CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT
HELD OCT. 10TH, 1911, AND FOLLOWING DAYS.
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE,
TAKEN IN SHORTHAND BY
Shorthand ✗Writers to the Court.
POINTS OF LAW AND PRACTICE
H. DELACOMBE ROOME, ESQUIRE
OF THE MIDDLE TIMPLE.
[Published by Annual Subscription.]
THE ARGUS PRINTING COMPANY, LIMITED
10, TEMPLE AVENUE, LONDONE.C.
On the King's Commission of
OYER AND TERMINER AND GAOL DELIVERY
The City of London,
AND GAOL DELIVERY FOR THE
COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX AND THE PARTS OF OTHER COUNTIES WITHIN THE JURISDICTION
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT,
Held on Tuesday, October10th, 1911, and following days.
Before the Right Hon. Sir T. VEZEY - STRONG, LORD MAYORof the City of London; the Hon. Sir THOS. EDWD. SCRUTTON, 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 HORATIOB. MARSHALL, Knight, LL.D.; and JAMBS ROLL , Esq., Aldermen of the said City; Sir FORREST FULTON, Knight, K.C., Recorder of the said City; Sir FK. ALBERTBOGANQENT K.C., Common Serjeant of the said City; His Honour Judge LUMLEY SMITH , K.C., Commissioner; 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.
CHARLESAUGUSTIN HANSON, Esq., Alderman,
CENTRAL CRIMINAL COURT.
VEZEY-STRONG, MAYOR. TWELFTH SESSION.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Tuesday, October 10.)
BUSINESS OF THE COURT.
THE RECORDER, in the course of his charge to the Grand Jury, referred to four exceptionally heavy and important cases contained in the present Calendar and the long list of ordinary cases also included. He continued: The next Session is only a month from to-day, and I am afraid we shall not by that time have completed, or anything like completed, the business which is before us at tie present Session; in fact, in my opinion, the character of the business with which we have to deal is such that we shall be fortunate if we dispose of it all, together with the new cases in November and December, by the time of the usual adjournment at Christmas. I mention these matters because it has been suggested in some quarters that, in addition to all the important cases which we have to try here as the first Court of Assize in this country, we should take upon ourselves the burden of disposing at this Court of all the cases which are in ordinary circumstances tried at the County of London Sessions. In my opinion, any attempt to carry out such a proposition would lead to disastrous results; it would lead to confusion of business, and to the result of a very very large number of persons remaining in custody awaiting trial for a great length of time.
PRESENTMENT OF THE GRAND JURY.
After the Grand Jury had concluded their duties the Foreman made the following presentment: In view of your Lordship's remarks in the course of your charge to us as to the existing congestion of business before this Court and the threatened further congestion, we wish to put it on record that in our opinion a considerable proportion of the cases which have come before us in the course of our present labours are such as should never have occupied the time of what your Lordship described as "the first Assize in the kingdom, indeed, in the world, " to say nothing of that of the Grand Jury. Without attempting to exhaust the list, the following are typical cases of those to which we refer: Goldstein, Charles Wilson, Darioli and others, Frank Stevens, J. W. Waite, Esther Bowen, F. C. Gibbard and other similar Post
Office prosecutions, G. S. Boutell and other taxi-cab prosecutions D. P. Finnigan, Louis Cohen and similar counterfeit-coin prosecutions, James Newman, Henry Wolard. In our opinion these and other similar ones are all cases which should either have been disposed of by the magistrates or committed to the Court which corresponds to Quarter Sessions in the Provinces. We are further of the opinion that, in view of the steady growth of the area for which this Court is the principal Assize, if the necessary machinery is not already in existence for giving effect to the above recommendation, it is highly desirable that legislation should be initiated without delay for the purpose of creating the same.
THE RECORDER: I may say, gentlemen, as you are perhaps not aware of the fact, that all those cases which ordinarily would be tried at Quarter Sessions are sent for trial in this Court if they are committed within the City proper—that is to say, within the jurisdiction of the Corporation of London, because the Corporation of London try all their cases here instead of trying them at the Quarter Sessions which in other parts of the country are held. That is the reason why many of these small cases which you speak of are brought before the Grand Jury at every Sessions—that hag always been done.
LONDON AND MIDDLESEX CASES.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Tuesday, October 10.)
HALLIFAX, Septimus (50, clerk), who pleaded guilty last Session (see page 489) of stealing two valuable securities, to wit, bankers' cheques for ₤550 and ₤1, 700 respectively, the moneys of George Strachan Pawle and others, hit masters, was brought up for judgment.
Sentence, Eighteen months' hard labour.
Prisoner was given an excellent character by his late employer, who stated he was willing to take him again into his service. Sentence was again postponed.
GIBBARD, Frederick Charles (33, postman) pleaded guilty , of stealing a postal packet containing a postal order for 5s., the property of His Majesty's Postmaster General, he being an officer of the Post Office.
Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.
WALFORD, Arthur William (34, postman) pleaded guilty , of stealing a postal packet containing a pencil case and certain money and stamps, the property of His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he being an officer of the Post Office.
Prisoner confessed to having been convicted on August 15, 191.1, at Willesden Petty Sessions, receiving 15 months' hard labour for stealing copper wire. It was stated that he had obtained employment at the Post Office by falsely representing himself to be a man of good character.
Sentence, Twelve months' hard labour.
Seven previous convictions were proved.
Sentence, Two years' hard labour.
STEVENS, Frank (60, bricklayer) pleaded guilty , of maliciously damaging by night two plate-glass windows, value about ₤15, the property of the Imperial Tobacco Company of Great Britain and Ireland, Limited.
Prisoner was stated to have made no attempt to run away when arrested, and to have broken the windows because he was homeless.
Sentence, Six months' hard labour.
HUNN, Henry Marshall (35, sorter) pleaded guilty , of stealing a postal packet containing a banker's cheque for ₤10, and a postal packet containing two postal orders for 15s. each, in each case the property of His Majesty's Postmaster-General, he being an officer of the Port Office.
Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.
RILEY, William (41, baker), and HUMPHRIES, Henry John (25, stoker), both pleaded guilty of breaking and entering the shop of Benjamin Kaplan and stealing therein five boxes of cigars and a quantity of tobacco leaf, his goods.
Riley confessed to having been convicted at this Court on May 31, 1910, receiving 18 months' hard labour for shop breaking after three, previous convictions. Humphries confessed to having been convicted at South London Sessions on June 7, 1910, receiving 18 months' hard labour for shop-breaking after seven previous convictions. Both prisoners had only been out of prison three days when arrested. Sentences, Riley, Three years' penal servitude; Humphries, Four years' penal servitude.
FINK, George Herbert (52, doctor) , forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain order for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for ₤11, 000 3s. 10d., with intent to defraud.
Mr. Muir prosecuted; Mr. George Elliott, K.C., defended.
PHILLIP BUCKINGHAM BAKER , manager, Delhi and London Bank. 5, Bishopsgate. Prisoner was formerly a surgeon-major in the Indian Medical Service; he has been for some years a customer at my bank. I am familiar with his handwriting. On September 7 I received registered letter containing cheque on National Discount Company, obviously altered from ₤11 3s. 10d. to ₤11, 000 3s. 10d., containing a direction on the envelope, "Send cash or cheque-book"; the altera
tion, the direction, and the envelope are in prisoner's writing. In the ordinary course the cheque would have been paid into our bankers, but the alteration not having been initialled I sent it to the National Discount Company to have it verified. At that time prisoner's account with my bank was closed.
Cross-examined. I know prisoner has been much worried of late years. He could not have obtained money on a cheque altered like the present one.
ARTHUR PAYNE , clerk to the National Discount Bank, Limited. The receipt produced was issued to prisoner when he deposited ₤600 with my bank on March 31, 1910; he drew upon that from time to time and on Saturday, August 12, 1911, he asked me about the balance, saying he wished to withdraw it. I told him there was ₤10 and ₤1 3s. 10d. interest, and handed him cheque produced for ₤11 3s. 10d., which has since been altered to ₤11, 000 3s. 10d. On Monday, August 14, prisoner came again and said he had mislaid the cheque.
Cross-examined. Receipt produced has an entry, apparently in prisoner's handwriting, making out that he had received ₤600, 000 from my bank; no such transaction ever took place.
FRANCIS THOMAS GOLDSMITH , sub-manager, National Discount Bank, Limited. On September 7 at 4 p.m. prisoner told me on the telephone that he had hunted high and low for a cheque that we had given him and asked what steps should be taken; I told him to write to us; he seemed to acquiesce; we never received any letter.
Cross-examined. My firm knew his address.
CRISTINE TOOGOOD , clerk at post office, 149, Regent Street. I issued the receipt (produced) for the letter (produced); when I took the letter in it was sealed with two more seals than it has on now. This sealing-wax on it is not such as is used by the Post Office.
Detective-inspector JOHN COLLISSON. I arrested prisoner on a warrant on September 8 at 185, Abraham Road, telling him the charge; he said, "It is not true, it is a false charge; I sent a cheque to the manager of the Delhi Bank and it was for ₤11, 000; it was endorsed on the back." He said to his wife, "Take notice of what they are saying." I took him to Bishopsgate Police Station, where he was charged; he made no reply.
Cross-examined. When I arrested prisoner he was very excited but was quite sober. He did not seem to realise the gravity of the offence.
Dr. MAURICE CRAIG, F.R.C.P., corroborated the last witness. Verdict, Guilty, but insane.
Ordered to be detained during His Majesty's pleasure.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Tuesday, October 10.)
HENDRIE, William Grant (60, chemist's assistant) , unlawfully writing and publishing and causing to be written and published, certain defamatory libels of and concerning Archer Mowbray Upton and the Society of Apothecaries.
Mr. J. P. Grain prosecuted; Mr. Purchase defended.
The case had been adjourned, on prisoner's application, from the last Session, in order that ho might file a plea of justification, the Recorder granting him legal aid to enable him to do so. Prisoner (through Mr. Purchase) now wished to withdraw his plea of not guilty and plead guilty.
Prisoner had been discharged in 1892 from the Society of Apothecaries, where he had been employed since 1878. He had been since then on three occasions bound over for publishing libels against that Society and its solicitor and clerk. Mr. Purchase stated that prisoner had now had an opportunity of realising the grave nature of the charges he had made, which had reference to the quality of the drugs supplied by the Society under Government contracts, and realising that they were without foundation wished to unreservedly withdraw them.
(October 14.) Prisoner was released on his own recognisances in ₤50 to come up for judgment if called upon.
MURPHY, Charles (38, dealer) pleaded guilty , of feloniously having in his custody and possession a mould on which was impressed the figure of the obverse side of a florin, knowingly and without lawful authority or excuse.
