

Cross-examined. I never heard of the Dawber trustees and did not know it was their money.

FRANCIS ERNEST SWANN , recalled (cross-examination continued). The £1,200 cheque to L. L. Friend was altered to a bearer cheque to obtain the cash. The bank has the record of the name and how it is paid. I do not know that after a certain time Bank of England notes are destroyed. If the notes had been destroyed it would have been impossible for anyone to trace this transaction. So it would have been if it had gone through my bank. I do not see any entry of £1,000 against me in my drawing account. There should have been. When I left the firm they were returned as owing the Dawber trustees £1,500. If the £1,000 was due to the firm they would have been returned as owing £500 only. A cheque for £5 I drew on the same day is down in my account. Anybody looking at the cheque book would find no information as to what had become of the £1,000 cheque, except that I had it. I reckoned to draw about £1,000 a year. Whatever the account shows, £1,500 or less, it is £1,000 short. Benoist was an absolute stranger to me till introduced by Mr. Stoat. I realised in advancing the money to Benoist that I was going beyond the powers of the trust. We got 6 per cent, interest on what we thought was very safe security and Giles was anxious to benefit his nephews to that extent. I have nothing in writing to show Giles knew of that advance. There is no record that the Dawber trustees had lent Benoist £1,400 on a deposit of shares, beyond having the security. The security is bills for £1,400, a certificate for shares in the Monico Hotel, and a blank transfer, undated. We never fill in the date in a blank transfer. Benoist was responsible for the interest, the interest being payable half-yearly from June 7, 1907. I did not sue him when it became payable because he had deposited £50 with me to secure the interest. I handed the amount to the Dawber trustees when the next cheques were sent. In December, 1907, £42 was due for interest, which left £8. In June, 1908, Benoist did not pay the next amount of £42. He had paid £500 on account; it was not principal only. That was in February, 1908. If there is nothing in the paying-in book there is nothing to show I paid the interest to the trustees' account. I had no idea the income account would have been involved in these proceedings. The beneficiaries received the interest. I should appropriate the whole £500 to interest as far as it would last. There was no interest due at the time the £500 was paid. I should say I paid the beneficiaries out of my own pocket, and not out of the £500. I felt they ought not to suffer. Whatever

balance was necessary to provide the total I should transfer to the trustees' account, by cash or cheque. There was no investment of the £500 at all, but I paid interest on it to the beneficiaries. My firm got the benefit of that £500 because payments were made against that which should have been made by the firm. Altogether for loans and interest due from me to the Birkbeck £303 15s. 6d. was consumed out of Benoist's £500 from February 27. The firm got the benefit of the £500 because otherwise I should have drawn it out of the firm. The first time I met Willis was on June 9. I told him the securities in which Mackinder was interested, and he jotted them down. He did not read the note out to me, but it is a correct record of the investments I enumerated. I mentioned there were other investments, but not to what amount. I said they need not be taken into account for the purpose of the mortgage, as there was ample security without them. On July 7 I produced to him the securities for the £10,542. He did not say he was instructed the estate was some £3,000 more than I had represented. I told him the balance had been set aside to meet the annuity to Mrs. Carter. £169 was the interest on the £3,100, and Mrs. Carter's annuity was £100. The £69 was divided between the beneficiaries. The £69 would form part of the capital in which Mackinder was interested. I told Willis Mackinder had no interest in the appropriation because I did not think he had. I did refuse to produce the securities on July 7. He pressed me in letters of July 12, 13, and 16. I refused again on the 19th because I knew that some had been disposed of. I told him the appropriation in respect of the annuity was originally Consols. They were treated as appropriated by the trustees. The £4,500 was the appropriated security. I think I said when the £4,500 was paid off the £6,000 charge upon Endell Street was an appropriated security. I take it it is true that in January, 1909, the £6,000 was set apart to provide for Mrs. Carter's annuity. I assume so from the letter of January 29, 1909, written to a solicitor who was making inquiries on behalf of Mrs. Carter's son. The change had been made in consequence of Willis's inquiry. The reason for saying they were appropriated when Willis asked was that they were not trustee investments. We were anxious that Willis should not see the securities because they were trustee investments. My recollection is that an income account was sent to Mackinder, but if you tell me you have seen the letters and there is no income account I will accept that. As to the civil action I got terms given me on the interim motions. The amended statement of claim was not delivered until after I had given up my office. The attachment prevented me from defending the civil action because I should have been arrested. I did not think I might be suspected of having misappropriated the trust funds. After I had seen Willis I gathered he had accepted my statement. I thought it was only a civil liability. When discussing matters with Willis we practically arranged that a motion for judgment should be made in default of defence for accounts. He said he would give me minutes of the proposed order; in fact, on one occasion I believe he did have minutes prepared, which I could

not accept in that form. As far as the civil liability is concerned there was absolutely no question.

Re-examined. Willis knew where I was up to the end of November—in my office in Fleet Street. As to what I told him in connection with the Carter part of the trust I did not want him to know the securities were not trust securities. With regard to the income appropriated being more than the sum required, whatever the surplus be the income has in fact been paid, or contra account. I sued Benoist and the company as well. It was a trustee action, as appears from the endorsement of the writ. The account at the Birkbeck was in the name of Giles and Swann. Giles was 60 years of age, hale and hearty, an uncle of the beneficiary, and brother of the deceased. He was very largely interested in the will, personally, and also in the property being properly looked after. The Benoist cheque, £1,407, is drawn to Sells and is endorsed by Giles and myself. Giles knew about that cheque and the whole matter. We discussed the matter on several occasions. The counterfoil of the £1,200 cheque has "F. E. S." against it, for all the world to see. The Amphlett cheque was also drawn in notes. They are all "bearer" cheques except the last. I handed over the Endell Street mortgage to Willis as security for the whole sum, £7,000. The property had appreciated in value in 1907 and was well let when the further advance was made. In Ledger No. 2, folio 152, in the account headed "Dawber Trustees," I find "Transferred to Ledger 3, £1,000"; "1906, December 10, received of you, £1,000." I find entries in the cash journal under that date, "Received of you, the Dawber Trustees, £1,000," a cross reference to folio 152, and on the other side, "Paid Martin and Nicholson." Then the next one is, "On account of purchase money, Jocelyn, Mitchell Brothers, £1,000." Then the cheque for £500 is E/A 73911. January 3, 1907, deposit account, Dawber Trustees, J. Mitchell and Co., £500. That is in the cashier's handwriting. The bank passbook is in and shows the amount £568, which includes the £500. The paying-in book has been lost between the trustee in bankruptcy and the official receiver. In the cash journal I find on January 3, 1907, "By received of you by order of the trustees, folio 70, £500." In Ledger No. 3, January 3, 1907, there is in the account of the Dawber trustees, "Received of you, £500." In the cash journal, page 169, "May 9, 1907, By C. (Query, F. E. S.) £200." £438 14s. 2d. is the total amount paid into the bank, made up of four amounts. The £200 is what I handed Bradley in order to lend to Mitchell. I am bankrupt. Since July I have been in prison, this attachment for £2,900 being over me. There are two attachments. I could probably arrange one.

The Jury now left the Court by request of the Judge.

Mr. Justice Scrutton (addressing counsel). The offence for which prisoner is indicted is unlawfully converting and appropriating property to his own use with intent thereby to defraud. Both of you know there are cases in connection with false pretences where it has been held that an honest intention ultimately to return the property is no defence. If you present a forged signature with intent to defraud, an honest intention to restore the money does not stop the intent to defraud. In larceny there are a series of decisions to the effect that

you must permanently appropriate, otherwise it is not larceny. Assuming the jury should think there was conversion for the prisoner's own use, with honest intention to restore or return, are there any cases under this or other statutes which would throw light on the question? Of course, conversion, as one known it in civil courts, is dealing with an article, and even if consistent with the rights of the true owner it would not matter; if you intended subsequently to return it, you would still he converting it for the time being. Is there anything to show whether this ought to follow the larceny statute or the law in forgery cases? I am not asking you to answer now.

Mr. Leycester. I cannot think of any reported cases at the moment. It is a question which arises at every trial of this kind.

Mr. Justice Scrutton. A man might honestly think, "I am going to pay this, back. I will use it now, but my mother is going to die and leave me a legacy."

Mr. Leycester. It is always laid down that that is no defence; it follows embezzlement. Every clerk who embezzles says that; every solicitor says he hoped to repay—probably with truth.

Mr. Justice Scrutton. If you think there is anything which helps you on the larceny cases, Mr. Simner, perhaps you will send me a note of what it is. I was thinking more particularly of the motor-car transaction in this case.

In summing up Mr. Justice Scrutton directed that it was no excuse that prisoner honestly intended to repay trust funds which he had misappropriated.

(Wednesday, October 19.)

Detective-sergeant ARTHUR THORP, City. I have looked through office papers and find no trace of any income account being sent to the beneficiaries since April, 1907.

Verdict, Guilty on first and second counts as to the £500 and £1,200; Not guilty on third, fourth, and fifth counts.

The following indictment was then proceeded with (before another jury): Being the trustee on an express trust created by the will of William Joseph Cloughton, deceased, of certain property for the use and benefit of Emily Cloughton and another, did unlawfully convert to his own use and benefit and to the use and benefit of William James Bradley on July 27, 1904, £958 8s. 5d., on August 26, 1904, £3,500, on September 20, 1904, £1,250 and £3,539 1s. 9d., on November 4, 1904, £3,000, and on January 9, 1905, £1,250, in each case with intent to defraud-; one William James Bradley being trustee as afore-said, did unlawfully convert the before-mentioned property to his own use and benefit and to the use and benefit of the said F. E. Swann, and the said F. E. Swann aiding and procuring the said W. J. Bradley to commit the said misdemeanours.

Mr. Simner submitted that the counts for aiding and abetting Bradley were, in the absence of Bradley, bad: the offence alleged being a misdemeanour and not a felony, and there being no provision for a charge of aiding and abetting under the Accessories Act of 1861, section 8. (Du Cros v. Lambourne (1907), 1 K.B., p. 40; Archbold, p. 1,455; R. v. Burton, 13 Cox, p. 71; R. v. Bedford and Sims, 19 Q.B.D.; R. v. Taylor, L.R., 2 C.C.R., p. 147, referred to.)

Objection overruled.

The Attorney-General's fiat was put in.

(Thursday, October 20)

CHARLES POTHECARY , clerk, Union of London and Smiths Bank, Chancery Lane. J. F. Swann, prisoner's father, had an account at

my bank. In May, 1904, he deposited with us 208 shares of $100, six debentures of $5,000 each, one debenture of $1,000, and one of $200, making in all $31,200, in the Tanjong Pagar Dock Company, of Singapore, a certificate of the death of William Cloughton, and power of attorney to the Chartered Bank of India, Australia, and China from the executors of William Cloughton, deceased. We instructed the Chartered Bank of Singapore and on July 2, 1904, we received a cheque from that bank for £2,526 10s. 7d., which wag credited to J. F. Swann's account. That account showed a debit on July 27,1904, of £958 8s. 5d., the proceeds of the debentures only. On August 8 we wrote letter (produced) to Swann and Bradley which is marked in the handwriting of defendant "Ansd. F. E. S.," asking for receipt and received receipt (produced) signed by W. J. Bradley and F. E. Swann, executors of W. J. Cloughton, deceased; that was enclosed in letter signed by prisoner. We afterwards received from the Chartered Bank £1,250 in part payment of 208 shares of $100 each, which was paid to Swann and Bradley.

THOMAS JOHN MITCHELL HUME . I was clerk to Swann and Bradley from October 31, 1904, to the dissolution of partnership in August, 1909, after which I remained in Bradley's service until he disappeared. I am acquainted with prisoner's handwriting and produce schedule of documents showing which are in the handwriting of the prisoner.

JOHN MITCHELL . On November 4, 1904, I executed a charge on property in Endell Street for £7,000 to W. J. Bradley and F. E. Swann which in December, 1905, was transferred to F. E. Swann and E. F. Giles, trustees of the Dawber Estate. I had then no knowledge whatever of the Cloughton estate.

ROBERT NESBIT MCINTOSH , clerk, Chartered Bank of India, Australia, and China, Bishopsgate Street. On May 21, 1904, my bank paid to Swann and Bradley £2,526 10s.7d., proceeds of debentures in the Tanjong Pagar Dock Company; on September 13,1904, £1,250, and on September 23, 1904, £3,539 1s. 9d. in respect of shares. On June 2, 1904, we received 12 debentures for $5,000 each, and on July 7, 1904, paid £5,814 6s. 9d. to prisoner's bank. I produce letter from Swann and Bradley instructing us to sell the shares and debentures; letters from my bank are marked "Ansd. F. E. S." Transfers produced were received by W. J. Bradley and F. E. Swann as executors of W. J. Cloughton. (Witness produced a number of cheques and receipts showing that a total of £10,522 18s.5d. was paid to Bradley and Swann as the executors of W. J. Cloughton, deceased representing the proceeds of sale of 400 shares in the Tanjong Pagar Dock Company.)

GEORGE HAMWORTH HOYLE , 4, Arundale Terrace, Brighton, retired solicitor. On September 30, 1890, I advanced to W. J. Cloughton £1,200 on security of 200 shares of $100 each in the Harbour Dock Company of Singapore; on March 11, 1891, I advanced a further £200. In August, 1893, my interest in that advance was assigned to John Abbott and other trustees of my marriage settlement. Those shares were afterwards converted into $6,000 debentures and some shares of the Tanjong Pagar Dock Company. On June 30, 1904, the

debentures were paid off. On the instructions of Swann and Bradley I forwarded the certificates to them for collection and received the amount of my advance—£1,400—from them. The debentures realized £5,814 6s. 9d.

FRANCIS AUGUSTUS SMART , clerk, London and Joint Stock Bank, Limited, produced copy account of John Abbott showing payment of £5,814 6s. 9d.

AUSTIN FREDERICK WILLIAM MEAD , chief clerk, London and Joint Stock Bank, Leadenhall Street. I produce copy account of Swann Bradley and Company with my bank showing a credit on July 27 for £3 5s. 5d. On that day there is a payment in of £958 8s.5d. On August 25 the credit balance was £225 2s. 3d. On August 26, 1904, there is a credit of £4,414 6s. 8d. to Swann and Bradley made up of transfers from the account of Hoyle and Bradley on July 23 £3,500 and August 26 £914 6s. 8d. On September 12 Swann and Bradley's account was in credit £421 0s. 3d. I have calculated that out of the £3,500 paid in on August 26 £3,103 7s. 2d. was used by September 12. On October 24 £914 6s. 8d. was paid in of which £462 2s. 9d. was paid out by October 31. On September 22, 1904, the account was overdrawn £125 2s.: on September 22 £1,250, and on September 23 £3,539 1s. 9d. are paid in; on October 22 the credit balance was £916 11s. 3d. On November 4 there is a payment in of £3,000, in addition to a credit balance of £620 19s. 5d.; on November 15 there is an overdraft of £59 8s. 4d. On that day there is paid in £50017s.; on November 22 a payment in of £1,000; December 13, £1,000; January 9, 1905, £1.250; January 13, £1,700; January 31, £1,500; February 3, £540 3s. 6d. All these sums were used to meet the current liabilities of the firm of Swann and Bradley.

EMILY WALTON , Brighton Lodge, East Molesey. On October 3, 1906, I married my present husband, Walter Walton. I was the wife of W. J. Cloughton, who died on March 6, 1902, at Madeira. Bradley was his solicitor before the partnership. Prisoner went to Madeira to fetch the body. There were no children of the marriage. I received £10 weekly from Bradley. In July and August 2 I saw prisoner and he paid me £30. For the last four years I have had difficulty in getting my payments. I never instructed the sale of my securities. I never received any account showing the income coming to me.

THOMAS JOHN MITCHELL HUME , recalled. From October 31, 1904, I kept Swann and Bradley's books. Prisoner went through the payments with the ledger and ticked them. Several of the cheques are in prisoner's writing. £1,250 and £3,539 Is. 9d. on September 22 and 23, 1904, are credited in the Cloughton Trust account in prisoner's writing. (Witness went through a large number of entries and explained the manner in which the books were kept and the way they had been dealt with by the prisoner.)

JULIUS W. H. BYRNE , 81, Gracechurch Street, chartered accountant. I was the trustee of the joint and separate estates in the bankruptcy of W. J. Bradley and F. E. Swann and have since appointed receiver. I produce documents handed me by prisoner.

JOHN WILLIAM ROBERTS , Senior Examiner, Official Receiver's Department. I have investigated the affairs of prisoner and W. J. Bradley. The articles of partnership of Swann and Bradley, dated August 31, 1901, arranged that £4,000 be contributed by the partners in equal shares, that any sums received for clients be kept in a separate banking account, and that the partners draw monthly £25. Letters of administration of W. J. Cloughton, 27, 1904, give the gross value of the estate abroad at $231,129; within the United Kingdom, £1,516 1s. 9d. The will appoints Bradley and the prisoner as trustees and, excepting some small legacies, leaves the income to the wife without power of anticipation; then to the children of the marriage, and in the event of their being no children, to the testator's stepson, Albert Budden. The ledger shows the account of the executors of W. J. Cloughton, income received £2,497 4s. 3d. On the other side are debit payments made to Mrs. Cloughton for income after the sale of the shares and debentures. The amounts received by the sale of debentures are £9,870 6s. 2d. The amounts have not been posted into the ledger. The various payments for sale of shares also appear in the cash book. There is no record in the books of any reinvestment of those sums. There is no indication that the loan granted by Swann and Bradley to Mitchell and Sons or Sykes is on account of the Cloughton estate. On November 21, 1902, there is an entry showing that £1,500 had been borrowed by Swann and Bradley from F. L. Swann. That was repaid out of money received out of the sale of the Cloughton shares. (Witness explained from the books the receipt of the proceeds of the Tanjong Pagar Dock Company securities, amounting to £22,000, and how such had been in all cases used for the purposes of Swann and Bradley.)

(Friday, October 21.)

JOHN WILLIAM ROBERTS , recalled. Witness produced a large number of letters, cheques, and receipts, etc., initialed or signed by the prisoner. The partnership of prisoner. and Bradley commenced in September, 1901. Their drawings to December 31, 1901, were, prisoner £75 10s., Bradley £75 16s.; during 1902, prisoner 5882 12s. 10d., Bradley £1,932 13s. 7d.; 1903, prisoner £923 1s. 3d., Bradley £1,623 2s. 10d.; 1904, prisoner £1,982 1s. 6d., Bradley £1,340 9s. 8d.; 1905, prisoner £1,330 11s., Bradley £1,722 8s. 5d.; 1906, prisoner, £1,307, Bradley £1,108 14s. 6d.; 1907, prisoner £1,515 3s. 10d., Bradley £1,807 15s. 10d.; 1908, prisoner £776 9s. 10d., Bradley £804 15s. 8d; 1909, January to August (dissolution of partnership), prisoner £440 2s. Id., Bradley £66 10s. 11d.—total, prisoner £9,233, Bradley £10,482.

Cross-examined. Bradley undoubtedly took the greater part in the financial arrangements of the firm. From the end of 1903 to October 31, 1904, there are hundreds of entries in prisoner's handwriting—many of them may be omissions. The accounts are incomplete. Payment to Sykes of £400 on July 29, 1904, could not have been made without £958 8s. 5d. received from the Cloughton Trust on July 27,

1904, unless an overdraft had been given by the bank. There are no costs debited against the Cloughton Trust; there may be some due on the draft costs sheets, which I have now examined.

(Defence.)

FRANCIS ERNEST SWANN (prisoner, on oath). n I am a solicitor, and was first on the Rolls in 1887. I was with my father in Chancery Lane. I first knew Bradley in 1890 or 1891, when he was managing clerk for Morten, Cutler and Company. In 1901 my father retired from ill health. Bradley was then a partner with Morten, Cutler and Company. Bradley and I became on very friendly terms, and joined in partnership in September, 1901. He was a great hand at figures, and had a considerable number of clients. My business was principally agency. We had offices at 27, Leadenhall Street; business increased largely and we took larger offices at 6, East India Avenue, where we had 11 clerks besides myself, Bradley, and his son. Bradley took entire charge of the financial part of the business; I had nothing to do with the financial arrangements; I never went to the bank except on one occasion when Bradley asked me to arrange about a cheque he had issued; I saw the assistant manager of the bank, but the manager of the bank being away they refused to meet the cheque. I first met the late W. J. Cloughton in October, 1901. Bradley introduced me to Mr. and Mrs. Cloughton at the "Ship and Turtle" Restaurant. After having lunch there, Bradley told me that Cloughton was leaving the next day for a long sea trip, and was making a new will; his trustees had been Bradley and Bradley's late partner, Mr. Morten. I was desired to be trustee in the place of Mr. Morten. Cloughton said, "I have tried to get someone to act with Bradley but have not succeeded. I have full confidence in Bradley. I know he will look after my affairs when I am gone, and I am asking you so as to save trouble if anything happens to Bradley." I agreed to become trustee. In March, 1902, I heard that Cloughton was very ill; he afterwards died at Madeira. Mrs. Cloughton cabled to Bradley to come out at once. He was unable to go; I arranged to go out, and brought the body to England. Mrs. Cloughton had expected to see Bradley instead of me. From that time I had nothing whatever to do with the estate except that on one or two occasions I signed cheques for Mrs. Cloughton, not drawn by my instructions, but brought to me to sign in Bradley's absence. Mrs. Cloughton was on very friendly terms with Bradley and stayed at his house for a considerable time. I have seen her at the office on many occasions and asked if things were going on all right, and she told me they were. Her business would be done by Wilde or Warren under the instructions of Bradley. Any letters I had signed would be brought in by the clerks, who had written them on the instructions of Bradley. I have marked letters "Ansd. F. E. S." to show that the letter had been answered in Bradley's absence. A loan of £1,000 was arranged by Bradley from my father, J. F. Swann. Letter acknowledging the receipt of £958 8s. 5d. is signed by me, and the receipt for that sum was also

signed by me as executor. The account showing the balance of £958 8s. 5d. was prepared by my father. It is not true that I appropriated that cheque to my use, or to the use of Bradley and myself. There was £50,000 to £60,000 passing through the bank in a year. I had nothing to do with the books, and I assumed that Bradley was doing what was right with regard to the re-investment of that sum. (To the Judge.) I took no steps to see that trust monies were not being used for firm's purposes; I never looked at the pass-books, and trusted Bradley entirely. If I wanted to draw a large cheque I should tell the cashier; and if there was not money Bradley would stop the cheque being issued. (To Mr. Simner.) I should not know what cheques had been paid in. On August 26, 1904, Bradley received £3,500 which was paid into the bank; on August 27 I drew a cheque to Benson to pay for a motor-car. It was drawn without reference to the £3,500 being paid in. (To the Judge.) Bradley was away from August 26 to September 5. I was not in financial charge. I do not think I looked at the bank account. It was a mere accident that the £525 was drawn the day after the £3,500 was paid in. The bank would have met the cheque by giving us an overdraft. (To Mr. Simner.) There is no truth in the suggestion that I aided Bradley to misappropriate £207 14s. 8d. payable to Ryland, Martineau and Company. I had nothing to do with the transaction. I know nothing about two cheques for £1,250 and £3,539 being misappropriated; they were paid in while I was away on my vacation between September 6 and October 3, as was also cheque for £393 drawn to Robert Lowther. I signed a cheque for £25 on October 10 for office purposes, payable to Hume without any reference to trust money. Cheque of January 9, 1905, for £1,000 payable to J. F. Swann, being repayment of the loan, was not drawn by my instructions. I did not know that it was paid out of trust money paid in the day before. Between August 15 and September 8 thirty cheques are signed by me. Seventeen, amounting to £1,065 10s. 9d., are for Bradley's clients; nine cheques, amounting to £100 8s. 6d., are for office purposes; and four cheques, amounting to £215 5s., are for myself and my own clients. Between September 22 and October 22, 1904, I signed 20 cheques. Treating the Cloughton matter as Bradley's business there were seven cheques, amounting to £214 19s. 5d., for Bradley; three, amounting to £40, for office; and 10 cheques for my own clients, amounting to £442 4s. 2d., including £319 which had just been received on my clients' account. I never examined the books as an accountant, but I assisted to check entries with Bradley and under his instructions. I made entries which he dictated to me, which had been omitted. (To the Judge. I signed letters and cheques drafted by others without reading them.) All the receipts from the sale of shares and debentures of the Tanjong Pagar Dock Company were the property of the Cloughton estate. I did not know of their being turned into money at the time. The $31,200 debentures on which J. F. Swann had a charge were sent to Singapore to be collected under a letter of instructions, which I signed, and a power of attorney which I drew

and signed. I knew they were being sent out to be collected but I did not know the money had been collected until these proceedings. I know now that 400 shares were sold between November, 1904, and March, 1905, and the proceeds received by my firm; I did not know it at the time—I trusted Bradley as the acting trustee. I signed a blank transfer, which I understood was going out to Singapore, in readiness for the sale when a certain price was obtainable. When I entered the amounts in the ledger I must have known they had been been received. I have been a solicitor for 23 years in London. I do not represent myself to be a fool—I may have been fooled. I know that apart from criminality there is a serious responsibility on a trustee if trust funds are not properly invested. I trusted Bradley to deal with the trust fund, amounting to £20,000, as a man I had known 20 years. In June, 1909, when parting with Bradley, I asked him how the Cloughton Trust had been invested; he said it had been advanced to clients on mortgage and he would furnish me with a list. I said, "Now I am leaving you, Bradley, I must retire from the trusteeship," and he promised to get a deed of retirement executed. He never gave me the list or the deed. (To the Judge.) I made entries in the books by which I knew £18,000 had been received from the Cloughton Trust. In signing a cheque to Harvey's trustees for £1,800 I made no inquiry to see whether the money was in the bank or whether it belonged to the Cloughton Trust. I knew there was £1,000 owing to my father in 1902, which was re-paid in 1905 by a cheque signed by me on the same day that £1,250 had been paid in from the Cloughton Trust out of which the £1,000 was paid. It was a mere accident. The draft schedule of the Cloughton property is in my handwriting; I drew the document for the probate.

Verdict, Guilty on counts 2, 5, 6, 13, 16, 17, Not guilty on other counts (i.e., guilty of aiding and abetting Bradley to convert £958 8s. 5d., £3,500, and £1,250; of converting £525 and £1,000). Sentence, on first indictment, count 1, Three years' penal servitude, count 2, Five years, penal servitude. On second indictment, on each of the six counts, Five years, penal servitude—all sentences to run concurrently.

BEFORE THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.

(Tuesday, October 18.)

Reference Number: t19101011-74

CRIPPEN, Hawley Harvey (48, dentist) was indicted for and charged on coroner's inquisition with the wilful murder of Cora Crippen, otherwise Belle Elmore .

Mr. Muir, Mr. Travers Humphreys, and Mr. Oddie prosecuted; Mr. Tobin, K.C., Mr. Huntly Jenkins, and Mr. Roome defended.

FREDERICK LOWNE . I am the owner of 39, Hilldrop Crescent, Camden Town—In September, 1905, prisoner became tenant of that house at the rent of £52 10s., on a three years, agreement, the tenancy

to continue from year to year. The rent was very regularly paid. On March 16 of this year he gave me notice that he would leave at the June quarter, saying that he had had some property left him in America, that he was unable to go, and that his wife had gone out to attend to the business for him. Between June 17 and 20 he called on me, and it was arranged that he should stay on till September 29; at this interview I asked him how his wife was, and he told me she had died, I think he said in New York—somewhere in America.

Cross-examined. There was never any undue delay in payment of the rent. At our interview in March prisoner showed no signs of agitation or of being harassed or having anything on his mind. At the June interview he did seem a little bit agitated.

DR. JOHN HERBERT BURROUGHS , 169, City Road. I first met prisoner in 1902; he was living with his wife in Store Street; I knew her as Mrs. Crippen, and also by her professional name, Miss Belle Elmore; she had occasional engagements on the music-hall stage. Having lost sight of them for a time, I again met them in 1904. They moved to Hilldrop Crescent in 1905, and I and my wife visited them there. Mrs. Crippen was a stoutish woman, about 30 years of age, vivacious, bright and cheerful, a very pleasant woman generally, and enjoying the best of health; she was fond of dress and jewellery; she and the prisoner always appeared to be on good terms. I last saw her in the beginning of January last at a meeting at Albion House, Oxford Street, of the Music-hall Ladies, Guild, of which I am honorary physician. I produce, a photograph of her taken in September, 1909, and another taken some time before; both are good likenesses. I first heard of her death in March last, from Mrs. Martinetti. I wrote to prisoner on April 4 offering condolences, and asking for details of the death. In reply, I received a letter from prisoner on the 5th on black-edged paper (Exhibit 31), stating "I have been nearly out of my mind with my poor Belle's death so far away from me. She was not with her sister, but out in California on business for me, and, quite like her disposition, kept up when she ought to have been in bed, the consequence being that pleuro-pneumonia set in and proved fatal. Almost to the last she refused to let me know that she was in danger, so that the cable came as an awful shock to me. I am afraid I have sadly neglected my friends. Pray forgive me. Even now I feel I am not fit to talk to my friends." I did not see prisoner after that letter until I saw him at Bow Street.

Cross-examined. I had conversation with prisoner at times upon professional matters. He told me that he had not acted as a general medical practitioner, but made a speciality of the ear, the eye, and the nose. He always appeared to be kind and courteous to his wife; I have noticed occasionally that she was somewhat hasty in her manner towards him.

CLARA MARTINETTI , wife of Paul Martinetti, a retired music-hall artist I first made the acquaintance of the Crippens about 18 months ago. Mrs. Crippen was hon. treasurer of the Music Hall Ladies' Guild, which had an office In Albion House. Prisoner had his business

in separate offices in the same building. Mrs. Crippen was a regular attendant at the weekly meetings of the Guild. My husband and I and prisoner and his wife were on visiting terms. I last saw Mrs. Crippen on Monday, January 31, when my husband and I joined the Crippens at dinner at 39, Hilldrop Crescent, nobody else being present, no servant being kept. After dinner we went upstairs to the parlour on the first floor and had a game of whist. I and my husband left the house at about 1.30 in the morning. We spent a pleasant evening, and there was no quarrel of any sort. Mrs. Crippen came to the top of the steps and wished me good-bye. She was in quite good health. I never saw her again after that night. On the next day, February 1, prisoner called at my flat and inquired after the health of my husband. I told him, and asked him "How's Belle?" Prisoner said, "She is all right, "and I replied, "Give her my love." Prisoner aid he would. The next thing I heard was from Miss May, who told me that she had heard that Mrs. Crippen had gone to America. About a week afterwards prisoner called at my flat. I complained that he had not informed us of his wife's departure, so that I might have seen her off. 'He said there had not been time; that a cable had arrived saying that one of them must go to America, and that as she wanted to go he had let her go. I asked what clothes she had taken; he said, one basket. I said that would not be enough, going all that way; he replied that she could buy more over there. A little later prisoner called again. I said, "Belle has not sent me a postcard; I suppose she will write from New York"; he said, "She does not touch New York; she goes straight on to California." On February 20 I was present at a ball of the Music-hall Benevolent Fund; prisoner was there, with his typist, Ethel Le Neve; she was wearing a brooch similar to one I had seen Mrs. Crippen wearing. Shortly afterwards I saw prisoner again, and asked if he had heard of his wife. He said, "Yes; I cannot make it out; I have had a letter from my friends to say that she is very ill—something the matter with one of her lungs; and at the same time I had a letter from her telling me not to worry, that she is not as bad as they say." I received a letter from him dated March 20 (Exhibit 32): "Dear Clara and Paul,—Please forgive me not running in during the week, but I have already been so upset by very bad news from Belle that I do not feel equal to talking about anything, and now I have jest had a able saying she is so dangerously ill with double pleuropneumonia that I am considering whether I had not better go at once. I do not want to worry you with my troubles, but I felt I must explain why I had not been to see you. I will try to run in during the week and have a chat. Hope both of you are well. Love and best wishes. "On March 23 I saw him at Albion House, when he said he had had a cable to say that Belle was very dangerously ill, and he expected another cable every minute to say that she had gone; he added that if anything did happen he should go to France for a week, as he wanted some change of air. On the morning of March 24 I received a telegram from him from Victoria Station, saying, "Belle died yesterday six o'clock. shall be away a week." On March 30 I called at his office, and, after condoling with him, asked where his wife had died;

he said, "In Los Angeles, with my relations. "I asked for the address, so that we might send a wreath; he gave me the address of his son, who he said was with his wife when she died. In a later conversation when he called at our flat I said something about Belle's funeral; he said, "She is not going to be buried, but cremated, and I am going to have the ashes sent over." At another interview, when I asked him in what boat his wife had left for America, he said it was the La Tuve or La Tourraine. I identify the furs produced as similar to those worn by Mrs. Crippen; after her disappearance I saw Le Neve wearing these furs. I think only once. (Mr. Tobin here stated that there would be no dispute that Le Neve wore jewellery and furs which once belonged to Mrs. Crippen.) In the summer of last year Mrs. Crippen stayed with me at my house, "The Bungalow." I noticed a mark in the middle of her abdomen, which looked to me like an old cut; it was a little darker than the rest of the skin and about six inches in length.

Cross-examined. I believe I said before the magistrate that it came from the navel downwards. I saw her navel. Prisoner and his wife often came to my flat and we went to their house; we were on very friendly terms. I formed the opinion from the many opportunities I had of seeing him that prisoner was a kind-hearted and good-tempered man. I did not notice anything unusual in prisoner's manner at the party on January 31. My husband, who had been under the doctor's hands, had occasion to go to "the lavatory, and he went by himself. He did not say, "I feel rather unwell", but I know he was. The next day when prisoner called his manner was just the same as usual; I did not think it strange of him to call. I noticed no sign of anxiety, fright, or agitation. He called on several occasions between the party and Easter, and I never noticed any sign of agitation; it did not look as if he wanted to avoid me. Prisoner would know that Le Neve would meet at the Guild ball a good many of Mrs. Crippen's friends. The brooch was worn quite openly on her bodice. Prisoner's manner at the ball was the same as usual. I never saw Mrs. Crippen doing her hair at "The Bungalow." She told me she dyedit, that she used some stuff to bleach it. Her hair when dyed was what I should call to myself golden, but it is really called auburn. Her natural hair was darker. She was very particular indeed about it and proud of it. On one occasion her hair was a bit untidy from taking her hat off, and I saw that it was darker at the roots. She drew it over her head and left it with a puff.

To the Court. I knew Le Neve before the ball; I had seen her in the office. I might have heard her name, but I always called her "the typist." Mrs. Crippen had a dressing gown on or something of the sort when I saw the scar. I had never seen it before. I said to her, "Does that sometimes hurt you?" and she put her hands to it and said "No."

LOUISE SMYTHSON . I have known prisoner and his wife 15 months. I am a member of the Committee of the Music Hall Ladies' Guild. I attended a meeting on January 26 at which Mrs. Crippen was present in her perfect health and spirits. I attended the dinner and ball of

the Music Hall Benevolent Fund on February 20, where I saw prisoner with Le Neve, whom I knew was his typist, and who was wearing the brooch produced. (Mr. Tobin said he did not disputed that this had belonged to Mrs. Crippen.) In the course of the evening I asked prisoner if he had heard from his wife lately, and he said "Yes." I asked him for her address, and he said she was right up in the wilds of the mountains of California. I asked him to let us know when he got to hear of her, and he said, "When she has a settled address I will let you know." I saw an announcement of her death in the "Era" of March 26, and on the Wednesday following, I think it was, I went with Mrs. Martinetti to prisoner's office. We offered him our sympathies and asked him to give us the address where she had died. He said it was quite unnecessary as she was now dead and none of her friends in America knew of the Ladies' Guild. We said we were very anxious to send some little token, and asked him where she was to be buried. He said that was also unnecessary, as they thought of having her cremated; and the ashes would be brought here and we could have a little ceremony here. Mrs. Martinetti then spoke to him for a few minutes, and I again asked him for the address, and he said, "I will give you the address of my son." He wrote out this address in pencil, "H. O. Crippen, 1,427, Van Good Street, Rural Delivery, Los Angeles, California," and gave it to me. I wrote a letter and a postcard to that address, and on May 24, during my absence from the Guild, Miss May received a letter. We asked particularly at the interview with prisoner who was present when his wife died, and he said his son. On May 18, I think it was, I saw him in a shop in Tottenham Court Road with Le Neve, who left him and went out when she saw us. I asked him if ho had heard any more about his wife's funeral, and he said "Yes; it is all over, and I have her ashes at home."

Cross-examined. I saw prisoner and his wife together about eight times. He always seemed a good-tempered and kind-hearted man.

TERESA HUNN , Newport, Rhode Island, America. I am known as "Tessie," and am the younger sister of Belle Elmore, whose maiden name was Kunigunde Mackomatzki. She was known at home as "Cora." The first time I saw prisoner was about 18 or 19 years ago when he came to my father's house with her. She showed me a wedding card and introduced him to our parents as her husband. I see by the card that they married on September 1, 1892; they came to us soon after. My father lived then near Brunswick, Long Island. She went to New York and from there to Philadelphia; they had then been married a few months. She returned to New York and from there she came to our house. At that time I noticed a scar on her stomach; it was not all healed; it was fresh. I saw it again seven years ago and it was healed much better than the first time I saw it. It was between four or five inches long and about an inch wide. The flesh outside it was paler, more of a cream colour, than the center scar. On April 15 of this year, my half sister, Mrs. Mills, got this letter (Exhibit 71) from prisoner: "My dear Louise and Robert,—I hardly know how to write to you my dreadful loss. The shock to me

has been so dreadful that I am hardly able to control myself. My poor Cora has gone, and to make the shock to me more dreadful I did not even see her at the last. A few weeks ago we had news that an old relative of mine in California was dying, and to secure important property for ourselves it was necessary for one of us to go and put the matter in the lawyer's hands at once. As I was very busy, Cora proposed she should go, and, as it was necessary for some one to go there at once, she would go straight through from here to Cali-fornia without stopping at all, and then return by way of Brooklyn, when she would pay all of you a long visit. Unfortunately, on the way out my poor Cora caught a severe cold, and, not having a chance to take proper care of herself while travelling, it settled on her lungs, and later developed into pi euro-pneumonia. She wished not to frighten me, and said it was a slight matter, and the next I heard was she was dangerously ill, and two days later, after I had cabled to know should I go to her, the dreadful news came that she had pasesd away. Imagine, if you can, the dreadful shock to me; never more to see my Cora alive, nor hear her voice again. She is being sent back to me, and I shall soon have what is left of her here. Of course, I am giving up the house. In fact, it drives me mad to be in it alone. I don't know what I shall do; probably find some business to take me traveling for a few months until I can recover from the shock a little. It is so terrible to me to have to write this dreadful news. Will you please tell the others of our loss? Love to all. I will write again and give you my address—probably next in France." The letter was signed "Doctor," and the envelope is postmarked "London, W.C. 10.30 a.m. 7 April '10." My sister brought the letter to me; I had seen it previously in my father's house.

Cross-examined. Belle Elmore was my full sister. Our father, who married twice, was a Pole.

To the Court. I could not judge whether the scar was the scar of an operation or not.

BRUCE MILLER , real estate agent, East Chicago, Indiana, U.S.A. I was formerly engaged in the music-hall profession and I came to England to follow it. In December, 1899, I met Belle Elmore. I saw her for the last time at 37, Store Street, about the first part of April, 1904. I am now living in Chicago with my family. I have not lived there since 1904, only during the past four years. I traveled when I first went there. There has never been any proposition that Belle Elmore should come out to me; I never heard of such a thing.

To the Court. Since April, 1904, she wrote to me three or four times a year, and always at Christmas, New Year, and my birthday.

Cross-examined. Next December I shall have been four years an estate agent. I took up that profession because I was tired of the show business and thought I could make more money. I was not a failure on the stage. I first met Mrs. Crippen at a house in Torrington Square. I understood her husband was then in America. He returned about four or five months after I was first introduced to her. During his absence I very often visited her at Her house; I think it

was in Guilford Street. I do not know how many rooms she had there, as I only went into one. I would sometimes visit her two or three times a week and sometimes I would not see her for two or three weeks. I would visit her sometimes in the afternoon and sometimes in the evening. When I first met her I was on my way to the Paris Exposition, where I had some music hall attractions. I was in Paris eight to twelve weeks. I was not on the stage during the time prisoner was away; I was in a sort of partnership with some people in an undertaking connected with the Paris Exposition. I wrote to her from Paris often enough to be sociable. I was not writing to her as a lover. I was fond of her; I do not know that I even put it in that way to her, but she always understood it, I suppose. I thought a great deal of her as far as friendship was concerned, but she being a married lady it was platonic. I could not be more than a friend, because she was a married lady and I was a married man. There were no improper relations between us. I often wrote very friendly letters to her; I might say they were affectionate. Some others, it is true, ended “Love and kisses to Brown Eyes.” I consider, under the circumstances–prisoner knowing all about it–that they were proper letters to write. I cnnot say when I wrote them; it is such a long time ago. I wrote them about the time I was away in Paris. Prisoner knew all about it when he came back in May, 1900; I do not mean that he knew of them at the time they were written. I do not agree now that they were improper letters. I have never been with her to any house in London for the purpose of illicit relationship. All I have done is to kiss her–no more. The last time I wrote to her was some time after Easter Sunday of this year, and I got no answer. I wrote to her on January 5; I do not remember that it was an affectionate letter, but it was very short, because it was a reply to a card of hers, I think. I may have written letters to her in 1909 saying, “Love and kisses to Brown Eyes”; sometimes I wrote to her in that way and sometimes I did not. I should be still very fond of her if she were here. We have always been very good friends and I should not stop now. She wrote letters back to me; they were perhaps not quite so endearing; they were friendly and usually very short. My wife has read them. Mrs. Crippen did not discourage the expressions I used in my letters; she said nothing about them in her letters.

Re-examined. A friend of mine and I were occupying apartments in Torrington Square. I was out to dinner and returned about 7 p.m. for something I had forgotten, when I found her dining with this friend who introduced me to her. I have visited her both at Store Street and Guilford Street when prisoner has been there. These are two of my photographs that I gave her (produced), one of which I remember she put on her piano. At the time I left two other photographs of mine which were larger were hanging in her parlour; prisoner was in London then. Nothing was kept secret from him.

To the court. There were never improper relations between us. I never actually met prisoner between May, 1900, and April, 1904. I always called on Mrs. Crippen whenever I thought I would. I never

tried to avoid prisoner. On several occasions I had reason to believe that he was in the house as well as I. I would always have been glad at any time to have met him, and was expecting to do so. The photograph produced I gave her the first year I met her, and the larger ones a short time before I left for America.

MELINDA MAY , secretary of the Music Hall Ladies, Guild. I knew Mrs. Crippen; she was treasurer of the Guild for two years and attended every Wednesday at the meetings. I last saw her at the meeting on January 26, when she was in her usual good health and spirits—quite bright. I have known prisoner over two years; I have visited them at their house in Hilldrop Crescent. There was a meeting of the Guild on February 2 at which I should have expected Mrs. Crippen to attend, but she did not come. At 12.50 p.m. Miss Le Neve came with the pass book, paying-in book, a cheque book, a letter to myself and one to the committee. The letter to myself (Exhibit 33) ran: "Dear Miss May,—The illness of a near relative has called me to America on only a few hours, notice, so I must ask you to bring my resignation as treasurer before the meeting to-day, so that the new treasurer may be elected at once. You will appreciate my haste when I tell you that I have not been to bed all night, packing and getting ready to go. I shall hope to see you again a few months later, but cannot spare a moment to come to you before I go. I wish you everything nice until I return to London again. Now good-bye, with love. Hastily yours—BELLE ELMORE. Per pro., H.H.C." That is not in her writing. The letter to the committee (Exhibit 34) ran: "Dear Friends,—Please forgive me a hasty letter and any inconvenience I may cause you, but I have just had news of the illness of a near relative, and at only a few hours, notice I am obliged to go to America. Under the circumstances, I cannot return for several months, and I therefore beg you to accept this as a formal resignation from this date of the honorary treasurership of the Music Hall Ladies, Guild. I am enclosing the cheque book and the deposit book for the immediate use of my successor, and, to save any delay, I beg to suggest you should vote to suspend the usual rules of election and elect to-day a new treasurer. I hope, some months later, to be with you, and, in the meantime, wish the Guild every success, and I ask my good friends and pals to accept my sincere and loving wishes for their own personal welfare—Believe me, yours faithfully, BELLE ELMORE." That letter also is not in her writing. I know her writing well. A fresh treasurer was elected that afternoon. On about February 17 I saw prisoner in the corridor of the Guild at Albion House, and I said to him that I trusted he would not think me bold if I mentioned that his wife's subscription had become due, and I asked him to let me have her address. He said she was right up in the mountains in California, and if I would hand him the letter be would forward it on and no doubt she would authorise him to pay me the guinea. I wrote a letter and left it in his office to direct and send on to her. I saw him several times in March. On March 23 he told me she was very ill indeed and he was waiting for worse news. (Witness identified several articles of jewellery, furs, etc., as having

been worn by Mrs. Crippen; these included the jewellery found by Inspector Dew in prisoner's possession when he was arrested.)