Prisoner's last conviction was in 1899 for possessing counterfeit coin, for which he was sentenced to four years' penal servitude. A conviction for a similar offence was proved in 1892. Since his release he had been earning an honest living as a sawdust dealer.
(October 11.) Prisoner was released on his own recognisances in ₤50 and those of Henry Joseph Hazzard in ₤20 to come up for judgment if called upon.
Prisoner, who had not been previously convicted and had of late associated with bad company but previously had a good character, was released on his own recognisances in ₤20 to come up for judgment if called upon.
HAMMOND, Henry, (35, labourer), and CLAYTON, George (24, bootmaker) , both unlawfully uttering counterfeit coin twice on the same day; both unlawfully possessing counterfeit coin with intent to utter the same.
Clayton pleaded guilty.
Mr. Beaumont Morice prosecuted.
MAUD LEAH , assistant, Charles Joseph Bouchard, tobacconist, 150, Goldsmith Row, Shoreditch. About 3.30 p.m. on September 27 Clayton came and asked for a packet of "Woodbine" cigarettes. He tendered this shilling (produced), which I bent. I said I could not take it and returned it to him. He walked out. A few minutes later on going to the door I saw he was sitting on the pavement with Hammond.
WINIFRED BODWIN JONES , wife of William Jones, 147, Goldsmith Row. About 3.45 p.m. on September 27, Clayton came in and asked for a pound of lump sugar, price 3d. He tendered this shilling (produced), which I tested with acid; it turned black. I returned it to him and he rubbed the acid off, saying, "Oh God, I'm sorry." He walked out. I saw him later come out of Bouchard's shop and join Hammond; they sat down outside my shop. My husband gave information to the police.
Police-constable ARTHUR BLOOMFIELD, 664 J. About 4 p.m. on September 27 Jones pointed out prisoners to me; they were going in the direction of Hackney Road. I stopped them and said, "I have just been told you have uttered a counterfeit coin at a shop and you must come back with me." Hammond said, "All right. We will come back. We are not afraid of anything." Clayton said, "I know nothing about it." I took them to 150, Goldsmith Row, where Leah identified Clayton. Mrs. Jones identified him at No. 147. I said to them, "I shall take you into custody for uttering counterfeit coin." Hammond put his hand in his right-hand trousers pocket and withdrew something which he attempted to throw away. I caught hold of his hand and took these three counterfeit shillings (produced) from it." He said, "This is what you want—bad money." I took them to the station. In the charge room Hammond said to Clayton, "You don't know me—you have never seen me before." When charged they made no reply. 51/2d. in bronze was found on Hammond.
Police-constable HENRY BULLOCK, 208 J., corroborated.
Hammond's statement before the Magistrate; "I am innocent. That man is a stranger to me; I have never seen the man before in my life."
HENRY HAMMOND (prisoner, on oath). On this day I was trying to find a job as dock labourer in Thames Street when a man offered me a job pushing a barrow. I shoved it as far as Goldsmith Row, when he gave me 6d. I saw Clayton pick something up. I caught him up and he showed me three coins which he said he had picked up. He put them in my hand. I said I did not think they were good. He took one from me and said he would go and see. He went into a shop. He came back and said it was bad. I was going to give them back to him when the constable came up and said something to him about bad money. He took us to a shop. I was going to give him the three coins which I had put in my pocket; I did not attempt to throw them
away. I did not say to Clayton, "You don't know me"; I said all along that he was a stranger to me.
Gross-examined. I cannot say if he went into more than one shop. He asked me to hold two while he went to see if the third one was bad. If they had been good I should have got a few half-pence out of it. I did not tell the constable that I had got them from Clayton because I thought it was of no use. I have never done such a thing as this.
Verdict, Guilty. The jury stated that there appeared to be some mitigating circumstances and that it appeared to be an accident of chance that the prisoners were brought together on this occasion.
Against Clayton five previous convictions (none for coinage offences), dating from 1903, were proved. Against Hammond no previous convictions were proved; it was stated that he did occasional work as a dock labourer.
Sentences, Clayton, Twelve months' hard labour; Hammond, Three months' hard labour.
FACKLER, Albert Augustus pleaded guilty , to, on August 2, attempting to obtain by false pretences from George Albeit ₤32 9s. 9d. with intent to defraud, and on August 11 attempting to obtain from the same person ₤11 19s. 8d.
These sums were endeavoured to be obtained from the prosecutor, who was a bookmaker, by means of manipulating letters containing bets so that the post-marks on the envelopes should bear a time previous to the time when the race was run. Evidence was called on hit behalf as to his character.
Prisoner was released on his own recognisances in ₤20 to come up for judgment if called upon. Mr. Charles Daniel (tailor, 30, Basing hall Street) undertook to take him back into his employ and to report to the Court in the first week in December as to his conduct.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Tuesday, October 10.)
WERTHEIMER, Charles Hermann (32, manager), GEER, Walter (22, salesman), and TAYLOR, John (45, salesman) , all conspiring together and with others unknown to obtain by false pretences from such of the liege subjects of our Lord the King as should thereafter be induced to send second-hand motor-cars to Clement Gardner and Company, Limited, and the Marylebone Motor Mart for sale divert motor-cars and divers of their moneys, goods and chattels and to defraud them thereof and conspiring together and with others unknown to obtain and obtaining by false pretences from Herbert Carden a motor-car, from Herbert Edward Burnand a motor-car, from William Crighton a motor-car, from Arthur Eadsforth a motor-car, from Gordon Openshaw Ramsbottom a motor-car, from John Lionel Stretton and another a motor-car, and from Edward Millear Bailey a motor-car, in each case with intent to defraud.
Mr. Muir and Mr. Travers Humphreys prosecuted; Mr. G. M. Hilbery defended Wertheimer; Mr. Roome defended Geer; Mr. Eustace Fulton defended Taylor.
FRANCIS MEACHAM , Office of Registrar of Joint Stock Companies. I produce the file of Clement Gardner and Company. It was presented for filing on April 21, 1910. The nominal capital of the company was ₤1, 000 in ₤1 shares. Clement Gardner and Joseph Fletcher subscribed for one share each. There is nothing to show that any other capital was paid up. A return was made dated July 6, 1910, showing that Wertheimer was appointed a new director; that is signed by Geer as secretary. On September, 8, 1910, particulars of a mortgage were registered. The mortgagee is Rudolph Wertheimer; the amount of ₤525 is secured on all the property present and future, including the uncalled capital. That is signed by Walter Geer, secretary. On March 28, 1911, a compulsory winding-up order was made. I also produce the file of the Marylebone Motor Mart, Limited. It was presented for filing by W. Geer, 78, Marylebone Road. He is not described as secretary. A declaration was made by John Taylor at 248, Great Portland Street, as a director, before H. Grosvenor Taunton, a commissioner for oaths.
JOHN WESTON STRETTON , 16, Compton Road, Canonbury, N. Last March my father, who lives at 27, Church Street, Kidderminster, advertised for sale a Clement-Talbot car. He sent me some correspondence he had had with the Marylebone Motor Mart. I saw Geer at 78, High Street, Marylebone; he was pointed out to me as the manager. I told him my father had written to me, and asked him if he could sell the car and what price he would be able to get for it. Ha said he thought a fair price would be ₤125. I said I would write my father; he said he would also write that they were willing to give ₤125 after the car was sold. There was something said about sending the car up to London. He said they had a customer and would try and persuade him to pay the carriage up to London so that he might see it, and if it was not sold in a few days it would be returned and the carriage paid to Kidderminster. My father afterwards wrote me en- closing their letter. The car was sent to them. I saw Taylor afterwards. He said they had taken the car out for a run and as far as he could see it was in good condition and they hoped to make a deal of it. I saw him again a few days later. He said the client was indisposed but ho hoped they would soon be able to complete the deal and give me a cheque for ₤125. As I was leaving he asked if it was possible to take anything less. I said we were not particular to a ₤5 note. We arranged another meeting when I understood I should receive a cheque for the stated amount, and I think the time fixed for the meeting was 9 p.m., Saturday, April 8. Taylor did not tell me the car had been sold a week before. I called on April 8, but saw nobody; the place was shut up; I rang the bell but got no answer. I went to Kidderminster the following Sunday and stayed about a week. On April 10 they wrote making an offer, which was refused. We telegraphed them to return the car. They then wired asking our lowest figure; we replied ₤120. About April 25 I called at High Street. I did not see
Taylor or Geer; other people were there. I have since seen the car at a garage in Oxford Street. This was after the police had the matter in hand. I never saw Wertheimer. Taylor described himself to me as the director of the business. Geer did not describe himself; he was pointed out to me as the manager.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. The effect of what Geer said was that he hoped to be able to find a customer. I think I asked Taylor if he had anything to do with the business and he told me he was one of the directors. I did not know whether it was called a company or not. I told him what I had come about and we discussed about the car. They had written my father that the engine of the car was not as valuable as they thought, but Taylor said it was quite all right. Lacked him if he thought they were likely to sell it; he said he thought they would be able to. It was after that conversation I arranged to call again, when I asked him if they had sold the car. He said no, they hoped to sell it shortly. I said I would call next day. He said could I give them till Saturday. I said it was very inconvenient to me, but 1 arranged to call on Saturday, I think it was at 9 p.m.
Cross-examined by Mr. Roome. I only saw Geer once; that was the first time I went to the Marylebone Mart. He said he thought he could find a customer.
LIONEL STRETTON , M.D., practising at Kidderminster. In March last I advertised a 12—16 h.p. Clement-Talbot motor-car for sale. I received a reply from the Marylebone Motor Mart. I afterwards had other correspondence which I sent up to my son. About April 9 my son came down to stay with me. I received letters from the Marylebone Motor Mart while he was there. I left the matter with my son to see them. He acted on my behalf. I have not had my car back or seen it since.