Cross-examined. The two letters just read are not in the least like Mrs. Crippen's handwriting. I was shown three jars containing hair (Exhibits 44, 45, and 46) by Sergeant Mitchell, and he asked me if it looked like her hair. Two lots were in long pans, and I said I did not recognise one sample, it was darker than hers, and the fair one was rather like hers. I had been told they came from Hilldrop Crescent.

Re-examined. Exhibits 44 and 46 I said were darker and 45 was rather like hers. I was shown them the Thursday previous to Mitchell going away.

EMILY JACKSON , wife of Robert Jackson. In 1908 I was living at 80, Constantine Road, Hampstead. In September of the year Miss Le Neve came as a lodger. She slept there every night till March, 1909, when she went away. She returned in August, and continued living with me up to March 12 of this year. Some time in February she began to sleep away from home, and then shortly afterwards she slept away altogether. Previous to February she slept away occasionally—at her sister's she told me. In January or the early part of February I noticed that she began wearing jewellery that she had not been wearing before, particularly some rings, bracelets, and a watch (similar to articles produced). She wore a plain gold gentleman's ring on the wedding ring finger. I produce a list of the clothes which she gave me at different times. She had previously only given me a few odd clothes of her own—nothing to speak of. On one occasion she and prisoner brought some things in a dress basket. Once before March 12 I visited her at Hilldrop Crescent, and twice since. She was by herself the first time; with a French maid the second time; and with prisoner and the French maid the third time. I saw her for the last time the night before Inspector Dew's first visit to Hilldrop Crescent.

Cross-examined. I was very friendly with her. I saw prisoner several times, and he always gave me the impression of being a goodtempered and kind-hearted man. I said at the police-court that he was one of the nicest men I had ever met.

FREDERICK PEDGRIFT , manager, "Era" Newspaper Company. On March 24 a letter came to the office (which has since been destroyed), in consequence of which we inserted in the "Era" of the 26th, under the heading of "Deaths," the announcement of Belle Elmore's death. A postal order for 10s. accompanied it. The price for the announcement being 1s. 6d., we returned 8s. 6d., and received this letter (Exhibit 51): "Dr. H. H. Crippen, 59 and 61, New Oxford Street. March 20, 1910. Dear Sir,—I beg to thank you for the return of the balance, 8s. 6d. for the 10s. sent for announcement.—Yours faithfully, H. H. Crippen E.L.N." It was all typewritten. (Mr. Tobin admitted that the announcement was inserted on prisoner's instructions.)

ERNEST WILLIAM STUART , manager, Attenborough, Limited, pawnbrokers, 142, Oxford Street. On February 2 a person, whom I believe to be prisoner, brought a diamond marquise ring and a pair of diamond earrings and pawned them. I lent £80 on them, and he signed the

contract note in my presence, "H. H. Crippen, 39, Hilldrop Crescent." On February 9 he came again bringing a diamond brooch and six diamond rings, and I advanced £115. He signed the contract note "H. H. Crippen" in my presence. I do not know whether I paid him in notes or gold, but we usually pay large amounts in notes. Our bankers are the London and County Bank, Oxford Street.

Cross-examined. I have heard that prisoner was quite well known at our shop by both name and address. I have not heard that he has had several articles of jewellery pawned; he has had them repaired. He may have pawned several things, but I do not know. There was no difficulty in giving his name and address when the police called.

To the Court. I should think the things he pawned would be worth altogether £230.

CHARLES JOHN WILLIAMS , clerk to Bank of England. I produce a £100 Bank of England note, No. 52688 (Exhibit 52) issued to the London County and Westminster Bank on February 4,1910. I see on the back, "M. L. Kernow."

FREDERICK HALES , cashier, London County and Westminster Bank, Berners Street. Messrs. Attenborough and Company, Limited, have an account with us. This note, No. 52688, was issued by us to them on February 9.

MARIN LOUISA KERNOW , manageress, Munyon's Remedies, Albion House. For some time before and up to November, 1909, prisoner was manager at £3 a week. Between that time and January 31 of this year he was agent on commission and no salary, I on February 1 becoming manageress in his place. His connection with us ceased on that day. I generally spoke to Mrs. Crippen when she came into the office. I did not know her well. About the end of February I heard through the telephone that she was away from London. I spoke to prisoner about it and he said, "She has gone for a trip to America." I heard at Easter time that she was dead. I asked prisoner, who had been away, if he had enjoyed his holiday, and he said as well as he could under the circumstances. I said, "Then is it true that Mrs. Crippen is dead V and he bowed his head. Miss Le Neve was employed in the same building with the Yale Tooth Specialists. I do not know where she was at Easter time. On February 3 I changed some small notes for prisoner. On February 9 I changed for prisoner this £100 note (Exhibit 52), which bears my endorsement. At the beginning of March he asked me to put two envelopes, one marked "Dr. Crippen" and the other "Dr. Crippen, personal," in our safe, and I put them there. About 4 or 4.30 p.m. on July 8 he asked me if anybody knew I had anything of his in the safe, and I said "No." He said, "If anyone should ask you, say nothing, and if anything happens to me please give what you have there to Miss Le Neve." I said, "All right." I opened them on July 11 and in one I found nine deposit notes on the Charing Cross Bank amounting in all to £600, and some other papers, and in the other I found some jewellery. On the morning of July 9 prisoner asked me if I would let him know what he owed me and he would settle up. There was an outstanding account of £5 which he paid me. This cheque (Exhibit 61) bearing

his and Belle Elmore's signature, dated July 9, he filled in in my presence. It had already Belle Elmore's signature. He asked me to cash it for him, and he produced me the pass-book to show there was £37 odd in the bank. I cashed it for him. Munyon's Remedies do not make any of their remedies or purchase any drugs in this country. On January 19 last I was working with prisoner. I was keeping the books. I know nothing about the purchase of hyoscine on that date; no cash was paid out for such a purpose, nor is there any entry in any book. Exhibit 71 is in prisoner's handwriting, as are also Exhibits 33 and 34, with the exception of Belle Elmore's signatures.

Cross-examined. I have known prisoner about 12 years, and I have been in contact with him endless times. I have always thought him a kind-hearted and amiable man. He used to compound all the prescriptions that went by post. I do not know that he had to buy drugs for the purpose. If he bought drugs it had nothing to do with Munyon's; it was for his own private patients. He had a room of his own in Albion House, where he was generally alone. I do not know what he kept there. I did not notice any cupboard; I do not think there was one. I do not know that he had a general medical practice; but I knew he was a specialist in the eyes, ears, throat, and nose. He continued compounding prescriptions after he ceased to be agent for Munyon's, but I do not know if he had to buy drugs for the purpose. He then became connected with the Yale Tooth Specialist business; he used to come in almost every morning to see me; it was on the same floor as Munyon's, but it had nothing to do with it. In the first week of February and the following fortnight he came in regularly every day, and I cannot say that I noticed any sign of agitation or terror in his face; there was nothing unusual about him.

Re-examined. I think he had patients as a general practitioner besides being an expert in certain things.

GILBERT MERVIN RYLANCE . I now carry on business in my own name as a surgeon-dentist at Albion House. About the middle of 1907 I met prisoner for the first time. In 1908 we started business at Albion House in the name of "The Yale Tooth Specialists." Between March and April this year there was an agreement by which he put £200 into the business, I contributing my experience and skill, and we were to share profits. On about January 26 I saw Mrs. Crippen. On about February 1 or 2 prisoner asked me whether I had not noticed that he was lonely, and said that his wife was half-way across to America, where she was going on legal business in connection with his mother's death. About March 24 a lady came to my place with a telegram saying that Mrs. Crippen was dead. Prisoner was away at Dieppe with Miss Le Neve. He had told me that he was going there with her and her aunt a few days before Easter. When he returned I asked him after his wife; he told me that she was dead, and said that he had not sent a telegram so as not to spoil my holiday. On July 9 I got to business about 11 a.m.; I saw prisoner for the last time that day between 12 and 1. I did not see him again till he was

at Bow Street. On the Monday morning I received this letter, dated July 9, headed on our own paper: "Dear Dr. Rylance, I now find in order to escape trouble I shall be obliged to absent myself for a time. I believe the business as it is now going on you will run on all right so far as money matters are concerned. If you want to give notice you should give six months' notice in my name on September 25, 1910. I shall write you later on more fully. With kind wishes for your success, yours sincerely, H. H. Crippen." I kept on the business in my own name. I had seen Inspector Dew in the office on July 8 and on the 9th I asked prisoner who he was. He said he was a Scotland Yard officer, and he had come to find out if Mrs. Crippen had any estates on which she had to pay taxes. About a week after he returned from Dieppe prisoner told me he had married Miss Le Neve; that would be a fortnight after the announcement of Mrs. Crippen's death.

Cross-examined. I knew prisoner was making up private prescriptions.

WILLIAM LONG , dental mechanic. I have known prisoner since 1896, and have been in various businesses with him since then. It was about 1901 or 1902 that I first met Miss Le Neve; she was then a typist at the Douet Institute, to which prisoner was the consulting specialist. As far as I know she has been in the same employment as prisoner ever since. His usual time to come to the office was between 10 and 10.30 a.m. Between 9.15 and 9.30 a.m. on July 9 of this year when I arrived he was there. I asked him if there was any trouble, and he said, "Only a little scandal." He gave me a list of things to buy, and I bought the articles produced—a boy's brown tweed suit, a brown felt hat, two shirts, two collars, a tie, and a pair of boots—all for a boy. I took them to the back room on the third floor of the Yale Tooth Specialists, and prisoner told me to take them to another room of the company on the fourth floor, and I did so. I saw Miss Le Neve about 11 o'clock that morning. She was wearing a hat, but I could not describe it. I saw her for the last time that day at 11.30 a.m. and prisoner at 1 p.m. I did not know that he was going to leave. On the evening of July 9 I got this letter from him; the time of posting is 4.15 p.m.: "Dear Mr. Long, Will you do me the great favour of Winding up as best you can my household affairs. There is £12 10s. due to my landlord and the past quarter's rent, and there will be also this quarter's rent. The total due to him is £25, in lieu of which he can seize the contents of the house. I cannot manage about the girl. She will have to get back to Paris. She should have sufficient saved from her wages to do this. After the girl leaves kindly send the keys with a note explaining to the landlord. Thanking you in anticipation of fulfilling my wishes, I am, with best wishes for your future success and happiness, your faithfully, H. H. Crippen." The letter enclosed a key, and with it I went the same evening to Hilldrop Crescent and took possession of the goods there. It was too late to do anything with them then, but on the Monday afternoon some of the things were pawned by my wife; she went round there to give the French maid some food. The police came there. I went round in the

evening, and saw my wife find on the sofa this slip of paper (Exhibit 41) in prisoner's handwriting, "Mackomatzi. Will Belle Elmore communicate with H. H. C. or authorities at once. Serious trouble from your absence. 25 dollars reward to anyone communicating her where-abouts to." I found there a hat I had seen Miss Le Neve wear and a suit of clothes. The police sent the French maid back to France. On two occasions between February 1 and that date I moved things from there to Albion House in a van. Amongst other things there was a wooden box in which I saw found after prisoner had gone away this ermine jacket and this white fur. About two or three months before he went away prisoner gave me some of his clothing, some old theatrical clothing, and a few feminine vests and stockings.

Cross-examined. I have always found him a kind-hearted and an amiable man. I cannot say whether he had a general practice, but I know he always used to make up special prescriptions for which he would have to buy drugs. He used to buy bottles; I cannot say where he kept them up to November, 1909, but between that time and February 1 he kept them in a cupboard in the room that was used as an office. Early in February he came to the office just the same as usual; he did not omit a single day. He showed no trace of uneasiness, and his appearance was not worried; there was no trace of abruptness; he was as kind as ever.

Re-examined. In the business he carried on he had books which Miss Le Neve kept.

EDGAR BRETT , assistant manager, Charing Cross Bank, Bedford Street, Strand. On September 20, 1903, a current account was opened in the joint names of "Belle Elmore and H. H. Crippen, Store Street, Tottenham Court Road" (certified copy produced). On January 31, 1910, it was in debit £2 7s. 8d. and on the next day that was increased to £2 13s. 11d. On that day £17 13s. 9d. was paid in in cash and on February 3 another £40 was paid in in cash. For the rest of the time the account remained in credit. On June 30 there was a credit balance of £37 19s. 4d., which continued to July 11, when we honoured a cheque or £37. On March 15, 1906, a deposit account was opened in the joint names of "Belle Elmore and H. H. Crippen" by a payment in of £250. (Certified copy produced.) That could be drawn out by one signature, but we should want the authority of the other. On September 20, 1906, £50 was paid in in the sole name of Belle Elmore and on May 27 another £100. Eventually £600 was paid in-£270 in the two names and £323 in Belle Elmore's name. That money bore interest at 7 per cent, and was subject to a twelve months' notice of withdrawal, which we got on December 15, 1909, signed by Belle Elmore only, which not with-standing that we accepted; on the expiry of the notice we should have paid without prisoner's signature. He has never attempted to draw any money out or to raise any loan upon it.

Cross-examined. It is quite common, where husband and wife have a joint current account, for the wife to sign a cheque and the husband to put in the amount afterwards. The £600 would not be payable till December 11, 1910. Prisoner sometimes himself paid in money

to the deposit account in the joint names, and I believe he also paid in to the Belle Elmore deposit account. I have one form signed by him. He signed a good many of the receipts for interest on both deposit accounts; he came for the interest himself. We had verbal authority from the wife to hand him the interest. We should require both their signatures on the current account cheques.

(Wednesday, October 19.)

Chief Inspector WALTER DEW. On June 30 a Mr. Nash called at Scotland Yard and made a statement, and I was instructed to make inquiries with reference to the disappearance of Mrs. Crippen. On July 8 I went to 39, Hilldrop Crescent and there saw Le Neve; prisoner was not in the house. Le Neve accompanied me to Albion House and I there saw prisoner; he was then wearing a heavy moustache. On telling him that his wife's friends were not satisfied with what he had told them as to his wife's disappearance, and that after making inquiries I also was not satisfied, he said, "I suppose I had better tell the truth. The stories I have told them about her death are untrue; as far as I know she is still alive." He then made a statement, which was taken down by Sergeant Mitchell and signed by prisoner.

(The statement was read. In it prisoner said that he was a doctor, that he took the degree of M.D. at the Hospital College at Cleveland, United States, that he came over to England in 1883, that he was married in New York to a lady named Bell, who died in 1890 or 1891, and that in 1893 he met Belle Elmore, whose name at the time was Cora Turner, and who at that time was only 17 years of age and was living under the protection of a man. Prisoner said that he found her very attractive, that she told him she was going to run away from the man under whose protection she was living, and that rather than she should do that he married her in Jersey City in 1893. Prisoner then gave a description of various places in which he and his wife lived, and said that eventually, about 1900, he came to England alone, his wife coming shortly afterwards and taking up her residence with him. She used to go in for music hall sketches, although he objected to her doing so. He went to America from November to June, and when he came back he found that an American music-hall artist named Bruce Miller had been a frequent visitor to her at their house. She told him that this man had taken her about, that he was very fond of her, and she of him. Prisoner said that he had seen letters to his wife from Bruce Miller ending "With love and kisses to Brown Eyes." When his wife came to England from America her manner towards him had entirely changed; she had developed a most ungovernable temper, and seemed to think he was not good enough for her. She boasted of a man in a good position who had made a fuss of her. He never saw the man Bruce Miller, but Miller called when he was out and took her out in the evening. She and prisoner continued to live together apparently happily, but there were frequent occasions on which she got into violent tempers,

and threatened to leave him, saying she had a man she could go to. Some time after this he ceased to cohabit with her, but never interfered with her movements. They were of no interest to him. On January 31, the day before he wrote the letter resigning her position from the Guild, Mr. and Mrs. Martinetti came to their place to dinner, and after they had left his wife abused him and said she would not stand it any longer; she would leave him next day and he would not hear of her again, and he might cover up the scandal with their mutual friends and the Guild the best way he could. On returning home from business on the evening of February 1 he found she was gone. He sat down to think how to cover up the scandal, and wrote a letter to the Guild saying she had gone away. He afterwards told people that she was ill with bronchitis and pneumonia, and had died in California. What-ever he had said to other people regarding her death was wrong, and he was giving this as an explanation. It was not true that she went away on legal business or to see relatives in America. He did not receive any cables to say she was ill, and it was not true that she was cremated in San Francisco, or that the ashes were sent to him. Prisoner further stated that when his wife went away she took some of her jewellery, but left four rings behind. He had never sold or pawned anything belonging to her. Le Neve was then living with him as his wife at Hilldrop Crescent. He had been intimate with her for three years. After he had told people that his wife was dead he and Le Neve went to Dieppe for five days and stayed at a hotel there in the name of Mr. and Mrs. Crippen. His belief was that his wife had gone to Chicago to join Bruce Miller.)

After taking this statement from prisoner and also a written statement from the Neve I suggested to prisoner that I should accompany him back to 39, Hilldrop Crescent and go over the house; he agreed readily. We went back, and he showed me into every room in the house, and the cellar. I asked to see the jewellery his wife had left behind her, and he showed me Exhibits 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11. I fold him, "Of course, I shall have to find Mrs. Crippen to clear this matter up" He said, "Yes; I will do anything I can; would an advertisement be any good?" I said I thought it an excellent idea; he wrote out the draft advertisement (Exhibit 41), and said he would insert it in various American newspapers; I left the draft advertisement with him. I continued my inquiries, and on July 11 (having first found that prisoner was not at Albion House) I went to 39, Hilldrop Crescent; there was no one in the house. I found on a table Exhibit 41. I searched the house and the cellar, and dug up portions of the garden. That day I circulated a description of prisoner and Le Neve to various ports in England and abroad. On July 12 and 13 I further examined the house; on the 13th I determined to closely examine the cellar. It had a brick floor: I probed about with a poker; at one place I found that the poker went rather easily in between the crevices, and I got a few bricks up. I then got a spade and dug the clay immediately beneath the bricks. After digging about four spadesfull down, that is, about nine inches below, I came across what appeared to be human remains. I sent for Dr. Marshall, the Divisional Surgeon, and for Sir Melville Macnaghten, the chief of the Criminal

Investigation Department. On the 14th Dr. Marshall came with Mr. Pepper, and on their instructions the remains were put into a coffin and removed to the mortuary. On searching the house itself I found a quantity of woman's clothes and jewellery. In a bedroom I found a box containing two suits of pyjamas (Exhibit 76), and one odd pair of pyjama trousers (Exhibit 48). I looked for, but could not find, any jacket to correspond with the odd trousers. I found prisoner's diploma from the Cleveland Hospital College. On July 16 a warrant was issued for prisoner's arrest, and was entrusted to me for execution. Having received certain information, I proceeded to Canada, [It should be recorded that the "certain information" was conveyed to the authorities by wireless telegraphy from the captain of the "Montrose," at see, enabling the officer to proceed to Canada by a faster vessel, and meet the "Montrose" on its arrival in the St. Lawrence.] On July 31 I boarded the "Montrose" (the vessel in which prisoner and Le Neve had travelled from Antwerp) on her arrival at Father Point. On deck I saw prisoner; he was then clean shaven. He was brought into the captain's cabin. I said to him, "You will be arrested for the murder and mutilation of your wife in London about February 2." Chief Inspector McCarthy, of the Canadian Provincial Police, cautioned him, and he made no reply. On searching prisoner I found upon him four rings and two brooches, also two cards. I went to another cabin, where I found Le Neve; she was dressed as a boy, with her hair cut short. After speaking to her, I returned to prisoner. He said, "I am not sorry, the anxiety has been too much." I read the warrant in detail to him; he made no reply. McCarthy then handcuffed prisoner; I said to him, "We must put these on, because on a card found on you you have written that you intend jumping overboard." He said, "I won't; I am more than satisfied, because the anxiety has been too awful." The two cards have upon them in print, "E. Robinson and Co., Detroit, Mich. Presented by Mr. John Robinson." On the back of one (Exhibit 2) is written, "I cannot stand the horrors I go through every night any longer. As I see nothing bright ahead, and money has come to an end, I have made up my mind to jump overboard to-night. I know I have spoilt your life, but I hope some day you can learn to forgive me. With last words of love, yours, H." On the other card (Exhibit 3) is written, "Shall we wait until to-night, 10 or 11 o'clock; if not what time." I believe this writing to be that of the prisoner. Prisoner and Le Neve had occupied one two-berth cabin; their passages were booked in the name of John Robinson aged 55, merchant, and John C. Robinson, aged 16, student; they passed as father and son. While prisoner was being further searched he said to me, "How is Miss Le Neve?" I said, "Agitated, but I am doing all I can for her." He said, "It is only fair to say that she knows nothing about it; I never told her anything." On August 20 I left Canada for England with prisoner and Le Neve in custody. During the voyage, on August 24, while I was taking prisoner for deck exercise, he said, "I want to ask you a favour. When you took me off the ship I did net see Miss Le Neve, and do not know how things will go; they may go all right or they may go all wrong with me, and I

may never see her again. I want to ask you if you will let me see her, but I won't speak to her. She has been my only comfort for the last three years." On being formally charged at Bow Street prisoner made no reply. (Witness identified a quantity of clothing and two photographs of Bruce Miller found at 39, Hilldrop Crescent.)

To the Court. On the occasion of my finding the remains, the bricks were held together very firmly by the clay; I do not think mortar had been used.