GEORGE TAYLOR , 151, Oxford Street, W. I trade as the City Car Exchange. I have known Wertheimer for some years. I bought from him a Clement-Talbot 12—16 h.p. car on April 1 this year. He asked me if I would buy such a car. I said yes, and we agreed the price at ₤75. I think he asked ₤100. I paid him a cheque for ₤50 on April 1. This is the cheque, endorsed "W. Geer, manager." At this time Wertheimer was owing me money. I afterwards gave him two cheques further on account of the price of the car for ₤10 and ₤5. They were made payable to Hermann Bros., which was the name Wertheimer was going under. About a fortnight after I got the car they asked me to let them have it back as they had a likely customer. They sent the car back. I do not know where it is now. I have sold it since, to a New Zealand gentleman, I cannot think of the name, for ₤100. Mr. Stretton came to see the car. I explained everything to him. He was satisfied. I wrote to Mr. Stretton; I got no answer, and sold the car. He told me he would not sell the oar for less than ₤120 and wired to that effect. He came and saw it at my place and I told him I had bought it for ₤75. I offered it to him for ₤90. I did not know it was his at the time. He did not say he had parted with it to a dealer and had not been paid for it. I advertised it and he came up to see it. The receipt for ₤65 is in Wertheimer's writing. It was written in my office.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hilbery. I have done a fair amount of business with Wertheimer in the past. I bought this car for ₤75. I entrusted it to them to sell again for me without hesitation. I thought I could trust them. Prior to April 1 he offered me the car for ₤100, it might have been a little more. Geer brought the car in but Wertheimer only came to the office. The receipt with the words "Official receipt to follow" was not signed by Wertheimer after Geer had gone with the cheque because it was getting close to banking hours. The receipt was not on their form as I wanted it. I do not think Geer or Taylor have done any work for me since this case has been on. I am sure they have not. Neither of them has been employed by me. Miss Holmes is in my employment now. She has been with me about five weeks.
Cross-examined by Mr. Roome. Geer had nothing to do with the sale of the car. I did not see him often at the Marylebone Motor Mart. I do not know what his position was there. I sometimes lent money on cars to Wertheimer—bought them on the condition that he would have them back at the same price.
HERBERT CARDEN , solicitor, 30, Old Steyne, Brighton. In November last I advertised a 60-h.p. de Dietrich car for sale. In reply to that I received a letter dated September 23 from Clement Gardner and Company, Limited. I received another letter of October 6. I wrote on October 8 to say I should bring the car up on Monday or Tuesday. I took it up myself and left it there for sale. I called there several times. I only saw the car on one occasion; I think that was November. I wrote and received a large number of letters. They did not inform me in their letter of March 14 that they had that very day sold the car for ₤50. I continued to press for the return of my car. I told them I wanted ₤400 for it. In course of conversation I said if they would submit me an offer of ₤250 I might take it. The bigger the car the more trouble to sell on account of the license. I never intimated that I would take ₤150. In reply to their letter of April 26 I went and saw Mr. Grosvenor Taunton. I got no money from him or anybody else for my car. I afterwards saw the car at Humphreys and Sawyer's, 315, Euston Road. It had then been stripped of all accessories. I went on several occasions to High Street between the time I sent my car and getting the letter referring me to Mr. Grosvenor Taunton. I generally saw Geer, but I saw Taylor once or twice. I do not think either of them described their positions. I did not get any information about my car. There was always some excuse—it had gone to the coachbuilders or was out on a trial run. I was not told the car had been sold on March 14.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hilbery. My Advertisement was answered by Clement Gardner and Company, Limited. I took the car to them at 78, High Street, Marylebone. I cannot say who received it; it was not Wertheimer. I do not think I ever saw him. They informed me that Mr. Montague, a customer, had a trial run; that was November or December. I introduced him to them; I said to him, "The car is up there, go and look at it." I never saw him again.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. I do not know that Taylor was never in Clement Gardner Company's employ. I have no knowledge that on March 14 he was not in the employ of the Marylebone Motor Mart. I do not know whether the initials on this letter handed to me are his.
Cross-examined by Mr. Roome. I went to the Marylebone Motor Mart after March 27. The last time, I think, was April 11. I went to Mr. Taunton's after that, I think. I have a note from them dated April 11 saying, " In reference to your call this afternoon, " After April 11 I did not see Geer at the Marylebone Motor Mart; I saw him at Taunton's. I remember Geer telling me the car was at the coachbuilders having a new panel put in. He said on another occasion one of his principals had got the car out on a trial run with somebody. I know the distinction between a pledge and a sale. If a car was pledged with an option of redemption it would not be sold out and out. I was told by Geer it was pledged. He did not tell me he was trying to sell it. One of their letters spoke about being in communication with a firm in the north—they had an offer of ₤220 from Mr. Reynolds of Birmingham. I made no enquiries about that.
RICHARD THOMAS SAWYER , partner in Humphreys and Sawyer, 315, Euston Road. I know all the defendants. I think I have known Wertheimer longest. In March Wertheimer offered me a de Dietrich car, but what day we bought the car I could not say without referring. It was a 60—70 h.p. The price he was asking was round about ₤200. I refused to pay anything like it, but I do not know the date of that. I told him it was worth about ₤50. He laid he could not accept it. I saw him two or three days afterwards. I bought the car on March 16. It was three or four days before that when he first spoke to me. I gave him ₤50 by cheque and he gave me this receipt signed " C. H. Wertheimer, Manager." He had the option of buying it back for ₤55 within two weeks. The option was renewed for a fortnight, which would expire on April 19. The oar became my property. Later on Mr. Carden came and saw the car at our place. When I bought it it had no accessories. We did not put a new panel in it. There was a dent in it when we got it, the same as now. There is a question now whether it is Mr. Carden's property.
Cross-examined by Mr. Hilbery. When Wertheimer first offered me the car he asked about ₤250. I laughed at him. It was an absolutely ridiculous price for the time of year. It was an absurd price on account of the tax; the tax had come in that year. That would make all the difference between ₤250 and ₤50. The tax would be between ₤40 and ₤50 a year. The only thing you can do with them is to ship them abroad. I have known Taylor for some few years, but I have only teen Geer At the Marylebone Motor Mart. There would be nothing unusual in a dealer having a loan on a car with an option to repurchase. I should not regard that as a matter outside ordinary business. He tried to renew the option by paying ₤5. You have the cheque there, I believe; I could not say for certain it was paid by cheque.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. Taylor was not connected with this transaction.
Cross-examined by Mr. Roome. I did not see Geer in this matter at all; it was transacted with Wertheimer himself throughout. I knew Wertheimer years ago when he was a traveller. He was manager of Clement Gardner, Limited, I believe. I understood him to be manager of the Marylebone Motor Mart. The receipt is signed by Wertheimer as manager. I saw him write it. I have known Geer for about six months. I did not know him when he was with Clement Gardner.
(Wednesday, October 11.)
Mr. Hilbery stated that the prisoner Wertheimer had withdrawn his instructions from solicitor and counsel and from this point was defending himself.
HERBERT EDWARD BURNAND , 16, Southbourne Grove, Bournemouth. I advertised for sale a 14-18 h.p. Spyker landaulette in "The Motor." I received a reply from Clement Gardner and Company on December 6, "If you will let us have the Spyker car for a week we will try and get you ₤150 net. If we are unable to do so we will pay carriage both ways on the car." I sent the car on January 5 or 6 to the Marylebone Motor Mart. On January 4, 1911, I received Exhibit 86 saying, "Your letter of the 2nd addressed to Clement Gardner and Company has been handed to us. We have taken over the West End depot. We have a better outlet for cars of this type than they have, " etc., that is signed "Manager J. T." and "T. H." They acknowledged the receipt of the car in a letter signed "John Taylor, Marylebone Motor Mart." I wrote them on January 11 and several letters passed between us. On February 25 they wrote, "We thank you for your letter of the 22nd. Cheque will be sent you in the next day or two. The deal is not yet finished." That is initialled "J. T." The cheque did not come. I went to the Mart on March 9 and saw Geer. I asked him if he could not settle the car. He said, "The matter is not quite settled." I understood him that the car was not disposed of and I asked him if it was in the Mart. He said, "No, it is away." So I said, "What, an intending purchaser on approval? " He said, "Yes." I said, " It has been away a long time, cannot you get the car settled or charge him something for the hire of the car? " He said he might be able to get ₤10 10s. Then he promised to see the people and get them to decide one way or the other quickly and let me know. On March 19 after further correspondence, I again saw Geer. He said I had better see Taylor, who was out to lunch then. I made an appointment to come at half-past one. I asked him who the proprietors of the Motor Mart were and if I could write them and try and get them a settlement. I understood him to say the proprietors were Bowles and Palmer. I asked for their addresses. He said, "Well, I can hardly give you the addresses without their permission, " or to that effect. I called again in the afternoon at 1.30 and saw Taylor. He said that was his name. I told him I had come for a cheque as they had promised so many times to settle. He said he did not know much about the matter but he would go and see the papers. He went upstairs. He found the papers,
looked them over, and said, "This seems all right; I cannot see why it cannot he settled." I said it must he settled. He said something about the company being turned into a limited company now and showed me what I thought was a form of incorporation of the company, dated, I think, April 8. I did not look through it. He told me he was a director of the company. I asked, "Managing director? " I do not think he gave me an answer. He said he would look into the matter and see the head of the firm or the proprietor, but, he said, "It is so difficult to obtain an interview with him, " or to that effect. He promised to arrange it that evening and promised to let me have a cheque by 12 next day. I did not get the cheque. I asked him who had bought the car. He said he was not clear on that point. I called next day and saw both Taylor and Geer. I asked why they had not sent the cheque. Taylor said he had not been able to see the principal. He asked me to make an appointment for Saturday, or if he could telephone me. I said I should be out of town. I said, "I do not suppose it would be much good if you did"; he said, "No, I suppose not, " or to that effect. I have not been paid a farthing in respect of the car. I first discovered to whom the car had been sold in conversation outside the police court. I have not seen the car since.
Cross-examined by Wertheimer. Clement Gardner and Company, Limited, wrote me a letter, but the Marylebone Motor Mart also answered the advertisement. I do not know whether it was at the same time. I had two or three other answers. I called four times at the Motor Mart. I do not remember seeing you there. I do not think your name was mentioned to me.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. I had a number of letters signed John Taylor manager or initialled "J. T." I assumed from that that the manager was a man named John Taylor. I think I first saw Taylor on April 19. He told me he had been away. He spoke to Miss Holmes and asked by what authority she had been putting his name upon letters. On the 19th I saw Geer; he asked Miss Holmes the same question. I do not remember her answering him. Taylor did not appear to know very much about the transaction. I do not remember seeing him since until the police court proceedings.
Cross-examined by Mr. Roome. I had no letter signed by Geer. Geer was referred to as the secretary. An employee said "The secretary is in, " and I gave him my card. Geer came down. He was not wearing a mechanic's coat. He promised to see the people that had the oar and try and do something for me and let me know. I understood him the car was out on approval. He never suggested that he was the manager.
CHARLES REED , manager of the International Motor Mart, Limited, 8eymour Street, Euston Road. I have known Wertheimer for about four years. I have done business for him from time to time. On January 10 he asked me to buy a 14—18 Spyker landaulette; I think I lent him ₤70 on it first. The same day he said he would take ₤100 for it and I paid him the balance that day. This is the receipt signed by him in my presence. I had the car about three months, then sold it to Horner of Pearson Street.