Cross-examined. I have no doubt that my first visit to Hilldrop Crescent was a surprise visit to Miss Le Neve, and equally my visit to prisoner, escorted by her to the place of business in Albion House, was a surprise visit. At that interview I put a number of questions to prisoner, who answered every one of them quite readily. He also readily agreed to go back with me to Hilldrop Crescent. We went into every room; prisoner did not attempt to conceal anything. I said I would like to go into the cellar, and prisoner came with me; he showed not the slightest trace of worry or anxiety, but was perfectly cool. The remains were found about the middle of the cellar floor, the spot being covered by some coal—not much—and rubbish. At that time I had not seen sufficient ground for arrest, but I told prisoner that I was not satisfied. When I said to him, "I must find Mrs. Crippen," he indicated no alarm or fright. The remains were close packed, with clay above them; but the clay was looser there than what was found in other parts of the cellar, where there were no remains. It was a heavy soil. The remains were found over an area about 4 ft. 1 in. in length and 20 in. wide. It was pretty regular. The remains were all mixed up in a mass with lime. The lime was all round the remains, over them, under them, and at the sides, but not placed between the pieces in the sense of layers. The bits of skin and so forth were all jumbled up together. I could not make a sufficiently close examination to say whether some portions of the skin was folded over others. With regard to Exhibits 2 and 3, I am quite satisfied that the cards had been written before I boarded the "Montrose." From my inquiries I found that up to within the last four years Mrs. Crippen earned some money, not much, at suburban and local music-halls. So far as I know, it is the fact that at the time of his flight prisoner left no unpaid debts.

Re-examined. At the time of his arrest and on the voyage back to England prisoner appeared to be quite calm and collected and not at all dejected; there was no difference in the manner after his arrest to what it had been before. In the hole where' the remains lay the earth was very firm, as if it had never been disturbed. It was only at this one place that I found the bricks had been loosened. I had previously tested round the sides of the cellar and at each end, and it was when I came to this spot that I found the bricks loose; the othere were quite firm. In my judgment, the area of loose bricks almost corresponded with the hole.

ALBERT FRANK LEVERTON , an undertaker, spoke to the removal of the remains, etc., from the cellar to the mortuary.

Police-constable DANIEL GOOCH, 501 Y, spoke to placing the remains in a shell for removal by Leverton.

AUGUSTUS JOSEPH PEPPER . I am a Master in Surgery, London University, F.R.C.P., consulting surgeon to St. Mary's Hospital, and have been in active practice as a surgeon for about 35 years. On July 14 I went with Dew to 39, Hilldrop Crescent and met Dr. Marshall there. In the cellar I found that part of the floor had been pulled up, and in a hole in the ground I saw what appeared to be animal remains. I looked at the soil to see what it was composed of, and found it was partly loam and partly clay. Mixed with these there was lime. The remains were removed to the mortuary in a shell. They included, besides some tufts of hair, a large piece of flesh composed of skin, fat, and muscle from the thigh and lower part of the buttock of a human being, and another small piece. The head was missing, and there was no bone or part of a bone, but, except the organs of generation, all the internal organs were found. On July 15 I found a piece of skin with some fat attached to it measuring 11 in. by 9 in. that came from the upper part of the abdomen and lower part of the chest. I found another piece of skin 7 in. by 6 in. which came from the lower part, the front portion of the abdomen. A mark upon it attracted my attention, and I afterwards examined it with great particularity, spending several hours on the examination; I came to the conclusion that it was the mark of a scar. The scar would have been visible upon the skin. When that piece was in position on the human body it would be in the middle line in front; it may have been a little to the left; it began just above the pubes and extended for 4 inches or a little over. The whole scar was complete, there being a piece of flesh beyond it. It was quite an old scar. I found no trace of genitals at all; there were no certain anatomical indications of sex. There was pubic hair upon the piece of flesh. There were also found with the remains fragments of a woman's cotton combinations and a portion from the neck part of a pyjama jacket; the latter bore the maker's label, "Shirt makers, Jones Brothers (Holloway), Limited, Holloway, N." The same label appears on the jackets of the two suits (Exhibit 76). Judging by the way in which the viscera had been extracted, I think it must have been done by a person skilled in removing viscera—skilled in dissection; I do not say skilled in dissection of human beings, but in evisceration of animals; there was no cut or tear in any part, except where it was necessary for the removal; all the organs were connected together; he diaphragm or the septum between the chest and the abdomen had, of course, been cut round; such an operation would certainly require skill. There were none of the organs of generation; some of these may have been removed during life; the scar I saw was such as would be occasioned by an operation for the removal of the pelvic organs, or the ovaries, or both combined. I am of opinion that the remains had been buried for from four to eight months; in forming that opinion I take into consideration the place where they were buried, the surrounding materials, and the depth, and the fact that they must have been buried very shortly after death. It is quite impossible

that they were buried there before September, 1905. (Witness spoke to placing in glass jars various fragments and articles, including some hair in a Hinde curler and a tuft of hair in a handkerchief.) I measured the hair found in the Hinde curler. The longest hairs were 8 inches and the shortest 2£ inches; of course, there are intermediate lengths. In my opinion, being of that length and bleached partly, the hair would be a woman's; I mean the dark brown, the part not in the curler, and light brown in the curler. The ark brown was the hair of the root. The roots were present. The hair placed by me in the third jar is now decidedly darker than when I first saw it; I am referring particularly to that part in the curler. The portion of hair I found in the handkerchief I think also is slightly darker now. This is in both cases partly due to the drying, and being more compressed together; possibly also the bleaching effect has gone off somewhat. On August 5 I examined some hair at St. Mary's Hospital; the greater part was two to three inches long; the longest six inches. The colour was dark brown, shading off to light brown. All the specimens of hair are somewhat darker now than when first discovered. On August 8 I examined two loose hairs at the mortuary. They were lying loose on a part of the abdominal wall; one was 5£ inches and the other 8 inches. They were of the same colour as the other hair—dark brown. It was a woman's hair. I also examined some hair that I believe to be pubic hair. Those hairs were twenty in number; some were free from the surface, others were still fixed; by "free" I mean not attached to the skin. They were dark brown in colour, corresponding with the undyed hair. They were from half an inch to one inch in length; they showed the roots at one end, and the other end tapered off. In all the other specimens the hair, of course, had been cut—roots at one end, cut at the other. This showed roots at one end, and the other end tapered. I found the stomach and the kidneys and the heart and the liver and the pancreas all healthy as far as one could tell. There was no sign of disease nor anything to account for death. The spleen was very soft, as one would expect from decomposition. The intestines were healthy. The lungs were more advanced in decomposition than the other organs, except the spleen, but there was no consolidation and no sign of there having been pleurisy—no marks on the surface. Prom the remains I examined I should say that the person in life was an adult, young or middle-aged, and of stout figure. The kidneys were in an exceedingly good state of preservation. On September 9 I was present at St. Mary's Hospital when a piece of the skin, bearing the mark which I have said is an old scar, was removed for microscopical examination. I was also present when that piece was microscopically examined on September 13 by Dr. Spilsbury. I examined it in that way myself, and my examination confirmed me in my previous opinion that it was a scar, although I had not the slightest doubt about it, even apart from microscopical examination.

Cross-examined. Taking a mass of human remains like these by themselves, it is quite impossible to tell sex except upon anatomical grounds. To remove these organs in the way they were removed would

require a practised hand and eye. I will not say that it would require someone accustomed to dissection; if a person had once learnt how to do it he could do it. It was not a minute dissection; it was a particular kind of work. I first formed an opinion as to the length of burial on July 15. When I went to 39, Hilldrop Crescent on July 14 Dew was there, but I do not remember that I was told that the woman was said to have disappeared about February 15 of this year. I agree that I would have heard that very soon after if not on the 14th. I agree that it is quite beyond the reach of science to determine with accuracy the period of death from the progress of putrefaction, and that "two different bodies buried in the same soil and under apparently similar conditions frequently present such differences as to baffle all attempts at generalisation." As to whether putrefaction would be retarded by the presence with the remains of lime or clay, I say that there are two kinds of decomposition taking place in dead bodies—one where the body is freely exposed to the air and warmth, and the other where it is damp and largely excluded from the air. That is what happened in this case. Lime and clay would retard the common form of putrefaction, but the presence of damp clay would favour the change which happened in this case. It was not putrefaction in the ordinary sense. It was a peculiar change; the tissues became converted into a kind of soap, the technical name of which is adipocere. I agree that, buried in clay, adipocere would be created more quickly, and ordinary putrefaction would be retarded. Taking a person of Mrs. Crippen's age and build, the normal weight of the kidney of a woman like that would vary from 3 to 4 oz.; it might be as much as 4 1/2 oz.; it is subject to considerable variation. I think the weight of the kidney in this case was 2 3/4 oz. That would be due largely to the removal of moisture from the kidney—desiccation. There was some change in the kidney; I did not want to use the word "putrefaction." I do not accept the suggestion that there was ordinary putrefaction; there was very decided formation of adipocerous. Before I formed an opinion that the mark on the skin was a scar I had already heard that Mrs. Crippen had had an operation. I cannot pledge myself as to the date. It may have been close on a week after I first saw the remains. It is the fact that running at right "angles to the navel there are what are called tendinous intersections or white fibres at right angles to the vertical axis of the body, that is to say, to the perpendicular line up the stomach. There are also tendinous intersections at right angles in that sense on a level with the bottom of the breast bone, and also as a rule three tendinous intersections at right angles between those two points—the navel and the bottom of the breast bone. There may be also tendinous intersections a little below the navel, but that varies very much; it is not so common as the other. I believe a navel must originally have been upon that piece of skin. It is possible, of course, that it was not. If my opinion is right, it must have been removed from that piece of skin. There is no trace whatever there for the tendinous intersections running at right angles to the navel. I think the navel was originally at the top of the scar, or what you call a horseshoe depression. I

must not be taken to say that it is actually the shape of a horse-shoe, because one side is nearly straight. I should say that the scar is not so long as the wound of the operation would have been. I should not necessarily expect to find tendinous intersections at right angles to what was originally the site of the navel; they might not be found, because tendinous intersection does not involve the skin; it only involves the muscles underneath, and there the muscles have been cut away. The linea alba is a thin white vertical line from the chest running down to the pubic bone. Of course there is no line to be seen on the surface of the skin; it indicates where the tendons underneath are joined. One never sees the linea alba on the chest. It is underneath the surface. There is not enough there for the linea alba to exist if the flesh really did come from the lower part of the abdomen, because there is only one muscle on one side there. I can hardly express an opinion as to whether very great dexterity would not be required to remove the peritoneum; I never saw any one attempt to remove it. There is no trace of the peritoneum here. I agree that it must have been removed, but not by itself; it is simply left with some of the fat; the body has been cut up, and it has been taken out evenly in the whole thickness, with considerable quantities left behind, as shown by the preparations. It was there originally underneath that skin, and it is not there now. I very much doubt if one would recognise it clearly in this condition, but assuming one could see it, of course it would tell one that it was from the abdomen. It was removed during the cutting up of the body. Instead of pieces being taken out at right angles they were cut obliquely. There are on the piece of skin some hairs visible, which I believe to be pubic hairs. They are on one side only of the piece of skin, namely, the right side, as on the body. I agree that, if those are pubic hairs, those on the left side must have fallen out; if they had fallen out on the left side there might have been hairs over other portions of that piece of skin that had also fallen out. There was only one place where pubic hairs were found in this substance, and that was in a line at the bottom. The removal of the navel is an exceedingly common operation. I came to the conclusion that this was a scar within a quarter to half an hour at my first examination. I have not the slightest doubt it is a scar. Before that I had heard that Mrs. Crippen had had an operation there. On July 15 I and Dr. Marshall examined the remains at the mortuary for two hours and three-quarters or three hours. On that occasion I did not see the mark, and the question of scar did not then arise. I do not agree that the condition of that piece of skin made it very difficult to say whether that mark was a scar at all. The left limb of what you call the horseshoe depression was undoubtedly due to a folding of the skin. The scar begins at the lower part, where it is cut across. It is practically straight, slightly curving at the upper part. As to whether that would be as high as the navel would have been, or not as high, or above it, the navel varies exceedingly. The scar being 4 1/2 in. long, one might easily allow an inch for contraction; that would take it to 5 1/2 in. I can hardly say that that would be the distance between the navel and the pubic bone;

I do not know the stoutness of the woman, or her age, and it depends upon whether one starts from the surface or the bone. My contention is that the scar runs on the right side, nearly straight, and that the left limb and the curve of the so-called horseshoe are formed by the fold. I examined microscopically a small piece that was cut out of the centre of the scar. There are on the right side of the scar little groups of transverse lines, four lines in each, at regular intervals. I cannot say whether or not these lines are exactly similar to the pattern on the elastic material of the fragment of underclothing found with the remains. If they are, that might be a clear indication that those marks were caused by the pressure of the materials on the left side, but not on the right. The scar is not a line; it is 7/8 in. wide at the lower part. The marks in groups are on the left side of that. I should say that the marks do not go beyond the area of the scar. Supposing one limb of the horseshoe mark was due to folding and the other side of it due to an operation, and, therefore, a scar, I would not necessarily expect that if a piece was cut across the folded depression and a piece cut across the area of the so-called scar, the cut edges of the piece cut from the so-called scar would be different from the cut edges of the piece of the groove where there never had been a scar at all; because the folding over would attenuate the skin at that part—the continued pressure of it. Both limbs of the so-called horseshoe were cut across. I would not necessarily expect the cut edges of that piece that were originally within the scar to be different in appearance from the cut edges of the skin just outside the area of the so-called scar on each side, because the superficial area of the skin has entirely gone, and this has become hardened and horny; the whole skin on the surface is almost like leather now. I examined, both with the naked eye and with the miscroscope, the bit of skin cut by my directions across and beyond the area of the so-called scar. In the part which I say is the scar the fibres are more densely placed than the fibres forming the skin. A very important point is that there were glands of the skin still remaining in the skin on each side of the scar; there were no remains of glands in the part which I say is scar. An operation would not necessarily cause an alteration in the size, number, and arrangement of the fibres in the part immediately below the surface. A wound going through the entire wall of the abdomen of a woman might unite very accurately indeed, so that afterwards one could not tell really that an operation had been done, except from the line of the scar. That is not a very unusual thing. There must be new tissue which unites the two edges of the wound, of course; one cannot get a scar if there is not new tissue; but it may unite, and frequently does, so accurately that a long time after the operation one could not tell, except by the line on the surface, that an operation had been done. If the scar is not stretched there is a continuous white line. If a scar is stretched, it does not necessarily stretch in a lozenge shape—wider in the middle. A scar at the lower part of the abdomen often does not, because the tendons are frequently separated during the operation, allowing the scar to be wider at the lower end than

at the top; it would be somewhat triangular in shape. This scar is 7/8 inch at the lower part, 1/2 inch at the middle, and 1/4 inch near the top—narrowest at the top and widest at the bottom. It is exactly the scar that I have many times seen after an operation in this part. In the majority of cases, but not in every case, there are marks of stitches visible after an operation. There are here no marks that I can clearly identify as stitches; there are some marks which are doubtful, and, therefore, I am quite ready to admit that they are not marks of stitches. They suggest stitches, but do not prove it; but where there is a scar which has become broad like this, very often the stitch marks become merged in the margin of the scar. Even apart from that, stitch marks frequently disappear altogether.

Re-examined. The presence of the aponeurosis proves absolutely that this part came from the lower abdomen in front. My knowledge, or want of knowledge, as to the date of Mrs. Crippen's disappearance had no effect whatever upon the opinion I formed as to the time those remains had been in the ground, nor had the information that an operation had been done on Mrs. Crippen any effect on my opinion that this is a scar. The fact that the kidney found weighed about 2 1/2 ounces was, in my opinion, due to loss of moisture. This loss of moisture would be very largely due to the presence of the large quantity of lime there; that would abstract the moisture from the parts. Absolute quicklime destroys flesh by abstracting the moisture, becoming converted into hydrate. The presence of damp clay round quick-lime would tend to convert quicklime into slaked lime. It would make he action of the lime less strong. Where there is a moist ground the moisture is abstracted by the lime. When it becomes slaked it does not corrode flesh; a great deal of carbonate of lime is formed, and the carbonate of lime facilitates the formation of adipocere. With regard to the protection or otherwise of the tissues, the slaked lime would practically be inert. It is quite possible that the navel may have been outside the area of this piece of flesh. The distance varies in individuals. In my experience it has varied from about 4 1/2 inches to 6 inches; of course in a very tall person or a very stout person, if one took the curve it might quite easily extend to more than that. I think it most probable that it was within the area of that piece of skin—possibly beyond it. The part of the wall of the abdomen containing the tendinous intersections was not present. Their absence from this piece of flesh does not in any way tend to show that it was not a part of the wall of the abdomen. I am confident that it is part of the wall of the abdomen, and of the lower part of the front of the abdomen. The same observation applies to the linea alba. I have performed many hundreds of abdominal operations. The scar here is such as I have frequently found in my actual practice. Examining these remains on September 9, one could not form an opinion of any value as to how long they had been in the ground, because at that date they had been largely exposed to the air, and the ordinary putrefactive process—decomposition—had attacked them. The piece of skin and flesh we have been examining to-day has, of course, been preserved.

I have examined the section made by Dr. Spilsbury, and I find no glands in the part which I say is a scar. There are glands on each side. There are also glands in the left limb of the so-called horseshoe where the fold was.

To the Court. The appearance of this scar is in accordance with my experience as to the shape of a scar when it becomes a dried and old scar in an abdominal operation. It is bigger at the bottom than at the top; that is the case repeatedly in this situation. One frequently finds, when it does take place between the navel and the pubic region, that that is the shape the scar assumes. I have many times performed operations which involved the removal of the navel; the presence or absence of the navel after operation is not conclusive one way or the other. I have no doubt that this is a scar. The reasons why I say it is in the lower abdominal region, that is, between the navel and the pubes, are these. In the first place, the scar is wider at the bottom than at the top; and, secondly, there is this line of hair which, in my opinion, is pubic hair. The pubic hair goes higher up in some individuals than it does in others. I see no indication of hair in this specimen above the region which I think is the pubic region. I say absolutely that this cannot be a piece of flesh from above the navel. The most common operation in which the middle line between the navel and the pubes is the seat of the scar is operation for removal of the ovaries or uterus, or, in the male, removal of stones from the bladder—taking tumours from the bladder. It is frequently performed there on male subjects. The scar there would be of the same appearance; it would be less likely to be so wide in a male subject, because, as a rule, there is not so much distension. The width at the bottom would point more to a female than to a male subject; the scar usually stretches more. Asked on what he based his opinion that the remains could not have been in the ground longer than eight months and not less than four months, witness said he should have thought they might have been in the ground for eight months if he had paid attention to some parts where the decomposition or change was much more advanced; but, looking at certain parts of the skin and the heart, and the kidneys and the liver, he should have said that, if anything, the time was under four months; they were so exceedingly well preserved. Looking at the general conditions of the organs as they were, he came to the conclusion that they could not have been buried more than eight months; that was allowing a wide margin.

(Thursday, October 20.)

BERNARD EDWARD SPILSBURY , Bachelor of Surgery, Oxford, Pathologist at St. Mary's Hospital. I have on several occasions examined the piece of skin and flesh, the first time on September 9. It comes from the lower part of the wall of the abdomen, near the middle line. I base that opinion upon the presence and the arrangement of certain muscles. There is the rectus muscle, and on one side of that there is an aponeurosis, attached to which are other pieces of muscle. Confirmation

of my opinion is afforded by the existence at the lower margin of the piece of a row of short, dark hairs; those are pubic hairs. On September 9 I made a section across the middle of what I regard as a scar and examined it under the microscope. There was no epidermis on the surface of the mark, but I found a small mass embedded deeply in it at one spot. This indicates to me the line of incision of the skin at the operation which caused the scar. At each end of the section on either side of the scar there were glands, but there were no glands in the scar itself. On the other hand, there were glands in the groove which has been described as a horse-shoe mark on the skin. The tissue at the place I call a scar was denser than elsewhere. The mark is undoubtedly an old operation scar.

Cross-examined. I commenced medical work at Oxford University, and went to St. Mary's Hospital about eleven years ago. Mr. Pepper was a lecturer there then; I was associated with him for the first five or six years, but since then I have been entirely independent. The person who removed the viscera must have had considerable dexterity and considerable anatomical knowledge, and must have done a considerable amount of evisceration. If it were established that there was in the scar a sebaceous gland or a hair and a hair follicle it would be conclusive that it was not a scar. I thought the mark was a scar, even when I looked at it with the naked eye on September 9. I believe I had already heard, when I first saw the skin, that Mrs. Crippen had had an operation. It was more difficult to tell if the scar was a scar when I saw it than it would have been had it been fresh.

Re-examined. I was only associated with Mr. Pepper by attending his lectures and acting as a surgical dresser; that fact had absolutely no influence on my opinion; nor did hearing of an operation having been performed on Mrs. Crippen. It is beyond doubt that this is a scar. I have searched the scar carefully for glands or hair follicles, and must have found them if there were any. There was nothing which could conceivably be mistaken for a gland except the small mass of included epidermis which I have mentioned. By included epidermis what I mean is this: in a surgical operation, when the edges of the skin are brought into contact it is common for at least one side to turn in a little, and, as the scar forms, some of the surface material covering the skin may become enclosed in the scar and embedded in it. There is, in my opinion, no room for doubt that the mark was a scar. It is quite possible for the inturned edge of the cut to contain both hair follicle and sebaceous glands, though there are none in this instance. The arrangement of muscle and aponeurosis I have described is inconsistent with the piece of flesh and skin being from any part of the body except the lower abdomen.

THOMAS MARSHALL , M.B., Divisional Surgeon, Kentish Town District. I have heard Mr. Pepper's evidence as to what took place on the occasion of our collecting the remains, and I agree with it. I was with Mr. Pepper on August 8 and saw the piece of flesh bearing a mark. I formed the opinion that it was from the lowest part of the abdominal wall. I noted the mark and regarded it as a scar. In none

of the organs found could I see any indication of disease which might cause death.