Cross-examined by Wertheimer. The receipt is signed "John Taylor per C. H. W." On January 10 Taylor was at the Marylebone Motor Mart; I did not know exactly what he was, or that he was more than an employee. I knew you were manager or general manager. I knew you were still at Clement Gardner's, Pentonville Road. You told me you were conducting the transaction for the Marylebone Motor Mart. I did not notice how you had signed the receipt until I saw the document afterwards when the detectives came.
[Prisoner Wertheimer reserved the rest of his cross-examination until the witness gave evidence in another case.]
LEON CRIGHTON , 25, Ellerton Road, Wandsworth Common. Last February I advertised an Argyll landaulette for sale in the "Motor" at ₤210. Correspondence ensued between the Marylebone Motor Mart and myself. I called there on the 22nd and saw Geer. I went in, of course, to inquire as to what kind of place I was going to send the car. I saw they had two or three very good cars in the place and that it looked all right, and I agreed for the car to go up for sale. Geer did not tell me who he was. I asked to see the manager. He said he was acting for the manager. I waited about a fortnight then I wrote them and they replied; then I acknowledged their letter and said I should wait for a better offer. I did not accept the ₤75 they offered on a month's bill. I particularly stated I would not take a bill. When I received their letter of April 8 I did not know the car had been sold on March 25. When I parted with the car it was in splendid condition, perfect in every way. When I got that letter I went up to see what it all meant. I saw Geer and one or two men in overalls. I asked Geer what it meant. He looked very confused, and I said "where is my car? " He said it was out. I said "Where? " Another man behind him said, "It is gone to the works to get the window fixed." I asked him where the works where. He said, "A few minutes away." I said I would wait. When he came back he said the car had gone out on trial with two gentlemen; it would be back by two o'clock. I said I would call back in the afternoon. I called at four and the car was there, the men who were waiting began brushing up the brass work to make it look nice. I said it had been used very much. They complained that the spring had gone, that the engine was not horizontal—all kinds of things. Geer was the man I dealt with on that occasion. He said the car was virtually sold for ₤180 to a local doctor and I could have ₤20 down and a month's bill. I told him I wanted the car or the money. I asked the doctor's name. I said, "If he is a doctor in this neighbourhood surely he has got ₤210, or could have made arrangements, but I would go so far as to see the doctor, and if I thought it was all right the doctor would give me the ₤20 and the month's bill and I would give him a receipt. He said he could not give his client's name. They wrote me on April 12. In reply to that I saw Geer himself. The car had gone. I said I had come for it. I went up with Mr. Burt. I said, "Where is the manager. I will have this business settled now." He introduced Taylor, but not by name. I went up a ladder to a sort of box of an office and saw Taylor talking to
some little Jewish sort of man who hid his face and ran down the steps. I do not see the Jewish man here. Then Geer came up with Taylor and I had it out with him. I said there is a fraud about this sort of thing. I said many other things. He looked at Geer, seemed surprised, as if he knew nothing about it. Afterwards he seemed to know something about it and said to Geer, "Where did we get the car from? " Then he began to know a great deal about it, and told me about the local doctor. He said they fully understood I accepted the ₤20. I said something and that passed over. Then again he wanted to make out the car was absolutely sold. I said, "Will you give me your word that car is out on trial." I said, "I guess it is doing Easter holidays round the coast or Brighton." He assured me the car had never been taken out except the client wanted to. purchase. I asked as to their financial position. He said, "It is being financed." I said, "You do not give me any name so that I can make inquiry." In the result Taylor said he would do his best, he felt certain he could get the car back, he would see the doctor, and if I went up on Saturday the car should be handed over to me. I never got any money at all, or the car. When I called on the Saturday the place was locked up, but there was a poor, shabby-looking man, who seemed half frightened to open the door. I did not see Geer or Taylor. I was there again on Easter Tuesday and saw Geer and asked about the car. That was the day I went to Scotland Yard. Some days later I got a telegram, "Have just heard we shall be able to hand you Argyll on Saturday; deal not completed." I then wrote Exhibit 10. It is addressed to Wertheimer. His name had not been mentioned by Geer or Taylor. I had seen the police and heard about Wertheimer. The first I heard of the car being sent to Birmingham was when I received Exhibit 11, signed by Geer. I was then in correspondence with the police, but I went up on Monday and saw a man there about thirty years of age, who was not one of the defendants. I next got the circular letter dated May 3 from Mr. H. Grosvenor Taunton, solicitor, 148, Great Portland Street. I did not go to see him.
Cross-examined by Wertheimer. I never saw you in connection with the car or had anything in writing from you.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. I only had conversation with Taylor once; that was on April 13. The Jewish gentleman cut downstairs as soon as he saw me. I think Geer said the manager was out. I said I would see the next in authority; then he took me up the ladder to Taylor. Taylor looked at Geer and seemed surprised. I showed him the correspondence. He looked through one or two letters.
Cross-examined by Mr. Roome. I knew Geer was not the manager. He appeared to have a good deal of power in the place. He appeared as if he was at work on the cars.
HENRY JOHN BURT , 60a, Trinity Road, Tooting. I had charge of Mr. Crighton's car up to February 24, when it was taken away by a strange man accompanied by Mr. (Brighton's chauffeur. On April 13 I went to the Marylebone Motor Mart with Mr. Crighton. I saw Geer and Taylor. (Witness confirmed the evidence of Mr. Crighton as to what transpired at the visit.)
LEONARD JAMES BULL , 12, St. Martin's Lane. I have known Wertheimer for about three years. In March last he saw me about a 14—16 Argyll landaulette he wanted to dispose of. He wanted an offer for it. He brought it. I think the first time we told him we did not want it. The next time we offered him ₤100. He did not accept it. On March 25 I lent him ₤50. This is the receipt signed by Wertheimer. We kept the car about three weeks. We sold it for ₤140. We agreed to pay the Marylebone Motor Mart ₤120. There was a balance to pay of ₤75. This was paid to Geer in notes and cash on April 13. The receipt is signed "per pro Marylebone Motor Mart. W. Geer." Between March 31 and April 13 we sent the car on one occasion to the Marylebone Motor Mart. They telephoned that they wanted to show it to someone. I suppose it was away about two hours. I do not know the date.
Cross-examined by Wertheimer. The ₤45 was lent in two amounts, ₤25 on March 25 and ₤20 on March 31. You asked for an offer for the car in the first instance. 1 made an offer of ₤100. You said you would not or could not take it. You took the car away. I do not recollect your saying you wanted a temporary advance of ₤25 because the firm were a bit short for their wages. The advance was asked for over the 'phone. I think you brought the car down. It was after the second advance, ₤20, that you gave the receipt for ₤45. I do not suggest that was full payment for the car. I do not recollect saying before you went away for a holiday, "Before you go cannot you complete this deal for the Argyll"; I may have done. You refused to accept ₤100 for the car two days before you went away. You said you had left all instructions about it with Geer. I do not know it was April 8 you went away. You did not ask me to send the car up to the Motor Mart. On April 11 or 12 we rang up Geer, I think it was, as I knew you would not be there. I told him we had an offer for the landaulette and could give him ₤120, could he accept that figure. He said he would let me know. About two hours afterwards we heard from him. I know you said we were going away. I knew from what took place with Geer that you were not there. On April 30 we closed the deal for ₤120. I knew you as managing director of Clement Gardner's. I did considerable business with you on their behalf during 12 months previous to the Argyll deal. You then had temporary loans, five or six. To the beet of my recollection they were always cleared up satisfactorily. I always understood the company had a right to the cars. I never had a case in which you misled me. I bought a Rolls-Royce car from the Marylebone Motor Mart and paid for it. I do not think Taylor came afterwards and said he wanted the car back. At the time we bought it he said he had another man for it. I think we told him the car was at the coachbuilders and he took the client there. Our managing director would not take the price offered. After we had sold it Taylor came and said he had no commission on the transaction and we gave him ₤5. He did not say we had no right to sell the car for that amount as he was the proprietor and responsible for the car. He
hoped to be proprietor or expected to be. I refused to pay him anything extra on the car because it was not a matter I could attend to straight away. I do not recollect that we made him sign a letter that he would not make any more claims in future after deals had been done. As to recognising Geer and Taylor as principals while you were away, I recognised Geer as secretary. As far as I know Taylor was there. While Geer was making the deal with me Taylor rang up and said, "Don't pay Geer the money, pay it to me." He did not say he was responsible; he expected shortly to have charge of affairs. I told him if he could show me his authority I would hand him the money. I let Geer have the money as you had told me he was to have charge of the Argyle matter. I do not recollect your saying if nothing is done Geer will come down and repay you the ₤45, with ₤5 for the trouble. I know the principals in the company; they were Gardiner and yourself. Fletcher I came in contact with a couple of months afterwards. I always thought it was a limited company. I did no business with Gardner. Fletcher was introduced to me as a director of Clement Gardner and Co. I have not seen Geer since the trial started; he telephoned me once; he did not say I could assist him in these proceedings. (To the Judge. I did not then know he was one of the accused.) It was about the Argyll, about trying to get it back. I remember you saying one day that you had just come back from your trip; you were very upset, cross, and wild over the Argyll; you said it ought not to have been sold and inquired the name of the people we had sold it to, with the idea of getting it back. I could not say what a 14—18 Spyker landaulette would be worth, without seeing it; I know very little about them. There is a market for 28 Mercedes of the 1906 type, but at a low figure. A 60-h.p. de Dietrich would be a difficult car to sell in England. I never had any difficulty in seeing you when you were at Clement Gardner's; you were always there attending to the business. In December, 1909, you had just joined them. It was a small place then; six months later it was quite a different concern.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. Wertheimer brought the Argyll landaulette. He asked us to make an offer. I thought the firm were offering it. He was a member of the firm. I never saw Taylor in connection with the transaction. The Rolls-Royce transaction was in January, I think. I bought that from Wertheimer. Taylor came and said he had a customer, and took him to see it. The matter of his commission was put before the directors and we gave him a cheque for ₤5. I think that would be end of January or beginning of February. We got nothing out of that transaction.
Cross-examined by Mr. Roome. Geer was secretary. I do not know what his wages were. I thought Wertheimer was the head of the business. I do not come here with the idea of helping Geer. I cannot say the suggestions of Wertheimer about things he has said to me are inventions; it is rather a difficult question to answer; some of them are. The most we paid Geer for the Argyll car was ₤67 10s. I heard that Geer went to Birmingham to get the car back.