Cross-examined. I agree that some bodies remain in an excellent state of preservation for some years if buried in lime and in a soil like clay, which practically excludes all air, and that the possibility of giving a certain opinion as to the length of time that a body has been buried in the earth depends on many circumstances, as put to Mr. Pepper. Before I examined the skin and flesh I had heard that there had been an operation. It was on August 8 that I noted the scar; that was the first time I had really examined the skin and flesh. Before then I had merely handled it and other remains when taking them from the cellar and placing them in jars, and for other purposes. I then saw the skin, but did not examine it.

Re-examined. The fact that I had heard that Mrs. Crippen had had an operation had no effect upon my forming the opinion that this was a scar. My opinion as to the length of time the remains had been buried was stated at the inquest before any other witness had expressed an opinion and without consulting Mr. Pepper; I placed the time at several months. On first observing the remains, buried where they were, I was somewhat surprised with an appearance of freshness, a redness, not the appearance of corruption that one would have expected; but when I examined them in detail at the mortuary I found the presence of adipocere; forming an estimate to the best of my ability of the time that would be required for the formation of that adipocere, I reckoned it as a matter of several months—four, five, or six, I would say, perhaps up to seven.

ARTHUR ROBINSON , lately keeper of the Islington Mortuary Chapel, spoke to receiving the shell containing the remains, together with glass jars containing various specimens. On July 19 he placed carbolic powder on the remains in the shell.

Police-constable ROBERT THOMPSON, 520 Y, said that he was handed by the last witness five glass jars, which he handed to Dr. Willcox.

Police-constable CHARLES FITTS said that on July 13 he purchased a bottle of Neville's disinfecting fluid; this was diluted with water and poured round the walls of the cellar; at that time the remains were still in the hole.

WILLIAM WILLCOX , M. B., B. Sc, F. R. C. P., lecturer on forensic medicine at St. Mary's Hospital, senior scientific analyst to the Home Office. On July 22 I received from the coroner's officer five jars covered and sealed, which I numbered forthwith. In the first was a small portion of liver and one kidney. In the second, a pair of combinations. In the third, hair in a hair-curler, a handkerchief, undervest, and some hair in a piece of paper. In the fourth, a piece of pyjama jacket, and in the fifth two other pieces of pyjama jacket. One piece had a button on it and a neck-piece bearing a tab. These pieces are of flannelette, as also are the two complete suits (Exhibit 76). The buttons are also the same, though one is a little smaller, having shrank perhaps a little. It was a circular button with a depression in the centre, from which threads radiated. On July 25 I received from Dr. Marshall another jar; it contained some intestine, another curler

with hair in it, and a portion of liver, which, together with the other portion, completed the whole liver. On August 8 I received from Mr. Pepper a piece of skin. That is a piece of skin from the lower wall of the abdomen, and shows a horse-shoe mark, of which one limb is a scar—an old scar—and the other limb is a fold. On August 14 I received from Dr. Marshall a seventh jar containing some soil and lime, and the same day an eighth jar containing lungs, a portion of intestines, a piece of muscle, and another piece of hair; also a box of carbolic powder. The lungs were in a condition of advanced putrefaction when I received them. The kidney, which I had received much earlier, was comparatively fresh, except that it had undergone the process of decay with the formation of adipocere, but there was very little ordinary putrefaction present in it when I received it. The greater putrefaction in the lungs was due to the fact that a longer time had elapsed between their removal from the ground and their being brought to me. Organs removed from burial in the ground and exposed to a warm atmosphere decompose and putrefy very rapidly. On August 14 I received an unopened bottle of Neville's sanitary fluid, and on the 16th an open bottle containing a smaller quantity On August 23 I visited 39, Hilldrop Crescent and procured some specimens of the soils from the excavation, which I put in jars and labelled. On July 23 I commenced examining the stomach, the kidney, and a portion of the liver, first looking for mineral and organic poisons. I found traces of arsenic in the intestines and liver, and traces of creosol (the chemical name for commercial carbolic acid) in the stomach and kidney, and intestines and liver—small traces. I attach no importance to those; they were due to the disinfectants. I began the same day to examine for alkaloidal poisons. Such an examination requires two or three weeks before the final tests can be applied. I took weighed portions of the stomach and intestines and kidney and liver, and treated them by the usual process for extraction of alkaloids, and found an alkaloid present in all the extracts. I then applied further tests for all the common alkaloids—morphine, strychnine, cocaine, and so on—and I found that a mydriatic alkaloid was present; that is, an alkaloid the solution of which if put into the eye of an animal causes the pupil to enlarge and dilate. Having found a mydriatic alkaloid I applied a further test and found that it was a mydriatic vegetable alkaloid. There are three mydriatic vegetable alkaloids: atropine, hyoscyamine, and hyoscine. I found that one of those three was present. I applied further tests and found that the alkaloid that I got in the extracts corresponded to hyoscine. I have no doubt it was hyoscine. That was proved in two ways; one by examining the residue with a lens and microscope; it was gummy; there were no crystals there. Another way was by adding to a solution of the residue some bromine solution—hydrobromic acid—and I got round spheres but no crystals. Hyoscine gives spheres exactly like I have got. Atropine and hyoscamine both give needle-shaped crystals. As to the amount of hyoscine, there was (calculated out on the whole organs) in the stomach one-thirtieth of a grain; in the one kidney one-fortieth of a grain; one-seventh in the intestines, one-twelfth

in the liver; in the lungs there was the merest trace. The total amount of hyoscine in all the organs submitted to me was two-sevenths of a grain. Hyoscine is not used medicinally in the form of hyoscine. It is gummy, syrupy stuff, which it would be impossible to handle, and a salt is used. The salt which is used is the hydrobromide of hyoscine. That is the preparation given in the "British Pharmacopoeia." In the whole of the organs submitted to me the amount was two-fifths of a grain of the hydrobromide. In the whole body that would certainly correspond to more than half a grain, which would be a fatal dose. A fatal dose is from a quarter to half a grain. Hyoscine hydrobromide is a drug which is a powerful narcotic poison. If the fatal dose were given it would perhaps produce a little delirium and excitement at first; the pupils of the eyes would be paralysed; the mouth and throat would be dry; and then quickly the patient would become drowsy and unconscious and completely paralysed, and death would result in a few hours. The time within which the drowsy and unconscious state would be reached would depend on the amount given and on the condition of the stomach. Assuming to have been given the dose which I think could be traced, the drowsy, unconscious state might come on in probably under an hour, and paralysis and death in hours-probably something under twelve hours. The patient would not recover at all during that twelve hours if the dose was a fatal dose; assuming a fatal dose, there would be the dryness of the mouth and so on, then unconsciousness, and then death, all in one continuous sequence, without recovery. Hyoscine is not a commonly used drug. When used it is, if given internally, administered practically by hypodermic injection. It is used as a powerful sedative for cases of delirium, mania, meningitis (inflammation of the brain), also for delirium tremens, and very occasionally as a hypnotic for insomnia; sometimes it is given in combination with morphine for sedative purposes. In all these cases it is given hypodermically. The proper dose for hypodermic injection is from a two-hundredth to one-hundredth of a grain. As far as I know, hyoscine is not used as a homoeopathic remedy. I have looked through the English and the American homoeopathic pharmacopoeias, and the drug is not mentioned. In this case, in my opinion, the drug was taken by the mouth. It is rather salt and bitter, but it could be administered without the patient knowing if given in something with a pronounced flavour and sweetish taste such as stout, beer, spirits, sweetened tea, or coffee. The cause of death in this case was, in my opinion, poisoning by hyoscine. I know of no legitimate use for hydrobromide of hyoscine, except in the doses I have mentioned, for internal administration. After this drug was taken, I think the patient probably lived for an hour or more—not more than twelve hours. The remains would have been buried, I should say, for from four to eight months.

Cross-examined. I believe this is the first case where the question of murder by hyoscine has arisen. I have tested for hyoscine before, but have never found it in extracts from dead bodies before this case. There are both vegetable and animal mydriatic alkaloids. The latter are produced after death by the action of bacteria when the organs

have reached an advanced stage of putrefaction. I did not discover in the remains sufficient alkaloid to apply the melting point test. I identified the alkaloid as hyoscine about August 20. On August 2 I had been informed that Dr. Crippen had bought some hyoscine. My first test, to ascertain whether there was any alkaloid at all, took me about a fortnight. As the result of that, I found in the liver one-twelfth of a grain, in the intestines one-seventh, in the stomach one-thirtieth and in the kidney one-fortieth of a grain; that is calculating out on the whole of the organ; I did not actually find that amount. There was less in the stomach and kidney as compared with what I found in the liver and intestine. Having ascertained that there was an alkaloid I next tested to find out whether it was mydriatic. The physiological test is conclusive on that point. I put a drop of the solution into a cat's eye, and then exposed the cat to a very powerful light. One pupil was widely dilated. This test was conclusive with all the four extracts, the stomach, the intestines, the liver, and the kidneys. The three vegetable mydriatics that I have specified are hyoscine, hyoscyamine, and atropine. There is a fourth—cocaine—and perhaps there are several others. Cocaine is not quite the same as the other three; cocaine causes the pupil to enlarge, just as the others do, but if the eye is exposed to a powerful light the pupil contracts; it does not paralyse it; we can quite fairly eliminate cocaine. The three main vegetable mydriatics are hyoscine, hyoscyamine, and atropine. Hyoscine and hyoscyamine are produced by the plant called henbane, and atrophine from belladonna. Hyoscine and hyoscyamine are produced by the plant called henbane, and atropine from belladonna or the "deadly nightshade." These three vegetable mydriatics, hyoscine, hyoscyamine, and atropine, have not the same chemical composition and exactly the same chemical formulae. Up to a few years ago it was thought they had, but in the "British Pharmacopoeia," the last edition (about eight years ago, I think) a different formula was given for hyoscine, and all the recent work on these alkaloids points to the fact that hyoscine has a slightly different formula from the other two. The latest formula is, hyoscine C17. H21. NO4. atropine and hyoscyamine C17 H23 and NO3. The difference is two parts of hydrogen and one part of oxygen. Until about eight years ago it was always recognised that those three had the same chemical formula. For a number of years it was recognised in the profession that the formula for all three was exactly the same. Putrefying bodies give off carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen, or compounds containing those elements. To that extent, the constituents of a vegetable mydriatic alkaloid exist in animal mydriatics, but the combination is different. In order to find out which mydriatic it was I applied what is known as the Vitali test. In that test a purple violet colour is produced which fades away to a brownish colour. I do not agree that that is characteristic of animal as well as vegetable mydriatics; it is of vegetable mydriatics. I know the work of Giotto and Spiecke; they are well-known Italian chemists; I have read that they say that certain homatropines give Vitali's reaction, but I have looked at their original works, and have failed to find proof of it.; I do not

accept that; it does not agree with my experience. The Vitali reaction is common to hyoscine, atropine, and hyoscyamine. The melting point test is an important test, but not the important test. It is a test which can only be applied when one has a considerable quantity of the alkaloid to deal with. The most important test, I consider, is the careful observation, with a lens and microscope, of the alkaloid itself as to whether it is crystalline or syrupy—gummy—and also the bromine test which has already been mentioned—the obtaining of crystals. This gumminess is characteristic of hyoscine, while hyoscyamine and atropine are crystalline. I arrived at the gumminess when I found out that it was an alkaloid, but before I had applied any test to find out whether the alkaloid was mydriatic; in other words, before I applied the physiological test to the cat's eye. The gumminess was the result of these extractions, which resulted in my ascertaining that it was an alkaloid. Supposing that the alkaloid had, in fact, been hyoscyamine or atropine, I think most probably there would have been some crystals there. There might possibly have only been gumminess, but, on recrystallization, crystals would have appeared. The gummy extract could not possibly be hyoscyamine or atropine if the extracts were fairly pure. If the extracts were impure and had other materials in, then a gummy residue might have been obtained with atropine and hyoscyamine. I applied the bromine test after the Vitali test—the test for vegetable mydriatic alkaloid. The bromine test is only of value in discriminating between the three vegetable alkaloids in question. Other things besides hyoscine give the spheres of which I have spoken. The melting-point test is only of value where a large amount of the alkaloid can be obtained; in toxicological work such an amount never can be obtained; it would mean an enormous dose. I agree that the different mydriatic alkaloids have a melting point of widely different degrees, providing that they are in a very pure condition. The melting point of hyoscine is 658, that of hyoscyamine 1058, that of atropine 1158: hut I should explain with regard to hyoscine that it is a gummy syrup, and it is very difficult to say what the melting point is. I agree that another very valuable test is the gold chloride test, the alkaloid being dissolved in diluted hydrochloric acid, chloride of gold added, and crystallization allowed to take place. That is a valuable test, as the melting points of the different crystals are very different; atropine 1488, hyoscyamine 1608, and hyoscine 1998. I also agree that it is perhaps the most valuable differentiating test between the three alkaloids, always providing that there is sufficient alkaloid for its application.

Re-examined. The gold chloride test was the first process I contemplated applying, but I found my solutions were not strong enough, and that if I applied it I would waste all my material unsuccessfully. According to my experience there is never, in a case of criminal poisoning, enough material for the melting-point test. For the purpose of a poisoning investigation the tests used must of necessity be tests which apply to very small quantities. The tests which I have applied are real tests; I mean, I can absolutely distinguish this substance from the other substances that I was looking for. I tried all these tests on

the pure alkaloids themselves before I applied them to extracts from the viscera, and found that they were reliable and gave corresponding results. As the result of my tests I am able to say that this substance was not an animal alkaloid. As I have explained, mydriatic animal alkaloids are produced in decaying bodies at an advanced stage of putrefaction. In this case the lungs were the most putrefied of the organs. I tested them most carefully for animal alkaloids, and I found the least trace—not enough to paralyse the pupil, but just to weaken it. The traces of mydriatic alkaloids in the lungs were so slight that I could not say whether they were animal or vegetable, and I have excluded them from my calculation of the amount of alkaloids present in the organs examined. The tests I have described I have undertaken hundreds of times, and they present no difficulties with which I am not accustomed to deal. In all my investigations I have never found a ptomaine, an animal alkaloid, which gave a purple colour with the Vitali test. I have tested several hundreds of times, and recently on some viscera several years old, and I have been unable to obtain it in any single case. Animal alkaloids never correspond to Vitali's test. I have never found one, and I have tested specially for that hundreds of times. This kind of investigation is no novelty to me.

The Lord Chief Justice. You told Mr. Tobin, very fairly, that animal alkaloids are produced in what you call the advanced stages or late stages of putrefaction. Apart from your examination, were there any organs in such a state of putrefaction that you would expect to have alkaloids produced?—No; not those that I examined for alkaloids first. The lung, which I examined two or three weeks later, was in such a state that there might have been some animal alkaloid there. In that I found only a trace of any alkaloid—not sufficient to test whether it was animal or vegetable. I have no doubt that it was vegetable alkaloid that I discovered, and that it was hyoscine also.

I am asked by the jury to put this question. You have stated that hyoscine in the form of hyoscine hydrobromide is in the Pharmacopoea. Have you ever heard of it being given by the mouth?—No; as far as I know the medical internal use of it is limited to hypodermic use. I have never heard of a prescription containing two-sevenths of a grain of hyoscine for internal use. If intended to be taken by the mouth, I know of no medicine in which hyoscine is used.

ARTHUR PEARSON LUFF , M.D., B. Sc, F.R.C.P., Physician to St. Mary's Hospital, said that for seventeen years he had been Scientific Analyst to the Home Office and resigned about six years ago. He had heard Dr. Willcox's evidence and had repeated his tests with pure lrugs. They were absolutely the right tests, and he agreed with Dr. Willcox's results. The poison present was undoubtedly hyoscine, judging by those tests. He had often tested for animal mydriatic alkaloids in toxicological cases during his period of office, but had never found them in a corpse. Before that he had conducted a long series of investigations upon animal alkaloids, and had once found a mydriatic animal alkaloid in some meat which he had put to putrefy in circumstances very favourable to putrefaction. He had applied the

Vitali test to the mydriatic found in this meat, and it proved negative. The distinction between the animal and vegetable mydriatic alkaloids was absolute if the Vitali test was applied.

Cross-examined. I am the author of a text-book on forensic medicine, published in 1895. I there wrote: "It is impossible to give any certain opinion as to the length of time a body has been buried in the earth. The reason is that many conditions may modify the progress of putrefaction after burial; such as, the character of the coffin and soil, the depth of the grave, the time that has elapsed before burial, and the cause of death. Different bodies undergo putrefactive changes with very different degrees of rapidity, even when they have been buried under similar conditions. For instance, three bodies were buried at the same time, side by side, wrapped in cloth of the same texture, and in coffins of the same kind of wood; in connection with one of these bodies it was found at the end of nine months that the abdominal walls had quite disappeared; in another the disappearance of the abdominal walls did not take place until an interval of thirteen months from the time of burial; in the third one, at the end of twenty-three months the abdominal walls were almost entire." I absolutely adhere now to those views. If a mydriatic alkaloid is produced in putrefied meat, I know of no scientific reason why it should not be produced in putrefying human remains, except that the latter are not as a rule exposed to the conditions in which I exposed the meat in the case I refer to. I have never met it in human corpses.

Re-examined. I did not see the remains in this case, and I did not ask to see them—for a very good reason. They had been exhumed for several days; and as such things change so rapidly no opinion of any value could then be formed as to how long they had been buried. Had I seen them at the time Mr. Pepper saw them, I could certainly have given an opinion. This is not contradictory to anything I have written in my book.

CHARLES HETHERINGTON , qualified chemist, of Lewis and Burrows, 108, New Oxford Street. On January 17 or 18 prisoner called and ordered five grains of hyoscine hydrobromide; I think he said he wanted it for homoeopathic purposes. We had not that quantity in stock and I ordered it from a wholesale house. During the four years I have been with Lewis and Burrows they have never had that quantity of hyoscine hydrobromide in stock.

Cross-examined. I had known prisoner as a customer for three years; he has from time to time purchased drugs of us, including cocaine, morphia and mercury. He always signed the poisons register book quite willingly. Hyoscine is used as a sedative in nervous cases; it is a narcotic and a mydriatic.

To the Court. Prisoner could not have got hyoscine without signing the poisons register book.

To the Jury. As far as I know, this is the only occasion on which prisoner purchased hyoscine from us.

HAROLD KIRBY , assistant to Lewis and Burrows, said that on January 19 prisoner called, and he handed him the five grains; it was in the form of crystals, in a tube or bottle. He signed the following

entry in the poisons book: "Name of purchaser, Munyons, per H. H. Crippen; address of purchaser, 57-61, Albion House; name and quantity of poison sold, five grains hyoscine hydrobromide; purposes for which required, homeopathic preparations; signature of purchaser, H. H. Crippen." I produce a list of drugs which we have supplied to prisoner, chiefly poisons; the poisons book is not signed in every case; we do not require a person we know to be a doctor to sign for every purchase of poisons.

Cross-examined. Prisoner made no objection to signing the book for this hyoscine.

Detective-sergeant WILLIAM HAYMAN. On August 18 I received from Dr. Willcox Exhibits 44, 45, 46, and 47 (four jars containing hair): also a camisole; these I showed to Mrs. Harrison.

Mrs. ADELINE HARRISON. I knew Mrs. Crippen for 12 or 13 years. When I first knew her her hair was dark brown; afterwards it was bleached. On August 18 I was shown the four specimens of hair; it resembles Mrs. Crippen's hair as I have seen it in the morning before she was dressed. She wore an undergarment similar to the camisole shown to me.

Cross-examined. Prisoner always struck me as being a very kind and amiable man and a good husband. These were the only specimens of hair put before me for identification. There is nothing by which to identify the curlers in which the hair is; thousands of women use similar curlers; the same remark applies to the camisole. Mrs. Crippen began to dye her hair about six or seven years after I knew her; she used to wear golden curls; she told me that prisoner bleached her hair for her in the first instance. When her hair was down in the morning I had opportunity of seeing the original colour of the hair by the parts nearest the roots.

(Defence.)

HAWLEY HARVEY CRIPPEN (prisoner, on oath). I am 48 years of age: I am an American, and a doctor of medicine of the Cleveland Homoeopathic Hospital in America; I have not been through a practical course of surgery but a theoretical course. I have never performed a post-mortem examination in my life. I have made certain organs of the body my special study, the eye especially, and also the nose. I have been married twice. I met my second wife in New York: Cora Turner was the name she gave me, but her real name was Clara Mackamotski; she was living under the protection of a man named Lincoln. I married her 17 years ago. We first of all went to live at St. Louis. I came to this country for the first time before I married her, and again about 12 years ago; she did not come with me; I came in April and she followed in August. Our first apartments were in South Crescent, just off Tottenham Court Road, which is now pulled down. I should think we lived there just under a year. In 1905 we went to live at Hilldrop Crescent. I paid a visit to America while I was living in Guilford Street; I left my wife at a boarding house in Guilford Street; I was away from November

to the middle of April or May 1. Up to that visit to America I had lived on friendly terms with my wife, but she was always rather hasty in her temper. When I came back I joined my wife in Guilford Street. I did not notice any change in her manner at first, but very soon after that we lived at Store Street, and I began to notice it; she was always finding fault with me, and every night took the opportunity of quarrelling with me, so that we went to bed in rather a temper with each other. A little later on, after I found this continued, and she apparently did not wish to be familiar with me, I asked her what the matter was, and she told me that she had met Bruce Miller and he had been taking her out while I was away, and that she had got very fond of him and did not care for me any more; this would be about 1904 I think; it was before we lived at Hilldrop Crescent; it was perhaps further back than that. I think it was 1902 or 1903 that we moved from Guilford Street to Store Street; I noticed a change at the beginning, but it was about six months afterwards I found out what the trouble was; she mentioned the name of Bruce Miller and told me that he was a music-hall artist and had some kind of automatic orchestra; she told me he was still visiting her. I have never met him. I told her I thought it was very strange, although I had seen this coming for a long time, from the previous trouble we had had before I moved from South Crescent. After that we still lived together, but not as man and wife. At Hilldrop Crescent we occupied different rooms. Before our friends and strangers as well it was agreed that we should treat each other as if there had never been any trouble; I hoped that some time she would give up these ideas of hers. I first became connected with Munyon's about 15 or 16 years ago; I was first in a position in their employ and afterwards became general manager. While general manager I acted as advisory physician and had charge of the chemical laboratory. I was in that capacity for about five or six years. That ceased at the time I went back to America from here and stayed till the time I mentioned. I have not been in the habit of purchasing drugs for them in this country, but I have for myself and for other firms I have been with. Among the drugs I have purchased a considerable amount of poisons, aconite, belladonna, rhustox, gelsemium, and others, some from Keen and Ashwell, some from Lewis and Burrows. I have never purchased any drugs from other chemists. I have been familiar with the drug hyoscine for years; I first heard of it when I came to England in 1885; I learned the use of it at the Royal Bethlem Hospital for the Insane. It is a drug that is greatly used in America, especially in the insane asylums; it is also used in ophthalmic clinics. I have used it myself as a nerve remedy in homoeopathic preparations, that is, reduced to extremely minute doses. I remember purchasing some hyoscine on January 19; I had used hyoscine before, but not in this country. I purchased it in the form of crystals for the treatment of nervous diseases. I dissolved the five grains in alcohol; then I dissolved it in an ounce of water, making 480 drops. One drop would be 5-480th of a grain. Of this preparation I used, in conjunction with another mixture, consisting of gelsemium, assofetida,

and some other homoepathic preparations, four drops, which would equal 20-480ths of a grain. This, with a drachm of the other mixture, I used for medicating about three hundred small discs, to make one bottle of the preparation sent out to the patient. That would be about 150 doses, two tablets to the dose. It would be equal to 1-3,600th of a grain to a dose. The bottles would be sent out in a small paste-board case. On the bottle would be a label giving two tablets as a dose, eight doses a day. The doses would be in the form of small sugar discs, homoeopathic discs, made of cane sugar, to absorb the alcoholic preparations. The actual amount of hyoscine in two discs would be approximately 1-3,600th of a grain, extremely minute. Of this hyoscine I purchased on January 19 I dispensed about two-thirds. It is extremely difficult for me to recall the names of patients to whom the preparations would be sent, because in addition to Munyon's I was attending to another business in which I handled large numbers of letters daily, but I remember the name of MacSweeney as being one of the persons I required it for. I remember the dinner party on January 31. Before this my wife had often threatened to leave me; when she was in a temper it was a very frequent threat of hers. The tempers that she got into were over very trivial matters; she was always finding fault about trivial things. On January 31 Mr. and Mrs. Martinetti came to dinner with us between six and seven, at the request of my wife. While they were there she picked a quarrel with me upon a most trivial incident. During the evening Mr. Martinetti wanted to go upstairs; as he had been to the house many times and knew the place perfectly well, I let him go up by himself; when he came down he seemed to have caught a chill. When the Martinettis had left, my wife got into a great rage about this; I do not recollect all she did and said, she said a great many things; she abused me, and said some very strong things; she said that if I could not be a gentleman she had had enough of it and could not stand it any longer and she was going to leave. That was similar to her former threats, but she said besides something she had not said before; she said that after she had gone it would be necessary for me to cover up any scandal there might be by her leaving me, and I might do it in the very best way I could. I came back the next day at my usual time, which would be about half-past seven or eight o'clock, and found that the house was vacant. I did not see my wife on the morning of February 1; we had retired very late the night before and, as was the usual thing, I was up and out of the house before she was up. I went to business as usual that day. Some time during the day I called on Mrs. Martinetti and I asked her how Paul was and she answered, "No better": I was anxious as to the chill he had caught. I admit that I told the witnesses, Mrs. Martinetti, Miss May, etc., that my wife had left me and that she afterwards became ill, and that subsequently her death had taken place. I made those statements because she particularly told me that I must do the best I could to cover up the scandal. I wanted to hide anything regarding her departure from me in the best way I could, both for my own sake and hers. I recollect the

visit of Inspector Dew and the statement I made to him; that statement is quite true. Dew was very imperative in impressing on me that I must produce my wife or I should be in serious trouble; he also said that if I did not produce her quickly the statement I had made would be in the newspapers. It was the next morning that I made up my mind to go to Quebec. On the second day before we arrived at Quebec I was sitting by the wheelhouse; a quartermaster came to me and said that he had a letter he wanted to give me about three o'clock in the afternoon. I then made an arrangement with the quartermaster to hide me; he told me the captain knew who I was and who Miss Le Neve was, and I was to be arrested by the police at Quebec. He also told me that I must leave a note behind, saying that I had jumped overboard, and in the middle of the night he would make a splash in the water and tell the captain I had gone. I wrote the two cards, Exhibits 2 and 3; Exhibit 2 I wrote the same day. That night the quartermaster took me downstairs, but somebody came along and prevented us going on; they saw us. I kept the card and the quartermaster said he would put me down the next day. I wrote Exhibit 3 the next morning, a short time before Dew came on board. It had been arranged that Exhibit 2 was to be placed on my pillow in my berth. The quartermaster told me that there was no charge against Le Neve and they did not want her; accordingly I arranged with her that when I got safely ashore she was to write to me at an address which I gave her in the States, when everything was all right, and she was to join me. I expected to arrive at Quebec at one o'clock at night. Dew coming on board at Father Point was a surprise to me; I did not expect him at all. I thought there would be a cable to the Quebec police. When I said to Dew, "I am not sorry; the anxiety has been too much," I was referring to the fac that I expected to be arrested, because the lies I had told would cast such suspicion on me, and they might hold me for I do not know how long, perhaps for a year, in prison, until they found the missing woman. I did say to the inspector, "It is only fair to say that she (Le Neve) knew nothing about it; I never told her anything." By that I meant that I had never told her about my talking with my wife before she went away about the scandal; I had only told her that my wife had gone, and afterwards told her that she was dead. Those were the only two things I told her, and she knew nothing about the letters and lies I had disseminated. I never told Dew anything about those two cards, because while Dew went downstairs to see Le Neve one of the Canadian police officers told me that they dealt very differently with people in Canada to what they did in England; that in Canada people who were arrested were told to say nothing; and he said to me, "Now, don't say anything; cut your tongue out." As to the money that I put into the Charing Cross Bank, my wife had no money of her own; all the money that ever went into the bank was what I paid in for her. The jewellery that she had I bought when I was in America, as an investment; besides that, I think she had a watch and some rings which she had before we were married, probably given to her by the man she was living with. I

supplied the money for all her clothes and all her furs. I never knew what she did have; I gave her money with a free hand and she bought what she liked. After she went away I was surprised to find what she and have. In January of this year I had plenty of money coming in. I always paid my rent regularly and I never ran any tradesmen's bill or bills of any kind. I do not think my wife was aware of my relations with Le Neve, because she always treated her with the greatest courtesy when she came to my office. There was no obstacle put in my way if I wanted to go and see Le Neve; my time was my own and I went as I liked. I often stayed away from business for whole days at a time. I told Le Neve that if ever my wife went away and there was a divorce I should marry her. She seemed perfectly satisfied and happy with the position she occupied My wife had a scar on the lower part of the abdomen, from the pubic bone upwards, towards the navel, in the middle line. It was from an operation for ovariotomy; that was done about twelve years ago, I believe, shortly before we came to England for the first time. The scar was about 4 1/2 inches long; it was a small scar, because only the ovaries were removed; it came very close to the navel. My wife used to bleach her hair; I sometimes helped her to bleach it; she was very particular over it; she applied the bleaching fluid about every four or five days. She was very anxious that nobody should ever know she had any dark hair at all. She was very particular about her hair. I noticed that only the very tiniest portions of her hair near the roots were dark, after they began to grow. I did not at any time administer hyoscine to my wife. I have no idea whose remains they were found at my house in Hilldrop Crescent. I knew nothing about them until I came back to England.

(Friday, October 21.)

Cross-examined. On the early morning of February 1 I was left alone in my house with my wife, then alive and well; I know of no person in the world who has seen her alive since, no person who has ever had a letter from her since, no person who can prove any fact to show that she ever left that house alive. The last I saw of her would be between two and three in the morning, when we retired. I breakfasted at home that morning; I prepared breakfast myself; I nearly always did; my wife seldom came down to breakfast; we were usually very late retiring, and I was off probably at 8.30 in the morning. Occasionally I would take her up a cup of coffee in the morning, not often. In the evening of February 1 I returned home at my usual hour, about half past seven; it might have been 7.25 or 7.35. If I said in my statement to Dew, "I came to business the next morning, and when I went home between five and six p.m. I found she had gone," that was probably right; I cannot trace it back. As she had always been talking to me about Bruce Miller, I thought she had gone to him in America; that was the only guess I could make. I have made no inquiries as to what steamers were going to America about that time, or whether any woman answering to the description of my wife had

about then taken passage to America. I cannot say what clothing my wife took with her; she had a lot of trunks and boxes in the house; I believe one was missing; I do not know whether she took any box with her. I have not inquired at the cabstand near the house to ascertain whether a cabman had called to take away a box from my house; I have not inquired of the neighbours as to whether my wife was seen to leave the house, nor of tradespeople as to whether they called at the house on that day; so far as I know, no such inquiries have been made since my arrest. I recognise the importance to me of finding anyone who saw my wife alive after the Martinettis left, but I have made no inquiries; I have not conducted my own defence. There have been no inquiries made, as far as I know; this is a point that did not occur to me, and I did not suggest any inquiries to my solicitors. (Q. Did you know that any such inquiry would be fruitless?—I knew nothing of the kind.) If my wife had written to me for her furs and jewels I should have kept them; I paid for them, and I should not have given them up, after her leaving me; it is not the fact that I knew she would not write. I did not allow my wife any special money; I gave her a free hand for what she wanted at any time; I gave her sums like £2, £3, £4; I once gave her as much as £35; that was to buy an ermine cape; it was about three years ago. The last time I placed money in the bank on deposit was in March, 1909. I am told that notice of withdrawal of our joint deposit was given in December last; I did not know that until my solicitor discovered it on applying to the bank. In November my weekly drawings of £3 from Munyon's ceased, but my commissions amounted to pretty nearly the same thing, possibly more, but I am not sure. As to where I supposed my wife would get the money to take her to America, she always had plenty of money; when she had threatened to leave me I asked her if she wanted any money, and she said no. I was not in want of money. Most of the £80 and £115 that I got from pawning my wife's jewels I used in paying for the advertising of a new preparation I was putting on the market and in the purchase of new dental instruments. I had had this new scheme in my mind for a couple of months; it involved expenditure, but this I could have raised at the bank, and I had other businesses from which I could have drawn money. The complaint that my wife made about my conduct to Mr. Martinetti at the dinner party I considered most unreasonable, but that was the only reason she gave me for leaving me. I will not be sure whether, at the time I wrote Exhibit 32, Le Neve was living with me at 39, Hilldrop Crescent. The first time she came there was the Wednesday night, February 2. From that night on she was with me probably two or three nights, perhaps more, out of the week, but when she came to stay permanently with me I should not like to say. All I know is that it was shortly before Easter. When she brought her clothes from Mrs. Jackson's to my house was some time before Easter. I am sure that Le Neve slept at Hilldrop Crescent on the night of February 2. When I wrote Exhibit 32 I believe I had arranged to go to Dieppe with Le Neve for Easter. There was no question of my "wanting to wipe ray wife off the slate before I went"; I felt that

something was necessary to stop all the worry that I was having with inquiries; I do not know whether I had at that time fixed the date at which I would announce that I had heard that my wife had died. I did not consider the pain that the announcement of her death would give to her intimate friends. I cannot say when I put on mourning dress; it would be soon after the announcement of the death—soon after my return from Dieppe. (Questioned as to the letter to Dr. Burroughes of April 5 (Exhibit 31), and asked as to his imagination being equal to the "awful shock" mentioned in the letter, witness said, "I don't see why you keep on asking these questions, because I am not denying any of this; I am willing to admit that these were all lies right through.") I did not think that my wife would write to Mrs. Burroughs or Mrs. Martinetti, because she herself had told me to cover up any scandal; she would not have said that if she had intended writing to her friends. I believed she had gone to Bruce Miller at Chicago. To get to Chicago she would go via New York or Philadelphia or Boston or Quebec. In New York there were living her two sisters and her step-sister and some intimate friends; for al I knew she might have called upon them, but I did not think she would: if she had run off with another man she would not have the face to call on them. My letters were not written in the certainty that she would never be seen again alive; they were all in the sequence of lies that I was carrying on. I was carrying on this deception for the sake of both of us; for my own part, I did not wish friends here to think that I had treated her so badly that she had left me. True, I was with Le Neve, but not going about with her publicly, except the one occasion of the ball. The "scandal" I was covering up was the scandal of the separation from my wife; I can give no further explanation. I had been living at 39, Hilldrop Crescent for five and a half years; during all that time the floor of the cellar had not been disturbed to my knowledge; I was not always at home, and there were many times when my wife was out of the house for hours. I have been in the cellar; we had gas fires upstairs and only used coal in the kitchen range at times; occasionally I brought coal from the cellar. I know that these remains were found in the cellar; I was told so by my solicitor when I was brought back to England. So far as I know they were not put there during my tenancy; I do not say that it is impossible, because there were times when both I and my wife were away; I admit that it is improbable that without my knowledge or my wife's the remains could have been put there during our tenancy, but there is the possibility. The two suits of pyjamas (Exhibit 76) are mine; I bought them myself at Jones Brothers in September, 1909; I usually had three pairs at a time; the odd trousers, Exhibit 48, is part of a suit I had before I bought Exhibit 76, probably a long time previously, but after I went to Hilldrop Crescent: it would be shortly after I went there. I usually had at one time a set of three suits: there should be another suit belonging to Exhibit 76 to complete the set; Exhibit 48 is the only remains of the set of three I had previously purchased. My wife never bought pyjamas for me: I bought my own. It is not the fact that

my wife bought the suit of pyjamas of which Exhibit 48 is the trousers at Jones Brothers' winter sale on January 5, 1909; (on being pressed) I won't say she did not buy them; she bought me some; I do not know whether she bought these or not; when I said just now that she never bought any for me, I should not have put it so positively. I will not swear that Exhibit 48 is not part of a suit bought by my wife on January 5, 1909, but I think this is not a recent pair of trousers at all. (Looking at the fragments of a pyjama jacket in the jars, Exhibits 79 and 80, witness admitted that they appeared to be a similar pattern to Exhibit 48.) At almost every sale, say in September, January, and midsummer, there were pyjamas bought either by me or my wife; I cannot say what lot this comes from. (Q. I put it to you that these three suits, one of them incomplete, were manufactured in November, 1906, and that the cloth of which they were made never came into existence before November, 1908?—I can only say that I do not think it is possible that this one is part of the set, for the reason that it is so much worn, and the others are not.) I first made up my mind to leave London the morning after Dew called on me, July 9; after what he said to me I thought, well, if there is all this suspicion and I am likely to have to stay in gaol for months and months and months, perhaps, until this woman is found, I had better be out of it. I really thought that I might be kept in prison for months, on suspicion. Dew had told me that the woman had disappeared and must be found. I did not understand the law enough to say on what ground I could be kept in prison; I have read or heard of people being arrested on suspicion of being concerned in the disappearance of other people; I cannot put it in legal phrase; I cannot define the charge, except that if I could not find the woman I might very likely be held until she was found; that was my idea. No other idea than that entered my head; if I could not produce the woman Dew had told me that I should be in serious trouble. That was the reason why, after seeing Dew, I contemplated fleeing from the country—that, and the idea that I had said that Le Neve was living with me; she had told her people that she was married to me, and it would put her in a terrible position. The only idea I could think of was to take her away out of the country, where she would not have this scandal thrown upon her. I had not made up my mind to go when I said to Miss Kernow, "If anything should happen to me, give the envelopes to Miss Le Neve." After Dew left me on the 8th I studied the whole matter over and consulted Le Neve as to what she would like to do, and on the following morning I made up my mind to leave. I thought I was in danger of arrest and I fled the country, in a false name, shaving off my moustache, leaving off wearing glasses in public, taking Le Neve with me, also in a false name, posing as my son; we went to Brussels and Antwerp, staying at hotels together as Mr. and Master Robinson. When Dew boarded the "Montrose" at Father Point I recognised him at once, although he was disguised as a pilot; I had not expected to see him. Up to that time I had not thought about what charge would be made against me. Dew said, "Good morning, Dr. Crippen, I am Inspector Dew"; I said, "Good morning, Mr.

Dew." If he then said, "You will be arrested for the murder and mutilation of your wife, Cora Crippen, in London on or about February 2," I would not say that I took that in; I did not pay much attention to what he said, because I was in such a confusion; I was so very much surprised and confused that I did not quite have my right senses. The Canadian officer, McCarthy, cautioned me. I realised that I was being arrested for the murder of my wife; I remember hearing that. Up to that time I believed that she was alive. I did not question Dew as to how he knew that she was dead: I put no question at all; I made no reply. Just later I did say to him, "I am not sorry, the anxiety has been too much"; I meant the anxiety of thinking that I might be pursued from London; I still say that I did not understand the nature of the charge which would be brought against me, yet I had felt anxiety. When the handcuffs were put on me because as I was told I had written that I would commit suicide, and I said, "I won't, I am more than satisfied, because the anxiety has been too awful," I meant the same thing. When I said to Dew, "It is only fair to say that Le Neve knows nothing about it," that was after the warrant had been read to me, and I knew, by the warrant, that she was charged jointly with me with the murder. I did not mean by "nothing about it" that she knew nothing of the murder; I meant that she knew nothing about any of the circumstances beyond what I have already said that I had told her. By "it" I referred to the disappearance and the lies that I had told, which I knew would throw me under suspicion, from what Dew had told me; I had never told her about my lies or my letters or the suspicious circumstances which brought about my arrest. As to how I induced her to disguise herself as a boy and cut her hair short, I told her that Dew had said that there would be serious trouble if I did not find Mrs. Crippen. Le Neve told me that she had made a statement, the same as I had; I explained to her that that statement involved her in describing that she lived with me, and that my statement gave the same, and that there would be a scandal which would turn her folks against her, and that Dew had said that if I did not produce Mrs. Crippen there would be trouble for me, and the only way I saw for us would be to escape this by going away to another place where we could be alone and start a new life together; that is all I told her to persuade her to do that. As to Exhibit 2, the quartermaster suggested that I should leave something to show that I was going to jump overboard; it was his suggestion, but it was my idea to put it as I did on this card; the language was entirely my own. I wrote the card on the day before Dew arrived. The first communication from the quartermaster came without any invitation from me. About noon on July 30 he told me he had a letter to give me at three o'clock. At that hour I went to the wheelhouse and he handed me a letter which stated that the captain knew who I was, and that the police were coming to arrest me at Quebec; then he said that if I liked he would stow me away and smuggle me ashore at Montreal. The letter was not signed, and I returned it to the quartermaster; he seemed afraid to trust me with it. There were

four quartermasters on the ship; this one was a rather taller man than I am, very thick-set, dark, and wore a moustache. I should have no difficulty in distinguishing him if I saw him. He did not tell me what I was going to be arrested for; I had no idea, beyond the suspicions I have mentioned. I intended Exhibit 2 to be found in my berth, and that Le Neve should say she found it the next morning; the idea was that when it was handed to the police they would believe it and understand what it meant. As to the phrase, "I cannot stand the horrors I go through every night any longer," I had the fear of arrest, but I was not going through any "horrors"; it was purely imaginative. I meant the police to understand that by "horrors" I referred to the dread of arrest. It was not the fact, as stated on the card, that "money had come to an end"; I had 70 dollars left and about £90 worth of diamonds. The words at the end of the card are all pretence. I should not put upon the card the interpretation that I was confessing guilt and had in consequence of guilt jumped overboard; I can hardly answer as to what interpretation the card would bear to the police. This explanation of the cards I gave in the box for the first time yesterday; I could not give it before because I was not previously in the witness box. I got into communication with the solicitor now defending me by a cablegram from him to me at Quebec on August 2 and 3; I saw him the day after I arrived in London, and he has been conducting my defence ever since. I do not remember being asked, before the magistrate, whether I desired to make a statement or to give evidence. At my first interview with my solicitor I told him my story about the quarter-master and I left it entirely in his hands. I do not know that since then the "Montrose" has been twice in England; I read in the papers that she was here once. So far as I know, no effort has been made to bring this quartermaster here. I quite understand that if my wife could be found I should be at once acquitted. I have not taken any steps to find her; so far as I know no steps have been taken. I have left myself entirely in my solicitor's hands; I could not make any efforts myself. While I was detained in Quebec I saw Mrs. Ginnett, a great friend of my wife's; she came into the room where I was and sat quite near to me; I heard her speak to Inspector McCarthy; I understood her to ask him if she could speak to me, and I thought he said no; she did not speak to me, and I did not speak to her because I thought I should not be allowed to do so. Mrs. Ginnett is an American, with her headquarters in New York; if my wife is alive and in America, I suppose Mrs. Ginnett could try to find her, but I did not speak to her, because I supposed I could not. There are also living in New York my wife's step-father, half-sister, and sister; no application was made to them to find my wife. I did suggest to Dew, when he was with me in Hilldrop Crescent, whether he could not find her by applying to the police in Chicago; that was when the advertisement, Exhibit 41, was prepared, which was left behind by me Miss Lilian Hawthorne (Mrs. Nash) was a great friend of my wife's; I have not seen her since my arrest. I saw her on June

28; at that time I was representing that my wife had gone to America and had died there; I do not know that I affected to be much distressed when I gave this information; I was not "sobbing with grief." It was early in January this year that I first thought of prescribing hyoscine for my patients; I had first known of it in 1885. Here in London I had been prescribing for patients for a very long time; I mean, I had been prescribing Munyon's remedies. I had been treating patients chiefly for ear troubles for a long time, but not in a general way. Before January, 1910, I had patients for whom I prescribed; I only made it an occasional rule of doing so for three or six months before then. I did it through the post, getting into touch with the patients through the letters answering Munyon's advertisements. I saw very few patients personally; mostly it was by correspondence. The remedies were sent off by a girl called Maggie, the despatching clerk; she would get the addresses from the letters, which would be kept and be in existence now. I think my solicitor has been in communication with Munyons, as to producing these letters. I was prescribing for these patients hyoscine, as a medicine, to be administered through the mouth; that would be for nervous diseases, coughs of a septic character, and asthmatic complaints. (Q.—Is there any pharmacopoeia or medical work that you can refer to which advises the administration of hyoscine through the mouth for any disease whatever?—I think in Hempel and Arndt's Dictionary of Homoeopathic Therapeutics you will find mention of hyoscyamine as being used for nervous diseases in homoeopathic quantities.—Q. Hyoscine and hyoscyamine are two different things; I am asking about hyoscine 7—I—I think you will find it in Hempel and Arndt; I have not seen the book for ten or fifteen years; it is in several volumes. The Lord Chief Justice pointed out that this was a vital part of the case, and suggested to Mr. Tobin that, if there was any book in which hyoscine was prescribed as a medicine to be administered through the mouth, it should be produced.) Of the five grains of hyoscine that I bought on January 19 I made up as I have described about two-thirds; the remainder I left in the office, and it should be there now; I think my solicitor went there to look for it, but he told me he could not find any of the bottles I left behind me. I left the hyoscine in a cabinet in my private room, Room 58, Albion House. Up to about three weeks before I left no one but myself used that room; then a dental chair was put in, and it was occasionally used as an extra room for dental patients by an assistant, Mr. Coulthard. I purchased this hyoscine for perfectly legitimate purposes. Looking at Lewis and Burrows' Poisons Register, I see the "name of purchaser" is given as "Munyon's, per H. H. Crippen." Munyon's were not the purchasers; I was the purchaser, but I always bought my drugs in that way. The "address of purchaser" is given as "Rooms 57-61, Albion House"; that includes my own offices as well as Munyon's. The "purpose for which required" is given as "homoeopathic preparations." I have none of these "preparations" left; they were all sent out as they were made. I do not know whether there is anyone here to whom I sold the preparations; my solicitor has been looking to that matter.