ARTHUR EADSFORTH , Latimer Road, St. Albans. I advertised a Mercedes car for sale in March. The Marylebone Motor Mart replied. I went to their premises. The first person I saw there was Geer. On the 15th I saw Wertheimer. He eventually agreed to sell it and give me ₤135 clear of all cost to myself. He gave me a receipt for the car. He said it was worth about ₤150 and that he had a client for this type of car to go to Mauritius. I left the car there. I called on the 20th. I think I saw Wertheimer. I think he gave the excuse for not having sold it that the weather had not been fit for a trial run. I received the letter of March 22 and telephoned from the Aero Show; I took it to be Wertheimer answering, but I would not swear. I asked when I should receive the money; he promised to send it the next day. He told me that the car was sold. The cheque was not sent. About March 29 I saw both Geer and Wertheimer when I called. I saw Geer first and pressed him for the money. He send he would send for the manager and see if it could be arranged. He told me he had got ₤10 on account; would I accept it; I said "No." In the afternoon I saw Wertheimer and pressed him for the money. He said he had a cheque for the car but did not think it was any good. I went back at five o'clock and saw Geer, who eventually arranged to give me a post-dated cheque for ₤50 on account. This was about the 29th. The cheque was presented twice and returned marked "R.D." Wertheimer was present when Geer gave me the cheque.
Cross-examined by Wertheimer. You made no hesitation about giving a receipt when I left the car. You told me you had inquiries for that type of car for the West Indies and Mauritius. I had no reason to disbelieve it. As to your making untrue statements to me, if a man tells you he will send a cheque to-morrow, is not that a statement? You knew at the time it was untrue.
Cross-examined by Roome. Wertheimer was there when Geer gave me the cheque. Geer post-dated it two days because he thought it better, as he expected to have money then; he had not it that day. He told me so frankly.
THOMAS OTTAWAY , solicitor, St. Albans. Last witness is my client. On his instructions I issued a writ on April 5 against the Marylebone Motor Mart, claiming ₤135. It was served the same day upon John Taylor. An appearance was entered by H. Grosvenor Taunton on behalf of Rudolph Wertheimer, carrying on business as the Marylebone Motor Mart. I then took out a summons under Order 14 and obtained judgment for ₤135 and costs. Execution was issued next day, when all the goods on the premises were claimed by the Marylebone Motor Mart, Limited, and successfully claimed. Nothing has been paid. On April 27 I went to the premises. I did not see either of the defendants. I made further inquiries and then went with my client to Marylebone Police Court and complained there. I then communicated with the Director of Public Prosecutions.
agent. I knew Wertheimer as connected with the Marylebone Motor Mart; he was manager, I thought he said. I knew Geer and Taylor were connected with that business. I thought Geer was salesman, also Taylor. In September I received a telephone message and went to the Marylebone Motor Mart. I saw Geer and Taylor. One of them asked me to speak to Wertheimer on the 'phone. I did so. He asked me to buy a Mercedes car, which was downstairs in the show room. I offered ₤50, which Wertheimer agreed to take. He was to have the option of repurchasing in 14 days for ₤55. I went and got the money, ₤25 in gold and my father's cheque for ₤25. This is the cheque endorsed "per pro Marylebone Motor Mart, W. Geer, manager." I believe I gave the cheque to Geer and Taylor together. They were both sitting there and I put it on the desk. Taylor signed the receipt. At the end of 14 days Wertheimer bought it back, giving me a cheque of George Taylor's for ₤15 and ₤40 in cash.
Cross-examined by Wertheimer. I do not think I discussed with Taylor and Geer what I was telephoned for. This was Saturday, April 8. Previous to that date I had never discussed or transacted business with you; I had spoken to you in different places. You told me on the telephone you wanted to see the Mercedes car. You were talking to Geer on the 'phone and they mentioned that I was there. The message I got on the telephone was not "Come along at once" but "If you are by here call in." You might have said, "As far as the Mercedes car is concerned it is all right." You were the only man I would have done the business with. I looked on you as the head of the concern. I called at the Marylebone Motor Mart once with a friend of mine to do business with a Talbot car. I saw you, Taylor, and Geer. It was common knowledge in the trade you were the manager or proprietor. I do not remember your telling me that Taylor had been up just now and there had been a row. I think Taylor said he was going to write to the Registrar of Companies, the landlord, and one or two places. I did not know why he was going to write; it did not interest me. You might have told me that Taylor had said unless I gave him ₤5 he would write to the Registrar of Companies. You might have said that Simpson and Fletcher had just been round to try and reason with Taylor as he seemed very much upset. I took Taylor ₤1, which you gave me for him. The only letter Taylor showed me was one to the Acquis Property Company. He did not ask my opinion about his sending it. He showed it me on two occasions. He might have showed it to other people in my presence.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. I understood Taylor was then in the employ of the Marylebone Motor Mart. Wertheimer did not seem to be upset or excited. I cannot remember if he asked me to go round to some public house and see Taylor. We all eventually went round. I think Taylor was there. I think there was some conversation about the letter, but I do not really remember much about it. Something was said to the effect that Taylor was going to send a letter to the Acquis Property Company and that Wertheimer did not want him to send it. I was not given ₤1 by anybody. The whole transaction with regard to the Mercedes car took place on the 'phone between
myself and Wertheimer, the price was arranged, I went and got the money, I got a receipt, and the money was put down on the table. Wertheimer afterwards brought back the car. I never heard Wertheimer say before to-day that Taylor or Geer had sold the car without his knowledge. Mr. George Taylor is well known in the trade.
GEORGE TAYLOR , recalled. Wertheimer asked me on the 'phone if I could advance him some money on a 28-h.p. Mercedes to redeem it for a Mr. Clayton. He said he had to pay Clayton ₤50. I thought it was worth it. I did not see the car. I took Wertheimer's word and advanced him ₤50. I did not see the money paid to Clayton. I sold the car to somebody at Grimsby for ₤80, after I had some repairs to it. I did not pay Wertheimer any of that.
ERNEST GEORGE ROBERTS , cashier, Capital and Counties Bank, Wig- more Street. Geer opened an account on March 24, 1911, in the name of the Marylebone Motor Mart with a payment in of ₤19. That was all drawn out in three days. On March 25 he opened another account in his own name with a payment in of ₤6 5s. The account continued till April 20, when it became 6d. overdrawn. Exhibit 19 is a cheque drawn on Geer's second account. That was three times presented and dishonoured. There are 15 other such cheques. Some of them re- presented twice. On April 15 there is one in favour of Mr. Coningsby for ₤362. Payment was stopped. There was no money to meet it. It would have been the same if payment had not been stopped. We had knowledge that Geer's account was being used as the account of the Marylebone Motor Mart. Geer told us so himself.
Cross-examined by Wertheimer. ₤550 passed through Geer's account between March 25 and April 20. It is difficult to say how many cheques were drawn in favour of Taylor; we simply record the surnames; we cannot say whether it is J. or George Taylor.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. On April 8 I make the credit balance ₤16 14s. 10d.
Cross-examined by Mr. Roome. Geer made it clear that it was not his own money. There are only three cheques in his name for ₤6 10s. out of ₤547.
(Thursday, October 12.)
GEORGE TAYLOR , recalled, further cross-examined by Wertheimer. I received the cheque for ₤55 on March 29. That was in payment of an advance of ₤50 on March 20 for the first Talbot car. I paid for the Clement-Bayard car by three cheques, ₤50, ₤10, and ₤5. There was ₤10 contra account for repairs, that made ₤75. I do not think Geer was present when I handed you the cheque for ₤50 on April 1. I do not remember you handing it to Geer on the spot. I do not remember saying yesterday that I had not seen Geer since the arrests.
Mr. RAMSBOTTOM, cotton merchant, Alderley Edge, Cheshire, gave evidence in regard to a 45-h.p. Napier car which he advertised and sent up to the Marylebone Motor Mart for sale.
CHARLES REED , recalled, further examined. I bought three cars during 1911 from Wertheimer. One was a 40 h.p. Napier; that was in April. He said he was taking the car in part exchange for a new car and wanted to sell it to pay the deposit on the new car. I bought for ₤220. He asked ₤300. It never left my place till I sold it.
Cross-examined by Wertheimer. I do not think the guarantee, Exhibit 35, is in your handwriting. I cannot swear it is not.
Re-examined. I always did business with Wertheimer. I thought the transaction over the Napier car was satisfactory, otherwise I should not have bought it.
Mr. EDWARD MILLER BAYLEY, solicitor, Glastonbury, gave evidence in regard to a second-hand Humber car which he advertised and sent to the Marylebone Motor Mart for sale.
Mr. BARRINGTON ELLIOTT BURROWS, clerk, National Bank, Baker Street Branch. I produce a certified copy of an account of John Taylor, manager and proprietor, Marylebone Motor Mart. It was opened on January 7 and closed February 20, when there was a balance of ₤3 10s. Four cheques were presented and returned unpaid after the account was closed.
FLORENCE HOLMES , 31 Florence Street, Islington. I am at present employed by Mr. George Taylor as a clerk. I was formerly employed at 60, Pentonville Road, by Clement Gardner and Co. I was engaged by Wertheimer. In July, 1910, I went to 78, High Street, Marylebone, on Wertheimer's instructions. I looked upon Wertheimer as my employer at Pentonville Road. Clement Gardner was connected with that business. In April it was turned into a limited liability company. I do not know whether Geer was there before that. He came as bookkeeper in April and became secretary of the company later. I did not take orders from him at Pentonville Road. At 78, High Street, Marylebone, the business was run in the name of Clement Gardner and Co. for a time, afterwards by the Marylebone Motor Mart. I think that was in December. Taylor came then. I still looked on Wertheimer as my employer. I do not know exactly what Taylor's position was, but I looked upon him as being my governor as well. I did not look upon Geer as being any higher than myself. Taylor did not keep any books. He used to be in the shop most of the time. I typewrote the letters. I may have written 50 letters like Exhibit 51. Wertheimer dictated the original and I used to answer the advertisements on my own accord. Other letters would be dictated by Wertheimer, Taylor, or Geer. I wrote none of those on my own account. I could not tell by looking at a particular letter who dictated it. I generally used to sign them and put my initials underneath. Wertheimer dictated most of the letters. I could not say whether Geer dictated more than Taylor. Exhibit 87 is Taylor's handwriting. I wrote "J. Taylor" in Exhibit 88. I have written Geer's name and initials. I was told to do that by one of them. I do not remember Geer telling me to do that. I do not remember Taylor ever telling me to put Geer's name or any one else's. I never wrote Geer's name without my initials under it. I
should not write his name without somebody told me to do so. I cannot remember whether it was Wertheimer or Taylor who told me to write Geer's name without my initials under it. (To the Judge. The letter signed "W. Geer, " without my initials, must have been signed by Geer.) I used to open the letters if I arrived first. Wertheimer used to deal mostly with them. Taylor and Geer dealt with with some of them. In November Geer left. He came back about January. He was away about six weeks. Taylor left for a short time. I do not remember exactly how long. I think about three weeks or a month. I remember Wertheimer going away in April for about a week. He (Taylor) dictated instructions to me, and looked after the business. I typed Exhibit 84 at Wertheimer's dictation. I have seen Geer and Wertheimer write cheques. Geer signed blank cheques and gave them to Wertheimer. I saw Rudolph Wertheimer once. That was at Marylebone. I did not know when it was. It is not since Christmas. It would be about a week before. He never gave me instructions. I heard to-day for the first time of Rudolph Wertheimer and Company. All letters were dealt with by anybody who happened to be there. I might have read one or two, but never used to trouble to read them. I opened them and left them. (The witness identified several letters in Geer's writing.) The minute of October 18 does not look like Geer's writing. The signature, "C. II. Wer theimer, " does not look like Geer's writing. I do not know the handwriting. The one on the opposite page is Geer's writing. That is signed by Fletcher. I do not recognise Wertheimer's signature. I could not say if it is his. The last time I was engaged at 78, High Street, was Whitsun Saturday, June 3. Up to then I was in Wertheimer's employ. He did not go there, but I thought he was still my governor. Wertheimer paid me my wages. He was carrying on business at 150, Oxford Street. I was not employed there.