Re-examined. From the time of my arrival in England I have been in prison. I saw my present solicitor the day after I arrived, and since then he has had the entire conduct of my defence, and looked after my interests; I have left everything to him. I have been making up prescriptions for patients, off and on, for 17 or 18 years. (A number of graduated glasses and tubes were handed to witness, and he said that they were similar to those he had been in the habit of using.) One of the preparations I used to send out was called "Ohrsorb"—a combination of the German word "ohr" (ear), and the English word "absorb"; it was a prescription for deafness; "ohrsorb" did not contain hyoscine. I communicated with patients in writing, and received letters from them. The letters in the bundle now handed to me are from patients; they would not necessarily refer to "hyoscine," but there should be plenty referring to preparations containing hyoscine, for instance, "Special Nerve Remedy." (Witness picked out a letter from a Mr. Mac Sweeney, dated August, 1909; on the back of it, in the writing of the despatching clerk, was "4s. 6d. Spl. Blood and Nerve Tonic." That, said witness, was the "Special Nerve Remedy" he referred to, which contained hyoscine; there should be many other letters.) I did not buy hyoscine in England before January 9, 1910; I then bought it because I wanted to prepare some special nerve remedies for very obstinate cases of nerve diseases—spasmodic ailments.

To the Court. I agree generally with the description of my wife given by the witnesses here; to the outside world she was an amiable and pleasant and popular woman, bright and vivacious; occasionally she had quarrels with her friends, and would not speak to them for a bit; the "skeleton in the house," her quarrel with me, was not known to her friends. She was very anxious to wear jewellery and fine clothes. I had no idea of her leaving me until on February 1 I came home and found she had gone; she had threatened it so often before in her temper that I thought this was the same as usual. I went through the house, and in the back bedroom where she kept most of her things there were clothes strewn around. I was not able to tell what clothes she had taken away; she had an immense quantity of clothes; I could not swear that she had taken away any trunk; I did not miss any trunk or any quantity of clothes. Except for a few rings and the watch that she had before we married, she had left behind in her bedroom all her jewellery. I did not take any steps to find out where she had gone, because she had so often threatened to go. Up to July 8 I had no idea of changing my name, or of disguising myself or Le Neve. I had no reason to think that any charge had been made against me. Except the series of wicked lies I had told I had nothing to disturb my mind in any way. All that occurred to alarm me on July 8 was Dew's telling me that if I could not find my wife there would be very serious trouble in store for me. He repeated that in two or three different forms, but that is the gist of what he said to me. I do not know that there is anything uncommon in a woman who has gone wrong or got into relationship with another man leaving her husband, but I am very sensitive to any censure or any scandal of that kind. I did

not think of any specific charge that would be brought against me, except that I might be arrested and held on suspicion. I do not know law at all, but I have been a reader of romances to a great extent, and I had an idea that I might be arrested and held on suspicion till she was found; that was my motive in going away. Up to Dew's coming into ray office I had no suspicion or fear of any kind. As to the pyjamas (Exhibits 79 and 80), if they were bought after 1905 I cannot explain how they could have got into the cellar; I have not the slightest idea. I never kept a prescription book or wrote out prescriptions; homoeopathic physicians do not do that. When I speak of prescribing for patients, I mean preparing and sending out medicines; "prescribe" is a wrong word. I never bought hyoscine in England until January 19, nor since. I have still some left, although I was going on prescribing hyoscine between January 19 and July 8. The cabinet in my private room was not kept locked (except that the offices were locked up at night). In the cabinet there would be other poisons, aconite, gelsemium, belladonna, etc. Of the money obtained by pawning jewellery I spent the greater part on advertisements; the accounts would be found in my office. I have none here. None of the people to whom I paid money after January 31 are here. The first I heard of my present solicitor was by a cablegram from him to me in Quebec; I had known him previously only by repute. One of my friends here, whom I can name, had asked him to cable to me. I immediately replied asking him to defend me; since then I have told him everything I could, and left myself in his hands. When Dew saw me on July 8 I realised the importance to me of finding my wife; I then believed her to be alive. The advertisement I prepared (Exhibit 41) I left behind because, as I was going away, I thought it no use my bothering. I dropped the matter at once when I went away. I thought that when I was out of England the police would not trouble any more about the matter; I did not think the case was of sufficient importance to them for that. The reason I went to Canada via Antwerp was that I could get a cheap trip that way; I had been that way before, but I did not know the time the boat sailed until I got to Antwerp.

To the jury. I do not remember the contents of Hempel and Arndt's book as to the quantities of hyoscine recommended.

The Lord Chief Justice. Can you point to any book which tells people the safe quantity of hyoscine, as distinguished from the dangerous quantity, that can be administered by the mouth?—I will deal with it in this way; there are two classes of medicines, allopathic and homoeopathic—Will you first answer the question?—I cannot answer it.

Can you mention any book which tells the safe quantity to be used?—The British Pharmacopoeia tells the safe quantity. The allopathic books give a specific dose; the homoeopathic books simply say "an infinitesimal dose," meaning a very minute dose, like a ten-thousandth of a grain.

Will you call attention to any book which recommends hyoscine as a drug to be taken internally?—Hempel and Arndt's is the only one I can think of at the present time.

GILBERT MAIKLAND TURNBULL . I am director of the Pathological Institute at the London Hospital and a member of the Pathological Society of Great Britain. The Pathological Institute is the largest in the United Kingdom. Under my supervision in 1907, 1908, 1909, the average number of post-mortem examinations was 1,251, and under my supervision complete microscopic investigations are carried out. I devote my time to that work and the microscopical examination of material sent down by the surgeons. I saw the piece of skin and flesh on September 9 and on October 15 and 17. On the first occasion a cut had been made from one side to the other of the horseshoe mark, including the so-called scar. Three slices had also been made. My microscopical examination of the specimens enables me to say that what has been called a scar cannot possibly be one. The grounds of my opinion are that I find certain structures which have never been found in a scar before. There are two groups of hair follicles or sheaths in which the hairs are visible in cross section. There are also in two of the sections in relation to these hairs a small piece of a sebaceous gland, and another larger piece of the same sebaceous or fatty gland in another section. A bay of subcutaneous fat is also found within the area described as a scar. This bay, or the upper process of the fatty tissue, which lies below the true skin, is an important landmark, because it is found in all the slices. What is described as a scar is due to the skin having been folded over and something having been between the fold, and thus producing pressure, which dried the skin at the fold. The marks of the pattern of some material can be seen even by the eye—without the microscope. Examining the cut edges of the two grooves, one finds the same appearances. There would be no reason for a scar having this clear, transparent, horny appearance which both these cut surfaces have; it is not the appearance of a scar in section at all; it is due to drying from the folding.

Cross-examined. I am a qualified surgeon, but I never do any surgery. I cannot say definitely what part of the body the piece of skin and flesh under discussion comes from, but I have a very good idea. After my last examination, I consider that the origin from the lower part of the abdomen is the most satisfactory. I do not disagree that it comes from the lower part. With my experience, and to the best of my honest judgment, I would say that it comes from the abdomen. When I first examined that piece of flesh I formed a different opinion as to the part of the body it had come from, or, rather, I did not give a definite opinion. I put my opinion in writing. I have not been present during the evidence of the medical witnesses on the other side; it was not quite because I did not wish to be present; I was not asked to come. I had said at the very beginning, when I was asked to undertake this examination, that I hoped it would not mean having to give evidence. I was promised that I would not be called at all as a witness. I went to see these remains on that understanding. Before I gave my first opinion I was promised I should not be called as a witness. The medical witnesses for the prosecution have been cross-examined on what I stated in my report to the defence. I only know of the reasons they have since given for their

opinions from seeing a copy of the depositions. I did not hear the questions put or the answers given. I admit that I altered my opinion after I had seen the reasons they gave for their opinions. In the opinion which I first gave I said that I thought there was an absence of the aponeuroses characteristic of the abdomen. There are aponeuroses there, or there were. My opinion now is that this is the lower part of the abdominal wall. I did find present the rectus abdominis; that muscle is in life attached to the pubic bone by a tendon. I do not find there part of the tendon which attached that muscle to the pubic bone. (Dr. Spilsbury was then asked to point out to the witness what was suggested to be the tendon in question, and did so.) It is not where I should expect it from the dissections I have made.

Your last answer is that the abdominal muscle is attached to the pubic bone by the tendon. Do you say that it is there or not?—I do not think this is it.

You say you do not find it?—There is a tendon there, and, if the muscle is the rectus, it is.

Do you find that tendon there or not?—Yes.

Have you any doubt that this piece of skin is part of the abdomen?—Yes.

What part of the body do you suggest it comes from if not from the abdomen?—I have told you, but I do not think you can have a better explanation.

What part does it come from if not from the abdomen?—From the upper part of the thigh.

Will you read what you said in your original report about this piece of flesh not coming from the abdominal wall?—"We are of opinion that that skin does not come from the abdomen for the following reasons." (The reasons given were that it was too coarse and the sebaceous glands were too large and too prominent; that the structure of the muscles and the arrangement of their fibres would not be easily accounted for, and that the aponeurosis was not present.) That was the joint opinion of Dr. Wall and myself. Our examination of the specimen before expressing this opinion occupied about twenty minutes.

And you now tell us that the characteristic aponeurosis is present in that piece of skin?—Yes. I find there some transverse muscles on the left side on the deepest surface of the specimen. If these correspond with the fibres of the internal oblique muscle and the transversalis muscle of the abdomen, that would show beyond question that they came from the abdominal wall; it is really impossible to say whether they do correspond. There are several methods of stitching the abdominal wall used in America by which the stitches do not come to the surface except at the beginning and at the end. There would be only one stitch there if that method of operation were used. I do not find the mark of a stitch there. It is not a common thing for part of the epidermis to be enfolded when the abdominal wall has been divided and sewn up again, but I have seen it happen in a few cases. The surgeon always takes some instrument and turns

the edges up to prevent that after he has put in the suture. It is not common, but I have seen the edges turned in.

The result of the edges being turned is that a bit of the epidermis gets enfolded or below the folds of the scar?—I have only read of that. I have never seen it. I am familiar with the appearance of such a case, but not from operation; from accidents it is very familiar.

Are you familiar with the appearances of a scar where the epidermis has got enfolded below the folds of the scar?—Yes; but not an operation scar—an accident scar. The appearances are similar. I have never seen that at all in the case of an operation scar.

Then you cannot tell me what takes place when such a wound heals?—Yes, I have seen the phenomena when, for instance, a man has fallen upon his hand here and cut his hand, causing an incision like an operation, and it has been allowed to heal, and he has got such an included epidermis—from an accidental incision, not an operation incision. That is the nearest I have ever come to seeing such a case.

I put it to you that the inclusion of epidermis in the incision made for the purposes of an operation might be easily mistaken for sebaceous glands?—For one it might be, but not easily; I disagree from what I have read, and I think we must learn. It might be mistaken for one sebaceous gland, but not for more.

I do not quite see why if it may be mistaken for one it may not be mistaken for two, if there happen to be two included in the piece of flesh?—I know the appearance of these inclusions, because I know that the accidental ones are similar to those in operations. I have never seen one in an operation scar, but I have read, of course, about them; and such an inclusion might be mistaken by somebody unaccustomed to the microscope.

Do not talk about people unaccustomed to the microscope; we are talking about people like Dr. Spilsbury. I am suggesting to you that persons accustomed to the microscope might be deceived?—No, I will not agree to that.

Epidermis is composed of cells called epithelial cells. May those cells be mistaken for sebaceous glands?—I think not.

Or for hair follicles?—Yes; the cells binding hair follicles have a similar appearance.

Might the one be mistaken for the other if included in a clean scar?—Would you repeat the question to me.

Mr. Muir. No, sir, I won't.

Continuing, witness said. The horny appearance is due to drying.

The first occasion we saw it was on September 9. It had been out of the grave since July 14. The skin might have dried between those two dates.

Re-examined. From start to finish I have never wavered in my opinion that the mark is not a scar.

The Lord Chief Justice. You said in your first report that you and Dr. Wall were of opinion that the aponeuroses so characteristic of the abdominal wall were not present. When did you change that

opinion?—After I had done a great many dissections and had macerated certain portions of the abdominal wall to see whether these aponeuroses would lose what I thought were their characteristics. I definitely wrote a different opinion after the second examination on October 15.

Up to that time you had let the defence be under the opinion that what you thought was the absence of aponeuroses was conclusive against its being the lower part of the stomach?—I had asked if we could not see the specimen again to confirm our opinion.

You have read out a statement in your report that the skin and attached flesh came not from the lower part of the abdomen but from what you call the root of the thigh. When did you first communicate to the defence that that opinion of yours had changed?—On October 15.

The Lord Chief Justice here asked Mr. Pepper to go to the witness-box and show Dr. Turn bull the dimensions of what he called the scar. Mr. Pepper said that at the bottom the scar measured 7/8 inch. About 1 3/4 inch higher up it measured 1/2 inch, and 1/4 inch at the top of such part of the scar as the skin found showed.

The Lord Chief Justice. Now, Dr. Turnbull, is it in accordance with your experience that the mark of a scar from ovariotomy is wider at the lower part of the abdomen than higher up?—No.

Have you read that one of the witnesses here said that he had performed many hundreds of operations, and that the scar, as a rule, was wider at the bottom than it was at the top?—I read that, but do not agree with it. I have never performed any operation myself, but I have examined a great number. In my experience it is untrue to say they are generally wider at the bottom than at the top. The fact that there is that difference of breadth in this scar does affect my judgment. If it is said to be a stretched scar I should have thought it would be stretched to its widest in a different position.

I am talking about the scar on the lower part of the woman's stomach?—It might be stretched 1 inch. The fact that the mark is wider at the bottom is, in my opinion, an argument against its being a scar.

Do you say that a mark of that kind could be caused by folding—that is to say, a mark which is wider at the bottom and narrows up?—Yes.

REGINALD CECIL GLYNE WALL . I am an M.A., M.D. of Oxford, F.R.C.P. Lond., and M.R.C.S. I obtained the Andrew Clark prize in medicine and pathology at the London Hospital. I am an assistant physician there, and at the Brompton Hospital for Consumption. Until the beginning of this year I was one of the pathologists at the London Hospital, and I am one of the examiners in materia medica at the Apothecaries' Hall. I am also a Fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine and of the Medical Society of London, and the author of various medical works. For two years I have been Demonstrator of Physiology at the London Hospital. I saw the piece of skin and flesh in question, first on September 9, secondly on October 15, and thirdly on October 17. I was present when the incision was made across each limb of the so-called horseshoe, the site of what was said to be a scar, but not when the pieces were removed for examination. My examination

of the skin on October 15 commenced at 11.30 and finished at 4.15. It was not a microscopical examination, simply with the eye and a hand Jens. At the second examination on October 17 I and Dr. Turnbull saw the piece of skin for a short time to identify certain points that we wanted to confirm, and the remainder of the time we were present we were examining the microscopic sections prepared by Dr. Spilsbury. The time spent over that examination was a little over two hours. As the result of my examination I concluded there was no scar. I could not see on inspection by the naked eye or with the hand lens such an appearance as I should have expected to find if there had been a scar in that situation. I found appearances which I could explain much more easily on the supposition that the skin had been folded in that region. Secondly, after the incision which had been made by Mr. Pepper, I did not on examining the cut surfaces of the edges of the skin find such an alteration in structure as I should have expected had there been originally a scar, and on comparing the cut surface at the site where the scar was alleged to be I did not find that the appearance of the cut surface differed from the appearance of the cut surface of the other part of the flesh, where it is admitted there is no scar. As to the differences one would have expected to find, that is a very different question to answer. The different new tissue may assume various appearances in different circumstances. All that I should have expected would be that it presented a different appearance—not the same appearance. On examination with the naked eye I saw no structures which could not occur in a scar, but on microscopical examination I observed in the region called a scar traces of hair follicles, five in number, and a sebaceous gland; outside that region there were other hairs and other sebaceous glands, similar in appearance to those in the so-called scar. The skin appears to have been rolled over twice, perhaps accidentally. I think that between part of the fold there must have been some substance, some fabric, and that something must have prevented the skin unrolling.

If rolled over twice, as has been described, what would keep it in that position until the superincumbent weight comes upon it?—It might have been rolled over by something falling upon it.

You think it could have been rolled over twice by something?—I think it is very easy to explain it in that way. I have not been in, attendance at this trial, nor read the official shorthand notes; but I have been supplied with the depositions taken at the police-court and with a very full newspaper report of the evidence here.

Cross-examined. For the medical details given by the expert witnesses for the Crown, either at the police court or here, I have been dependent on newspaper reports. I have heard Dr. Turnbull to-day examined and cross-examined; I agree with what he said, practically entirely; there is no essential detail—I think no detail at all—in which I disagree with him. I believe that at the police court questions were put to the Crown experts which were based upon the joint report of Dr. Turnbull and myself. In that report we stated that the aponeuroses characteristic of the abdominal wall were not present; I do not agree that that is equivalent to saying that aponeuroses were entirely absent, because there are aponeuroses in all parts of the body.

I will admit that we modified our opinion as to the absence of the characteristic aponeurosis. At the time I was asked to make an examination of the remains, nothing was said as to my giving or not giving evidence. There was a further examination at the joint request of Dr. Turnbull and myself, after we had read the evidence of Dr. Spilsbury, Mr. Pepper, and Dr. Willcox. We were asked to give evidence on October 15; this was after we had made the second examination, but before we had made the third. We made a fresh report, a verbal report, not a written one, in which we said that we were not so certain that this piece of skin did not come from the abdominal wall. My opinion now is that it may have come from the abdominal wall; there is not sufficient evidence to say definitely where it comes from, but I think it does come from the abdominal wall, probably. The two parts of the body from which it may be derived, as we thought when we first saw the piece of skin, were the lower part of the abdomen and the upper part of the thigh on the inner side. We reported that in our opinion it probably did not come from the abdominal wall. That opinion we have modified. With all our present lights, with what we now know about the aponeurosis, I cannot say I have no doubts that it came from the abdominal wall; I am not absolutely certain.

Dr. ALEXANDER WYNTER BLYTH, member of the Royal College of Surgeons, a Fellow of the Institute of Chemistry, Fellow of the Chemical Society, etc. I am the author of a work entitled "Poisons, their Effects and Detection." Referring to the statement made by Dr. Willcox yesterday that going through the ordinary processes he at last extracted a gummy substance, I do not agree that a gummy substance is characteristic of hyoscine and not of hyoscyamine, atropine, or any animal alkaloid. You can have a gummy substance in extracting various alkaloids. Often the slightest impurity—especially with regard to hyoscyamine—causes it not to crystallise. By the term "gummy substance" I presume is meant something that is not crystalline—a sticky substance. Dr. Willcox said that hyoscyamine might crystallise, hyoscine did not; I disagree with that emphatically. Hyoscyamine may crystallise. Hyoscine is very difficult to crystallise under any circumstances.

It is said that atropine crystallises and hyoscyamine crystallises, but hyoscine does not. Do you agree with that or not?—I do; that would be in a pure state. I agree that Vitali's test is characteristic of the vegetable alkaloids, but I have had no experience of a mydriatic alkaloid obtained from animal tissues. Whether those alkaloids react to the test or not I do not know. No one knows. It does give the purple colour in the three vegetable mydriatic alkaloids, but I have had no experience of its giving it in animal alkaloids.

Dr. Willcox said that small round spheres were produced. Are those round spheres characteristic of hyoscine alone, or are they also found with hyoscyamine and atropine?—I have not been able to get them. I have attempted to get what Dr. Willcox has stated, but I must confess that I have not been able to distinguish between

atropine, hyoscyamine, and hyoscine by hydrochloric acid, as Dr. Willcox has done. No one knows whether those round spheres may be produced at last in the case of animal alkaloids.

Dr. Willcox told us that in the lungs, which were most decomposed, he found a trace only of any alkaloid—so small a trace that he could not say if it was animal or vegetable. If it was animal, would you expect that he would find most of the animal alkaloid in the most decomposed part, the lungs?—I should not have expected go, because animal alkaloids arise, it is well known, at a particular stage of putrefaction, and when that stage is passed any animal alkaloid that has been produced becomes more or less destroyed, so that in the same decomposing tissue at different times of its putrefaction you would never expect to find the same amount. It has gone a stage beyond the time of production.

Cross-examined. I have never tested a mydriatic animal alkaloid. I have read Dr. Luff's evidence; he says that he has himself found a mydriatic animal alkaloid in putrefied meat and tested it, and that it did not give the purple colour on Vitali's test. I dare say he is quite correst. I do not dispute for a moment that there may be many mydriatic alkaloids. Metaline is one of the animal mydriatic alkaloids that have been investigated, but there are others that have not been thoroughly investigated. I know of no others by specific names, only under the name of mydriatic alkaloids. There was one that was separated in 1869 by Sonschein, and he gave it no name, but it seems not to have agreed with metaline. I cannot give any name to any other animal mydriatic alkaloid but metaline, because they are unnamed. I have had no practical experience of them at all.

In your opinion, is it possible to make a mistake between animal mydriatic alkaloids and vegetable mydriatic alkaloids?—You would like me to answer "Yes" or "No," but that would not be fair. In my opinion some of them are identical, therefore it is possible to make a mistake between the two.

The following extract from his book on "Poisons" was put to the witness: "A ptomain may be considered as a basic chemical substance derived from the action of bacteria in nitrogenous substances. If this definition is accepted, a ptomain is not necessarily formed in dead animal tissue; it may be produced in the living, and in all cases is the product of bacterial life. A ptomain is not necessarily poisonous; many are known which are in moderate doses quite innocuous. When researches were first published there was some anxiety, since the existence of ptomains would seriously interfere with the detection of poisoning generally, because some were said to be like strychnine, others like alloxantine, and so forth. Further research has conclusively shown that at present no ptomain is known which so closely resembles a vegetable poison as to be likely in skilled hands to cause confusion." Asked whether that was correct, witness said: No, not absolutely so; I have altered my opinion since I wrote that book. I have not published my alteration of opinion; I have not yet had an opportunity, not even in a paper read before any society. I have

altered my opinion lately, during this month, in reading up the various papers—foreign papers; in connection with this case, of course, obviously; I will say for the purposes of this case. I think there is strong evidence that there is in putrefying tissues a substance very much resembling the mydriatic alkaloids produced. I have read that Dr. Luff said that it was impossible to mistake vegetable for animal alkaloids if you properly applied Vitali's test. I disagree with that entirely, because some of the Italian chemists declare that they have got different reactions. I forget the names of the chemists; there is one Giotti; I have not searched their original papers; I have only seen extracts.

The Lord Chief Justice. Can you refer to any book, up to any date you like, which says that animal alkaloids will give the purple colour under Vitali's test?—I have no book.

The jury having desired an opportunity of examining more minutely than was possible in their box the piece of skin and flesh, the Lord Chief Justice and the jury went into an adjoining court for that purpose; there were also present the prisoner, Mr. Oddie, Mr. Tobin, Mr. Pepper, and Dr. Turnbull, with the shorthand-writer to the Court.

Mr. Pepper pointed out what he declared to be the mark of a scar, and further a white line in the very centre of the scar, from bottom to top, which in his opinion was absolutely the mark of a knife. Dr. Turnbull disagreed; in his opinion this was simply the apex of the fold, a sharp depression, similar to what was to be seen on the other side. Mr. Pepper said that the scars of cuts tended to get shorter with age, up to the actual closing up of the stitches; a scar then about four inches long would represent a wound originally about six inches long. Dr. Turnbull agreed that scars would tend to shorten, but not to that extent; they would not stretch, but they would get a very minimum amount of shortening. Asked to explain how the portion of the skin could have been rolled over twice, Dr. Turnbull said it might have been done in the throwing of earth over the remains; the elasticity of the flesh would quite permit of that explanation. Mr. Pepper adhered to his opinion that it was quite impossible that this could have been folded over twice.

The proceedings in the public court were resumed.

Mr. Muir applied for leave to call additional evidence upon two points. With regard to the pyjamas, no statement at all was made as to when prisoner had acquired them until he went into the witness box; before that stage of the trial it was impossible for the prosecution to deal with the question of data. The prosecution now desired to call evidence as to the date of sale, and also evidence as to the manufacture of the material from which the pyjamas were made.

The Lord Chief Justice. As to the date of sale to the prisoner, I shall allow you to call evidence. I shall not allow evidence as to manufacture unless it bears directly upon the question of sale.

Mr. Muir. It does. The second point is as to prisoner's story of his arrangement with the quartermaster on the "Montrose." I desire to call evidence as to the dates on which the "Montrose" has been in English ports since prisoner's arrest, to show that he had opportunities of getting the quarter-master here.

The Lord Chief Justice. I think that is a little too remote. Prisoner has said that he knew she was here once.

Mr. Tobin objected to the calling of fresh evidence as to the pyjamas. The information the prosecution now sought to get in was, he presumed, in their possession before this trial began; if notice had been given to prisoner's advisers they would have had opportunity of inquiring into the matter.

The Lord Chief Justice. I am quite sure that if it had been in their possession you would have had notice of it. In my judgment the point now raised as to the possible date of purchase of the pyjamas was not put to the witnesses for the Crown, and this evidence is clearly admissible. I think it right to say—because there is sometimes a misunderstanding about this—that the question of notice is never conclusive as to whether evidence is admissible. It is the practice of our law always to give the prisoner every notice possible; but, in every case in which the point arises as to whether evidence is material, it is for the judge to say whether or not he thinks it admissible. It does not depend on notice being given. I am quite sure that, having regard to the practice of our law and the practice of the Director of Public Prosecutions, if this point had been foreseen notice would have been given.

Mr. Tobin. My point was rather that the evidence ought not to be given at this stage when they could have given the evidence as part of their case.

The Lord Chief Justice. In my judgment the point made by Dr. Crippen—I will not say throughout his evidence, but in part of it—was not developed, in the cross-examination of the Crown witnesses either here or at the police court. It is Dr. Crippen's own evidence that makes it material.

WM. JAMES CHILVERS , buyer to Jones Brothers, Ltd., Holloway. I have seen the two pyjama suits and the pair of trousers (Exhibits 76 and 48) and recognise the material of which they were made. They were sold to us on—Mr. Tobin. I understood your Lordship to limit this additional evidence to the point whether the wife bought them on a certain date.

The Lord Chief Justice. I limited it to the question of date; this is as to the date before which they could not have been sold. I cannot exclude it.

Examination continued. They were sold to us three or four weeks before December, 1908. They were sold by us between December 29, 1908, and the end of January. 1909. I have here a sale duplicate dated January 5, 1909. On that date 17s. 9d. was paid by the purchaser in respect of goods described in the duplicate; the 17s. 9d. applies to pyjamas; the duplicate also bears items of £2 5s. 4d. and 4s.; all the goods were delivered at 39, Hilldrop Crescent. Looking at Exhibit 48, the pattern of that odd pair of trousers is different from that of the suits Exhibit 76. Looking at the fragments in the jars, Exhibits 79 and 80, they are part of a viama jacket sold by us with the trousers, Exhibit 48. The tab on 79 and 80 bears the words "Jones Brothers (Holloway), Limited, Holloway, N." Jones Brothers first became a limited company in 1906.

The witness was not cross-examined.

Mr. Tobin addressed the jury on behalf of the prisoner.

(Saturday, October 22.)

Mr. Muir, in reply to the Lord Chief Justice, said that the prosecution were unable to produce the volume of Hempel and Arndt referred to by the prisoner. There was such a work; the first volume had been obtained; it only went up to the letter C. The subsequent volumes were not procurable.

HAWLEY HARVEY CRIPPEN (prisoner, on oath), recalled by the Court. I did not mention Hempel and Arndt's book to my advisers, or at all before yesterday. I was at the Bethlem Royal Hospital for the Insane. I studied there for three months. I have known hyoscine administered there. In the case of insane people there is sometimes great difficulty in swallowing, and hyoscine is given hypodermically in very small doses. I treated most of my patients by correspondence. My particular practice was in the eye, throat, nose, and ear; I also took nervous cases. I have not had cases of paralysis agitans, but I have had cases of locomotor ataxy in London, and of violent mania in America, not in London. I never saw the man MacSweeney; I sent him one of Munyon's Remedies books. I understood that he was suffering from nervous debility.

Do you know from your own practice whether in cases of paralysis agitans, locomotor ataxy, violent mania, cerebral excitement, or epilepsy, hyoscine is prescribed?—In cases where there is considerable excitement it is administered by hypodermic injections. It is given in very minute doses for relieving the irritable condition of the nerves. For nervous debility or nervous irritation it is given by the mouth.

The Judge (addressing the jury). I think, gentlemen, that that will show that this question of hypodermically or by the mouth is not of such great importance.

Prisoner then returned to the dock.

Mr. Tobin handed his lordship a book entitled "Braithwait's Retrospect of Medicine," and referred to an article in it by Dr. J. Mitchell Bruce, of Charing Cross Hospital.

The Lord Chief Justice, after reading the article, said it certainly seemed to say that in cases of hydrophobia, maniacal excitement, acute pneumonia with wild delirium, cardiac disease with wandering delirium and attempts to get out of bed, chronic Bright's disease with refusal to take food, or acute double pneumonia with delirium, one-hundredth of a grain of hyoscine was given subcutaneously (that was hypodermically), and on another page it was stated that the preparation of hyoscine might be given subcutaneously or by the mouth. "His own experience," said the writer, "was decidedly in favour of administration under the skin, which, besides being more practicable and perhaps the only method with delirious patients, was the more effective." This seemed to establish, said his lordship, that these minute doses of hyoscine were known to medical men to be given in these diseases either by the mouth or subcutaneously. It was a minor incident in the case, but it rather indicated that the question put by the jury had been perhaps too positively answered by Dr. Willcox.

Mr. Muir. Of course, Dr. Willcox was only referring to his own experience.

Mr. Muir then addressed the jury on behalf of the Crown, and the Lord Chief Justice summed up.

Verdict, Guilty of wilful murder.

Sentence, Death.

BEFORE THE LORD CHIEF JUSTICE.

(Tuesday, October 25.)

Reference Number: t19101011-75

LE NEVE, Ethel Clara (27, typist) was indicted , "That, on February 1, 1910, Hawley Harvey Crippen having feloniously and unlawfully and of his malice aforethought murdered Cora Crippen, she, Ethel Clara Le Neve, well knowing the said Hawley Harvey Crippen to have committed the said felony, did on that day and on divers days there-after feloniously receive, comfort, harbour, assist, and maintain him."

(Refer to trial of Crippen, last reported.)

Mr. Muir, Mr. Travers Humphreys, and Mr. Oddie prosecuted; Mr. F. E. Smith, K.C., M.P., and Mr. Barrington Ward defended.

Mr. Muir, in opening the case, said that the facts were for the most part undisputed. He understood that Mr. F. E. Smith would not rest any part of his case upon there having been no murder committed, or upon any question with regard to Crippen having committed the murder, or as to the murdered person being Crippen's wife. The issue to which! the evidence for the prosecution and the explanations of the accused would be directed would be, what was the state of her knowledge, and what was her intention with regard to the acts which she undoubtedly did. Guilty knowledge and guilty intention were the issues in the present case.

FREDERICK LOWN , and Dr. J. H. BURROUGHS repeated the evidence given by them in the Crippen trial. The deposition of Mrs. MARTINETTI (substantially that given by her in the Crippen trial) was read, after medical evidence that she was not in a condition to attend this day. Miss MELINDA MAY also repeated her evidence.

Chief Inspector WALTER DEW repeated certain portions of his evidence. On July 8, after taking a statement from Crippen, he took a statement from Le Neve (Exhibit 40), Crippen not being present. In this statement prisoner said that she was a single woman, 27 years of age, and a shorthand-typist. Since the latter end of February she had been living at Hilldrop-crescent with Crippen as his wife. Before then she lived at Hampstead. She had been on intimate terms with Crippen for between two and three years, and had known him for ten years. She knew Mrs. Crippen, and had visited Hilldrop-crescent. Mrs. Crippen treated her as a friend. "In the early part of February, the statement continued, "I received a note from Crippen saving Mrs. Crippen had gone to America and asking me to hand over a packet he enclosed to Miss May, an official of the Music Hall Ladies' Guild. About 4 p.m. on the same day he came to our business place, Albion House, and told me his wife had gone to America. He said she had packed up and gone. I had been in the habit for the past two or three years of going about with him, and continued to do so. About a week after he told me she had gone to America I went to Hilldropcrescent, put the place straight, as there were no servants, but at night I went to my lodgings, and I did this for about a fortnight. The place appeared to be all right; quite as usual. He took me to the Benevolent Fund dinner, and lent me a diamond brooch to wear, and

later he told me I could keep it. After this he told me she had caught a chill on board the ship and had got pneumonia, and afterwards he told me she was dead. He told me he could not go to the funeral as it was too far, and she would be buried before he could get there. Before he ever told me this I had been away with him for five or six days at Dieppe, and stayed at an hotel with him as Mr. and Mrs. Crippen, but cannot remember the name of the place. When we came back he took me to Hilldrop-crescent, and I remained there with, him, occupying the same bedroom. The same night, or the night before, he told me that Belle was dead. That would be about March 30. I was very much astonished, but I do not think I said anything to him about it. I have not had any conversation with him about it since. He gave me some furs of his wife's to wear, and I have been living with him ever since as his wife. I have given up my lodgings and taken up my abode at Hilldrop-crescent. My father and mother do not know what I am doing, and think I am housekeeper at Hilldropcrescent. When Crippen told me his wife had gone to America I do not remember if he told me that she was coming back or not. I cannot remember if he went into mourning."

Chief Inspector Dew continued. On July 16 a warrant was placed in my hands for the arrest of Crippen and Le Neve on the charge of murdering Cora Crippen, and immediately afterwards there were particulars in the Press of the discovery of the remains, and descriptions and portraits of the two accused. On July 31 I boarded the "Montrose" at Father Point. I first arrested Crippen; he had then no moustache and was not wearing glasses (when I had seen him in London he had a moustache and wore gold-rimmed glasses). I then went into a cabin where I saw Le Neve; she was dressed in a brown suit of boy's clothes (suit produced and identified as that bought by Long at Crippen's directions; see page 723). Her hair was cut short I said, "Miss Le Neve"; she said, "Yes." I said, "I am Chief Inspector Dew, and you will be arrested for being concerned with Dr. Crippen in the murder and mutilation of Mrs. Crippen in London on or about February 2 last." She made no reply, but became agitated and faint. The cabin she was in was the one also occupied by Crippen. (Witness spoke to finding on Crippen the cards, Exhibits 2 and 3, and various articles of jewellery.) Later I was present when the captain of the "Montrose" asked her if she had not seen in the papers a letter from her father; she said, "No, I have not seen any papers since I left London, and know nothing about it; if I had seen anything in the papers I should have communicated at once." Later she said, "I assure you, Mr. Dew, I know nothing about it; I intended to write to my sister when I got to Quebec." On the voyage back to England I read the warrant to her (setting out the charge in the present indictment); she said, "Yes." On the formal charge at Bow Street she made no reply.

Cross-examined. I have made some inquiries about prisoner's past life; for about ten years she has been working as a shorthand typist; for some years she has not been living with her parents. Her father is a canvasser for coals, and I think he sings at concerts; he is of the

lower middle class of life. He wrote in a paper called "Answers" some articles affecting to tell all about his daughter; that was after her arrest. When I called at 39, Hilldrop Crescent on July 8, prisoner offered to show me all over the house to see if Crippen was there. The statement, Exhibit 40, was made in the presence only of myself and Sergeant Mitchell; some parts she volunteered; sometimes I asked questions, and her replies were embodied in hex own words. It was a very lucid statement, I thought. Shortly after Crippen's. arrest on the "Montrose" Crippen said to me, "It is only fair to say that she (Le Neve) knows nothing about it; I never told her anything." At the time I circulated a description of Mrs. Crippen as "missing," Crippen had made his statement to me, and I know that she had taken away with her very little clothing; Crippen had told me that she had taken with her a great part of her jewellery. The description I circulated of Mrs. Crippen I got by inquiries, among her friends, not from Crippen.

To the Court. The "Montrose" left Antwerp on July 20:

Mr. PEPPER, Dr. WILCOX, and Mr. KIRBY repeated portions of their evidence in the Crippen trial; they were not cross-examined. Mrs. EMILY JACKSON. Up to March 19 of this year I lived at 80, Constantine-road, Hampstead. I was living there in September, 1908, when prisoner rented a bed-sitting room from me and occupied it until March 12, 1910, with the exception of an interval from March to August in 1909. She always addressed me as "mum" or "ma." During January of this year I noticed that she was very miserable and depressed. On one particular evening at the latter end of the month she came home looking pale and agitated, and went straight to her bedroom without supper. As I felt rather hurt at her manner and she had been rather strange of late, I went after her to her room and spoke to her; she scarcely answered me; finally she got into bed and sat up to do her front hair, but her whole body was trembling with suppressed agitation, and her fingers trembled so that she did not know how to do it. I asked her several times to say what was the matter, and at last she said, "Oh, go to bed; I shall be all right in the morning." She then lay down and I sat beside the bed until I thought her to be asleep, leaving her at about two o'clock. Next morning she appeared very ill and was unable to eat any breakfast. I took up a cup of tea, and her hand trembled so that she could not put it down again. I told her I could not let her go out of the house like that, and would telephone to Albion House to say he was not fit to go to business. She said, "You will ask for the doctor, won't you?" I went and telephoned, and on returning to her I said, "My dear girl, you must tell me what is the matter with you; there is something dreadful the matter; I am sure you must have something on your mind, and if you don't relieve your mind you all go absolutely mad." She replied, "I will tell you the whole story presently." I little later she said, "Would you be surprised if I told you it was the doctor?" I asked, "Do you mean he was the cause of your trouble when I first knew you?" She said, "Yes."

I said, "Why worry about that? It is past and gone." She burst into tears and said, "Oh, it's Miss Elmore." I asked whom she meant, not having heard the name before, and she replied, "She is his wife, you know; when I see them go away together it makes me realise my position—what she is and what I am." I said, "My dear girl, what is the use of worrying about another woman's husband." She said, "She has been threatening to go away with another man, and that is all we are waiting for. As soon as she does that the doctor is going to divorce her and marry me." I said, "Are you sure he will marry you? It seems to me he is asking a great deal of you at your age; it is most unfair." She said she would tell him what I had said. She never gave me any other explanation of the cause of her agitation and worry. From about the second week in February this year she began to stay away at night, first one night, then two nights together, and finally altogether, coming back home in the mornings. About a week after the night when I had found her so agitated she came home quite happy, and I asked her if someone had died and left her all their money—what was the matter, that she looked so pleased and delighted over something. She said, "Somebody has gone away at last." When she began to stay out at night she told me when she came back in the morning that she had been to Hilldrop-crescent putting the place straight and searching the house looking for a bank-book; she said that they had discovered a bank balance of £200 and also a diamond tiara and two or three valuable rings, and that the doctor had raised £175 on them to put into his business to put it on a firmer footing. At that time I noticed she was wearing two diamond solitaire rings and one diamond ring with a ruby in it which she had not had before. From February till the time she left she brought clothing to the house and gave it to me. Crippen came with her on one of these occasions, and the clothes were in a dress basket. I produce a list of the articles she gave me. She brought them in cardboard boxes. She told me she had also given things to relatives and to a lady friend. When she left me I visited her at Hilldrop-crescent once before we left Hampstead and twice since.

Cross-examined. When she left me for a short time in March, 1909, she presumably visited her aunt in Brighton. I was very much attached to her, and I was on more intimate terms with her than I would be with an ordinary lodger; nearly every night I would go up to her bedroom and have a chat with her. At first she came in regularly at 6 p.m., and we would have supper together about 9 or 9.30. When she got to know me better she generally spent her evenings with me. She was always most lovable and affectionate towards me; as far as I could see she was gentle, retiring, and sympathetic. I should not call her robust; she suffered from neuralgia and anaemia. Before she left me for the first time she had a lot of teeth out. I do not remember her having neuralgia after she had the teeth out. Both before and after that, on several occasions she was prevented from going to business for a day or so through ill health. On one occasion when she was at home for three weeks she had a miscarriage; that was

what I referred to when I spoke to her about her previous "trouble." That was the only time I ever telephoned to the office saying she could not come. She always suffered severely at the time of her menstrual periods, and sometimes had to stay in bed. I cannot fix any of the dates I have given definitely; I did not attach any importance to them ac the time. When the police came to me in July I then began to try and think of them. I had at that time read scarcely anything of the Crippen case; I was not able to do so as the shock was so over-whelming. I had hardly finished reading an account of it when the police came; it was either the "Daily Mail" or "Daily Mirror" that I read. I had got as far as knowing that there had been a disappearance, that remains had been found, and that Mrs. Crippen had not been seen alive since January 31. When Sergeant Cornish came I tried to recall my conversations with prisoner. He asked me if I had noticed anything strange in her manner; he may have asked me that with reference to a particular date, but I cannot remember. I do not think she commenced to be strange until the early part of January she began about the 5th, 6th, or 7th to be very miserable and unhappy about something. It made her look very ill. Throughout the whole of January she was depressed, and she looked very ill; her eyes looked very strange and very haggard. I can hardly say that she had the same kind of look as she had when she was very ill. Frequently before the conversation which I have spoken of with her I asked her what was the matter with her—quite a dozen times. This was through January. She said she was worried with accounts in the office; I do not think she gave any other reason. Her courses were very irregular; you could not depend at all on the time. The time when she was very agitated may have been as early as January 25; I cannot fix the date. About a week or so after that occasion, or perhaps a little more, she said, "Somebody has gone to America." She was in high spirits and did not bear a trace of anxiety; all her depression had disappeared. I had no doubt whom she meant had gone to America, because she had told me previously that that was all they were waiting for her to do, and Crippen had told her that she had been threatening for a long time to go away. It did not surprise me very much when she told me. She seemed relieved and happy at the idea. That may have been February 2, 3, or 4, or any one of those days. When she was so ill she seemed not so much in bodily agony as mental agony; a more acute paroxysm of the same kind of anxiety that she had been suffering from all through January. After I had had the conversation with her that morning she did not go to the office at all that day. She was better the next morning, and did then go to the office, returning in very good spirits. If I said before that she did not go to the office for two or three days, it was a mistake.

ERNEST WILLIAM STUART , manager to Attenboroughs, repeated his evidence as to the pawning of certain jewellery by Crippen for £80 and £115 on February 2 and 9.

FREDERICK PEDGRIFT repeated his evidence as to the advertisement in the "Era."

WILLIAM LONG repeated his evidence as to the purchase of a boy's suit at Crippen's directions, etc.

Cross-examined. I had known prisoner for eight or nine years; she was practically that time in the same employment as myself. I got to know her fairly well; I agree that she might be described as a gentle inoffensive girl.

The defence called no evidence.

Verdict, Not guilty.


View as XML