Cross-examined by Wertheimer. I do not recognized the handwriting in Exhibit 113. The signature looks to me different to the writing in the body of the page. I know your writing. I do not think it is like your writing. I think you signed the letters at Pentonville Road when I first came there. I do not think you continued to sign or initial letters right up to when we went to Marylebone. I think Geer left in November and returned after Christmas. There are minutes in November and December in Geer's writing. He was away during that time. I do not remember if Geer went away in consequence of smashing up a car. He told me he was going to leave because it was too much worry for him. He wrote and asked him to come back to finish off the books for the winding up, not to work at the place. I remember you saying, "I think Geer is coming back; he has asked if he can, " and that you would see what could be done. I do not know how long Taylor was away. I thought it was longer than a week. I have seen Geer give you blank cheques. I cannot say how often. I do not think I ever saw Taylor give you signed cheques. I knew Rudolph Wertheimer was at Pentonville Road. He answered the'phone. When Taylor came back I did not look upon him as being
any higher than what he was when he left. I always looked upon you as being my governor. Mr. Clement Gardner was there the whole time. I think he conducted the banking account himself. I do not know how he signed the cheques. Clement Gardner and Company had only one place in 1910. That was Pentonville Road. In six months the business increased very largely. They had a West-End place and properly equipped works in Baron Street, Islington, and were employing 35 people. After the limited company was formed Mr. Fletcher was there. I do not know what part he took in the business. He was there two or three times a week. Gardner was at Pentonville Road when I left. I have heard you complain that they left the bulk of the work to you. (List of oars handed.) I typed gome of these, Miss Devereux did the other. It is a list of cars that were either in stock or in hand for sale. We sold several large cars at High Street for India and places like that. We advertised very largely. Cross-examined by Mr. Fulton. Wertheimer paid me my wages. I went to High Street in July. Taylor was not at Pentonville Road then. He did not come to High Street until December. Wertheimer was there constantly. He told me Taylor was coming into the business, but did not tell me anything else. They both dictated letters. Taylor dictated perhaps one or two a day till he left. I cannot say when that was. He left in April for about a month. I looked upon him as my governor equally with Wertheimer. I suppose Taylor came a week before Wertheimer went way. That would be the beginning of April. When he left the first time he had been there about two months. I know he was there more than a week before Christmas. I remember Taylor telling me when he went away not to put his name on any more letters. I might have mentioned that conversation to Wer- theimer. I don't remember. I am not sure that I put his name upon letters after that. I don't think I did. I sometimes put "J. T." upon letters without my initials. I expect Wertheimer told me to do that. I do not think I did that after Taylor left. I used to ask Wertheimer about signing and he used to tell me what name to put. I do not remember in March a gentleman coming and Taylor saying to me, " Why did you put my name upon these letters? " He asked me once why I put his initials when he told me not to. I looked at the letters. I had been writing his name. I do not know whether they were written before or after he told me not to. He only stopped two or three weeks after he came back. I do not know why he left. I did not hear of any dispute between him and Wertheimer. I looked upon him as being someone in authority. He only paid me wages once.
Cross-examined by Mr. Roome. Geer came in answer to an adver- tisement for a bookkeeper and salesman about two months after I joined Wertheimer. His wages were ₤1 a week. A fortnight after that he was registered as secretary. He left in November. He told me the responsibility was too much. He said Wertheimer did not give him proper opportunity of keeping the books of the company and that
Wertheimer sold cars without accounting for the money. Wertheimer dictated a letter to me asking him to come back; he came soon afterwards. A banking account was opened in his name. Before that there was an account in Taylor's name; then there was no account for about a month. Wertheimer asked Geer two or three times to open an account. Wertheimer got Geer to sign blank cheques which he took. He would have two or three at a time. Geer complained that Wertheimer filled them in for large amounts and overdrew the account. He said to Wertheimer, "It is not my money, but I object to doing this for you" The instructions Wertheimer left when he went away were typed by me at his request to give to Geer. I remember Geer going to Birmingham to try to get a car back. I sometimes went to the bank to cash cheques for petty cash. Geer would complain to me that Wertheimer continually put the money in his own pocket. I have sent a cheque or two to Mrs. Wertheimer which were signed by Geer in blank. Although the account was in Geer's name it was controlled by Wertheimer.
(Friday, October 13.)
Prisoner Wertheimer applied for an adjournment of the trial till Monday, after the case for the prosecution was closed, on the ground of mental strain. Dr. Dyer would be in attendance to speak as to that.
Judge Rentoul reserved his decision till the doctor was called.
ALFRED FINCH , clerk in the Central Office of the High Court of Justice. I produce a writ (Exhibit 110) in the action of John William Macdonald against the Marylebone Motor Mart, issued March 14, plaintiff's claim being for balance of price on goods sold and delivered, viz., a motor car agreed to be sold for ₤285. I also produce appearances (Exhibit 111) entered by Mr. Taunton, solicitor, on behalf of John Taylor, carrying on business as the Marylebone Motor Mart; also affidavit (Exhibit 112) sworn in that action by Taylor on March 30, which reads, "I, John Taylor, of 315, Euston Road, in the County of London, recently carrying on business as the Marylebone Motor Mart, the above-named defendant."
FLORENCE HOLMES , recalled, cross-examined by Wertheimer. (Exhibit 84 handed to witness.) I remember typing this document, and I remember you giving me those instructions to type. You dictated it on Saturday as you were going away. I gave it to Geer, as I was told to do.
To the Court. I remember him giving me every word of this. Apart from remembering the language, there is nothing in the type by which I should know I typed it, except that I was the only one that typed there. They were instructions given when he was going away for some time; he had never gone away before for any length of time.
A Juryman. According to the letter he is in Paris; this witness says he was in London.
Judge Rentoul. There is no question about that. The position is that the car is sold, and Geer is to say he cannot settle for it; that Wer theimer is in Paris, and hopes to be back in a few days.
Re-examined. I cannot recollect the date when Taylor came back.
(Defence of Geer.) (Witness interposed.)
JOHN BARTON , representative of Davis and Timmins, Ltd., screw manufacturers, York Road, King's Cross, and Brook Road, Wood Green. Walter Geer was employed by my firm about four years, leaving in June, 1908. His conduct was satisfactory in every respect, and he gave us a good reference. He resigned on his own initiative.
Cross-examined by Wertheimer. I came here at the request of my managing director. I have nothing in writing to show that.
Louis JAMES BY WATER, secretary of the Acquis Property Company, Ltd., Regent Street, owners of 78, High Street, Marylebone; We granted a lease of those premises to Mr. Clement Gardner, and in December, 1910, and January, 1911, we corresponded with him and Taylor with regard to subletting them to John Taylor. We were not satisfied with the references, and the lease never went out of the name of Gardner with our consent. We put a man in possession for rent in May. We received a letter from Wertheimer complaining of that.
Cross-examined by Wertheimer. Gardner originally satisfied us of his ability to pay the rent. The lease was dated April 28, 1910, and was for 21 years at a rent of ₤250 for the first two and a half years and after that ₤300. I cannot say they had been done up since Gardner had them. There was a partition, but I think it was there when he took the premises. There is a wooden staircase; it would not be correct to describe it as a ladder. It was perhaps not till we got John Taylor's letter of May 13 that the bailiffs were put in. We were told that Gardner had some months before been bankrupt. We were content, in the face of that, to let the matter go on until we got somebody substantial to assign the lease to. We thought most likely the Receiver in Bankruptcy would disclaim the lease. I do not think the lease was originally sold four years ago for ₤1, 500. You are thinking of the hydraulic lifts which were put in. They improved the value of the lease. Gardner surrounded the lease, but I do not know it was at your instigation. You wrote me and said you would arrange it on certain terms, one of which was we should withdraw the bailiffs and give you reasonable time to make other arrangements. In accordance with the promise made the lease was surrendered.
SIDNEY REGINALD DYER , Medical Officer of Brixton Prison. I have had Wertheimer under observation. I examined him this morning and yesterday, and can find no medical grounds why the case should be stopped at present, or I should not have let him come up. He is
fit to go on. I have ordered him special diet owing to the strain of conducting his defence.
To Wertheimer. You told me this morning that you would apply for a postponement, and I think I told you I could not support the application.
Wertheimer complained that he had no proper room in which to see his papers and consider his defence. He was kept downstairs till 6.30 before going back to Brixton. The cells at the Old Bailey were practically dark.
Witness said there was a light room below which he would make arrangements for Wertheimer to have, if his Lordship wished.
Judge Rentoul asked that his should be done.
Sergeant JEFFREY. On June 3 I was in Oxford Street and saw Wertheimer drive up to a public-house in a motor car. I told him I had a warrant for his arrest, and read it to him. That was in Mr. Crighton's case. He made no reply. I asked him where he got the car he was driving; he said, "I got it the same as the others." Then Geer came to the public-house and I told him I had also a warrant for him. He asked me not to read it there. I took both defendants in the car to Tottenham Court Road Police Station. They were subsequently taken to Marylebone Police Station and charged. They said nothing. On Wertheimer I found a Yale key and on Geer also a Yale key with others. They fitted 78, High Street, Marylebone. I found two blank cheques on Wertheimer on Parr's Bank (produced). On June 5 I went to 81, Benthall Road, Kilburn, and saw Taylor and read the warrant. He said, " I can only say I know "nothing about it. I did know where the car went and tried to get it back." He was charged at John Street Police Station. He made no further statement.
Cross-examined by Wertheimer. You have said on several occasions since your arrest that you knew the warrant was out for you. I interviewed Taylor at the Marylebone Motor Mart on April 18 and 19, and later on. The first time Taylor said, "I am director of this company." I said, "Where is Wertheimer? " He said, " I know where he is, but I do not think I ought to tell you his address. What do you want? " I said, "I have called regarding a car sent by Mr. Crighton. He can neither get his car nor his money. Where is it? "Taylor said, "Well, it has nothing to do with me, but I believe the car is sold. I know it is all right." I had seen Geer before I saw Taylor. Geer said he was the secretary, a servant of the company. He said, " I cannot tell you anything about the car; I think it is sold." They were both very reticent. Mr. McPherson will answer about the cheques. Taylor offered a deposit of ₤100 with me as security for the Argyll car, but I did not believe he had it. Neither Taylor nor Geer called on me at the Marylebone Police Station. Clement Gardner called when I sent for him and I took a statement. Whatever he said it resulted in his not being being called as a witness. Mr. Travers Humphreys. He has not been charged.
Cross-examination continued. I have never seen Fletcher. I have nothing to find him for so far as I know. My instructions were to arrest you. I found some pawntickets on you for jewellery. We believe that jewellery to be your own property.
Cross-examined by Mr. Roome. I have made inquiries of the V.V. Bread Company and found that Geer was employed by them from December, 1908, to February, 1910. They always found him honest, sober, and industrious. He left through ill health. In April, 1910, he entered Wertheimer's service.
Detective-Inspector JOHN MCPHERSON.Mr. Eadsforth's solicitor attended at Marylebone Police Court and made a complaint, and was referred to the Director of Public Prosecutions, on whose instructions inquiries were made. Information against the three defendants was then laid by the Public Prosecutor and warrants issued. After their arrest I searched 78, High Street, Marylebone, and found a quantity of letters (Exhibits 15, 29, 30, 31, 32, 34, 36, 38, 40, 42, 44, 49, 53, 60, 63, 65, and 67). I found also an agreement for service of Taylor (Exhibit 120), dated December 5 (document read). I believe " John Taylor" is in his handwriting; I do not recognise R. Wertheimer's signature. I also found a quantity of books, including Exhibit 121, a receipt book. In it is a duplicate receipt for Mr. Crighton's car, dated February 24, 1911. It has " G " against it, which appears to bs in the handwriting of Geer. I also found Exhibit 132, which purports to show the receipt of cars and their destination in some instances. It shows the receipt of Mr. Carden's car, December 5, 1910. The book suggests that a great number of pages have been torn out. I found no regular cash-book at all. I found a petty-cash book, and a wages-book, which shows Geer received ₤1 10s. a week in some weeks. I found a pass-book (Exhibit 124) on the National Bank, Baker Street, which is Taylor's account. There are two paid cheques in it, one for ₤7 10s. The drawer is "Per pro Marylebone Motor Mart, John Taylor, proprietor, " which is in Taylor's handwriting, but the body of the cheque appears to be in the writing of Wertheimer and the endorsement as well.
To the Court. It looks as if Wertheimer had filled up a blank cheque given him by John Taylor, who describes himself as the proprietor of the Marylebone Motor Mart.
Mr. Travers Humphreys. It might be filled up first and signed afterwards.
Examination continued. The other cheque was for ₤3, drawn by John Taylor, payable to the "Motor Car Journal." I also found Exhibit 125, a bundle of cheques on the London and Westminster Bank, signed Clement Gardner and Company, Ltd. Some of those were signed by Wertheimer as director of Clement Gardner and countersigned by Geer as secretary. I also found Exhibit 126, a bundle of cheques on the London and South-Western Bank, King's Cross, apparently another of Clement Gardner and Company's accounts, signed by either Wertheimer or Gardner as director and by Geer as secretary. The minutes in the minute-book (Exhibit 113) are in the handwriting
of Geer. The minute of October 21, 1910, purports to be signed by C. H. Wertheimer. I would not like to say whose handwriting it is in. Exhibit 35 is a guarantee to obtain ₤350 from Ramsbottom's car, April 8, signed "Per pro Marylebone Motor Mart, F. Farmer, " and then the initials "C. H. W." The body is type-written. Per pro F. Farmer, C. H. W. is written. I could not say who wrote it. It does not look like Wertheimer's. If it was it must have been a very fine pen. The letters (Exhibits 72 and 76) are all in Wertheimer's handwriting; and signed by him, I think. [Letters read.] I also found Exhibit 127 at 78, High Street. It is a judgment of the Clerkenwell County Court against Clement Gardner and Company, Ltd., for ₤50, dated December 2, 1910.
Cross-examined by Wertheimer. It was a judgment for damages for running over somebody in a motor car. I have not had or inspected the books at the Official Receiver's. I was instructed as to the books to be asked for. I saw several books but did not examine them. I examined the books I found at the Marylebone Motor Mart and at 150, Oxford Street, but not those at the offices of the Official Receiver. (The wages-book was handed to witness.) I see on the page shown to me, wages for the week ending November 19, beginning "C. H. Wertheimer, ₤2 10s." and ending "John Taylor, ₤6 on account." I could not say in whose writing the guarantee is.
Mr. Roome. I have already admitted that Geer wrote it.
Cross-examination continued. All this bundle of cheques (Exhibit 125) handed to me have been drawn by Gardner and countersigned by Geer, and not by you at all. In the petty cash-book I see the names of Fletcher, Richardson, Gardner, Taylor, and Geer. I do not see yours. I have not traced how the money for the cheques was paid. I have been told certain things about the cheque for the Napier. I have not traced the actual notes. The cheque for ₤25 for the Mercedes car was paid in to Geer's bank on April 10, 1911.
Cross-examined by Mr. Roome. I have not communicated with the police on the Continent.
Re-examined. My information was that the cheque for ₤220 for the Napier car was not paid.
(Defence of Wertheimer.)
Mr. Wertheimer's submitted as a point of law that no evidence had been given to show that he had been guilty of false pretences either by word of mouth or letter. Mr. Eadsforth's was the only case in which he took any part in the getting in of the car itself. That was the Mercedes car, and Mr. Eadsforth had said that without any hesitation he (Wertheimer) had given a receipt. The only statement throughout the case in which false pretences could be suggested was that he said they had a good market for such a car in the West Indies and Mauritius. Mr. Eadsforth had said that he had made no untrue statement. As to the conspiracy to cheat and defraud, it was true that in certain cases he did arrange an advance on the car or sell the
car, but no evidence had been given to show that he was made aware of the terms and conditions under which those cars were left.
Judge Rentoul. There is undoubtedly a case to answer on the charge of conspiracy to cheat and defraud the public. I will ask Mr. Travers Humphreys whether he adheres to the charge of false pretences in every one of the seven cases.
Mr. Travers Humphreys. The case for the prosecution was that in each of the seven cases false pretences were made. The person responsible is the person who directed the admittedly innocent Miss Holmes to write the letters. It is quite unnecessary that he should make the pretences personally or receive the cars personally. I submit that there is evidence to go to the jury in each of these cases.
Judge Rentoul ruled that the case must go to the jury.
A discussion then. took place as to which of the prisoners should have the last word to the jury in the event of some of them calling evidence and some not, and in view of the fact that Wertheimer was undefended by counsel.
In reply to the Court, Wertheimer said that under the circumstances of conducting his own defence he would call witnesses to fact, but would not go into the witness box.
It was stated that Taylor and Geer would go into the box, but would not call witnesses to fact.
It was finally understood that under these circumstances Wertheimer would begin and the prosecution would have the last word with regard to him, notwithstanding that he was undefended by counsel. If Taylor and Geer called no evidence the fact that they went into the witness-box themselves made no difference; their counsel would have the last word to the jury.
CHARLES HERMANN WERTHEIMER (prisoner, not on oath). I am going to take the risk of relying on the witnesses that I call. I will call witnesses to prove that previous to these charges, and up to some time afterwards, I did an immense amount of genuine business. I joined Clement Gardner in December, 1909, as his manager. The business increased under my management, and was converted into a limited company on April 2, 1910, the directors being Joseph Fletcher and Clement Gardner, and Geer secretary, and a month or two afterwards I joined as director. The business was thoroughly genuine and very successful but unfortunate, from the fact that the company met with several severe accidents with the cars, which led to litigation and ultimately to the company winding up. There was a big amount of money lost and paid in legal expenses all that year in consequence of these accidents. As regards the charges, Clement Gardner had a shop at Pentonville Road and had works in Baron Street, and as the business increased they opened a West-End place at 78, High Street, Marylebone. There was a staff of 35 people. My duty was to go to all these three places. There were proper managers and assistants; there were motor works at Baron Street and proper shops and offices, and an accessories department. Business on a very large scale was done, especially in accessories as well as in motor cars.
In November, 1910, there was a change made, as the minute-book shows, in consequence of the actions for accidents. The insurance company repudiated the claims on different grounds, in some cases because they were not made within the five days, and that was how the company, although insured, were not successful in getting settlements. However, my brother, who had come over from Australia, joined the firm, and in return for the moneys he advanced he was given a debenture for ₤500. Just previous to this Mr. Gardner had been made bankrupt over a big motor smash, and in consequence of his holding the lease it was arranged to transfer the business to Mr. Rudolph Wertheimer, and that was done. My brother was not experienced in the motor trade much, and I came in contact with Taylor and introduced him to my brother. That led to the firm and R. Wertheimer and Company being started. They are the two who constituted the firm originally, the Marylebone Motor Mart, in December, 1910. The agreement was simply to show some fixed terms as Taylor was going to manage the business. Later on Geer came there, as my brother went back to Australia, and agreed to look after his interest. I do not say he took over the partnership. Then my brother came back. The biggest victim of the whole thing was myself, as I shall show you later by evidence. I worked that business very hard from December, 1909, right up till Clement Gardner and Company was wound up on March 28, 1911. Early in March I started a business of my own in Oxford Street and ran that, and also attended to the Clement Gardner business at Pentonville Road and Baron Street right up to the time of the winding-up. The Marylebone business was left entirely to Taylor and Geer to look after, but I admit with my assistance to this extent that I was to go down there now and then and look after my brother's interest, but not to the extent of these charges, that I was to go down and mislead people or anything of that sort. That I never took any part in and there is no evidence to show that I did. During the time of Clement Gardner's there were several alterations made as to the firm itself. There were several people connected with the firm. There was Clement Gardner and Fletcher, who were the first directors and were still directors when the company was wound up. Evidence will be called to show you that those two took an active interest throughout in the business from start to finish. That is why I raised the point that it is unfair that the whole of the Clement Gardner troubles, or anything they may have done, should be put upon me, and the other two directors absolutely kept out of it, and not even called as witnesses against me, if such a thing could be done. As to the letters which have been put in, I will deal with those after I have called some evidence.
HENRY SHAW , bookkeeper, Hall and Co., motor engineers, Tonbridge. I remember my firm sending a motor car for sale for ₤250 to Clement Gardner's. It was sold in July, 1910, and the amount paid us in full.
—RADERMACHER, sales manager, Manchester Motor Company, London. Clement Gardner's bought a car from us and paid us ₤809.
Cross-examined. We are makers of Manchester cars. Clement Gardner's gave us an order to build the car, which we did. I presume they had an order from a customer. The car was ordered February 5, 1910, and the full payment was made on April 30, 1910.
Cross examined. Our head office is at Caxton House. It would not be more dangerous for anyone to try to swindle Thorneycroft's than any other firm. They are a very large firm.
Wertheimer said there were three other witnesses he was prepared to call with regard to trading in accessories, and to show they were paid. He did not know whether he need trouble about them.
Judge Rentoul. I do not think you need.
Wertheimer said there were other witnesses he wished to call, dealing with something like 50 or 60 cars. They had been subpoenaed but were not present.
Judge Rentoul directed that they should attend the Court the next morning. In the meantime the defence of John Taylor would be proceeded with.
(Defence of Taylor.)
JOHN TAYLOR (prisoner, on oath). I am a motor engineer. My first connection with the Marylebone Motor Mart was when I joined them as a servant, on December 5 regularly, but I was there a week or so before. I was employed by Rudolph Wertheimer and Company, of 78, High Street, Marylebone, as manager at ₤2 10s. a week and 21/2 per cent, commission on sales. The defendant Wertheimer and his brother were the proprietors. My duties were to follow up the advertisements and get cars in for sale. When I was at Friswell's it was practically the same business; I had to sell cars to customers. I got a commission on the cars I sold. I was downstairs in the sale room and continued there for some weeks. An account was opened at the National Bank by the "Marylebone Motor Mart, " John Taylor, manager and proprietor, " on January 7, and it was kept open till February 20. I was asked by Wertheimer to open the account in the name of the Marylebone Motor Mart for a few weeks until the company was registered. I called on the manager and we had a conversation. When it came to signing the book I said, "I must have this in the name of the Marylebone Motor Mart, because it is not my money." He said, "In that case you must sign yourself as proprietor." I demurred, but he said if the company was going to be regitered in a few days it would make no practical differ
ence, and so I did. Wertheimer, when I told him, said "You ought not to have done that." I did not feel at all satisfied and consulted a solicitor, Mr. Taunton, who was acting for Wertheimer at that time. I signed the cheques upon that account; sometimes I drew them, but in most cases Wertheimer filled in the body of the cheques. I did not use that account as a personal one but as that of the Marylebone Motor Mart, and only signed cheques that were required or that I was instructed to draw. With regard to Mr. Burnand's car I never saw him till April. I do not remember writing a letter sending a receipt for the car, but it is quite possible; I would have done it in the usual course. I have no knowledge who disposed of the car. Wertheimer was in the habit of taking cars out frequently and I did not take any notice of his doing so. He did not always bring the car back the same day. This was out some little time and he told me he had left it at Mr. Reed's for a little while. I left their employment on February 25. I left because Wertheimer instructed me to sign a number of cheques and leave them in the book, and to misuse the banking account seriously, and there were other things—his personal extravagance, which I knew could not last. I had frequent altercations with him over those things, and I told him I could not stay with him any longer. On February 18 I closed the banking account myself and told the manager why. He congratulated me on doing so. When I came back with the balance we had a few words about some business that was pending. Anyway, I arranged to keep on for another week and that took me up to February 22. Then I left. I went back some few days before April 8, when the company was registered. I was induced to see Wertheimer about the affidavit of Macdonald's, and we got into conversation about the registered company, and he asked me whether I was willing to join as a director. I said "Yes, " on certain terms I would. I asked him about the liabilities and he said, "They are no worse than they were when you were here." I said, "All right." I went back on March 20, and afterwards from time to time visited the premises and saw various people there. I did not work there. Then on April 8 the company was in fact registered and I became director and attended there daily. I finally left either on April 20 or 21, when I handed over my keys to Mr. Wertheimer's nominees to take my place. I had considerable difficulty in severing my connection; I could not get Wertheimer to fix up the company matters or arrange for the board meeting to fix my substitutes or do anything. We had many rows at his office in Oxford Street. He had got in an accountant to make up a bogus set of books which he tried to bribe me to sign, and I refused. While I attended regularly in April there was no business there, except people calling and making complaints about cars. I remember Mr. Crighton calling in April and I saw him. Geer brought him up to me about his Argyll car. I knew very little about it and I had to refer to Geer for some of the particulars. I had to face the matter out. I could see there was some trouble. I was afraid of prejudicing my own position, so that I would not tell him anything. I did not tell Mr.
Crighton I would send the car to him the next day; I said it might take me several days to get it back, but I would do my best to get it back on Good Friday, the following day. I never saw Mr. Eadsforth at all. Mr. Stretton called the first week in April. The car was in the shop when he came. We talked about the letter which bad been sent him imputing the car was wrongly described, and so on, and I told him I did not think it made very much difference; it might make a little difference in value, but very slight. I told him Mr. Crewe was very well satisfied with it and I quite expected a deal in the course of a day or two. I did not make an appointment with Mr. Stretton for Saturday. I asked him if he could call Saturday morning and he said "No, " but he would be along on Saturday night. I said, "You can give me a call, and if I can be there I will see you." I was not there. I do not remember what I was doing. I remember seeing Mr. Burnand in April. He asked about his car, and I said I did not know anything at all about it, as I had only just rejoined the firm as a director. He said, "I have had letters from you during March." I said, "That is quite impossible." We went upstairs and I asked Miss Holmes to give me a copy of the correspondence. I found he was quite correct. I asked Miss Holmes by whose authority she bad used my name in those letters and signed my name. She hesitated for some little time, but I pressed her, and she said, "Oh, Mr. W." My signatures were not on the copies, of course, but I took his word for that as my name was mentioned in the letters.
Mr. Fulton (examining). As a fact only one letter is in March and that is the last one in the correspondence, which stretches from January. I have put to you one letter which you signed; the other letters are signed "J. Taylor, " and initialled by Miss Holmes. You say you commented upon that fact in her presence?
Witness. Yes. I thought there was more than one in March. At any rate they were signed without my authority. I saw Mr. Carden in March, and also in February and January, 1911, but not in April. In March there was no conversation worth recalling. I never saw Mr. Bailey. I saw Mr. Ramsbottom in March, in the shop; he spoke to Geer and also one of the chauffeurs. The affidavit was sworn on March 30. Wertheimer sent for me to see; I did so and he told me he wanted me to sign the affidavit. I refused. I went to Mr. Taunton with him and as a result of the conversation I agreed to sign it. He assured me it would make no difference to me. On or about May 13 I wrote the letters to the Registrar and the landlords, which have been read. On my return to the company I received some money, but not regularly, amounting to ₤10, or ₤15 perhaps. Except that and the money I received in commission I never had anything directly or indirectly. I received none of the profit from the sale of any car. It was on Wertheimer's instructions that Mr. Clayton was telephoned to. He wanted to borrow some money on that car for a week. Mr. Clayton came and got on the telephone direct to Wertheimer and fixed the matter up with him. The money was put on the table between me and Geer. It was handed over to Geer, as he was in charge and as he had to pay wages, and had instructions from Wer
theimer what to do with it. I knew nothing about the Mercedes car until April 8, and then I did not know it belonged to Mr. Eadsforth. A receipt for ₤50 was shown to me purporting to be signed by him and to be paid on account of the purchase price. Either Geer or I was instructed by Wertheimer to show it to Clayton. I should think I did. I had no reason to suppose Wertheimer was not entitled to raise the money.
Cross-examined by Wertheimer. I did not get the agreement until the banking account was opened. I did not feel particularly happy over my position, owing to the fact that I was an un discharged bankrupt. I told you about that and you immediately got that agreement out and dated it back to my first commencing with the firm. Mr. Taunton, whose advice I took, said it was perfectly in order. It was to protect me from proceedings as acting as the proprietor of a business. You could not stop me from closing the banking account at any time. It is my. signature on Exhibit 86 (receipt for car). I did not receive any wages between February 25 and March 20 while I was away from the firm, and I do not remember having anything. I was advanced ₤5 on joining in December and paid it back and got the I.O.U. back. I do not know whether the I.O.U. was in an open drawer. I paid it back out of some commission I received on one of three new cars I sold as the result of the Olympia Show. I did not receive any car on March 24 or 25, although I was there. I would not swear I did not, because it is possible something might have happened. Mr. Wilson's car came in on a later date. Mr. Ramsbottom's Napier car came in on March 24. (To the Court.) I did deal with Mr. Wilson at same date. He brought this car along, Wertheimer was busy and asked me to take it in. I did so and signed for it.) Between April 8 and 21 I received ₤15 or ₤20, not ₤25. ₤5 you gave me on April 8 for the previous week and for work previously done, including the signing of the affidavit. I thought I had earned the ₤15 seeing the trouble you had let me in for, interviewing customers and the police. I told Geer to draw me a cheque for ₤10 and he did so. That came out of the ₤60. It was out of Crighton's money. Geer drew ₤20 on Saturday morning to pay Mr. Crighton. It was used during the following week to pay for repairs to two cars which had been damaged. (To the Court.) ₤60 came into my hands altogether. It was placed in the bank first, and I drew ₤10 for myself. The same day, the Thursday before Good Friday, there was the wages to pay, and ₤20 was drawn for that purpose. There was a wages bill of ₤11 and also ₤2 or ₤3 for men who did private work for Wertheimer. It amounted altogether to ₤13 or ₤14. Then on the Saturday another ₤20 was drawn for the purpose of paying Mr. Crighton, but he never received it. It was handed to me in the first place and used for purposes which should be clearly shown in the cash-book. Geer paid the principal part of it out. I had ₤10 on April 13, ₤20 on the 15th. and ₤2 petty cash on the 13th. I did not have a further sum of ₤5 on the 15th. If ₤67 10s. was paid to Geer for Mr. Crighton's car I do
not know what became of the ₤7 10s. Geer said ₤60 was all he got. I know nothing about the money for the registration of the company. The ₤20 I believe Geer used for repairs to the two cars. I do not say he used the whole, but I handed it to him. I saw Mr. Taunton, the solicitor, on the day I had the agreement or the day after. He had acted for me before. I did not go to him because he was the company's solicitor, but I did not expect to pay him as it was on the company's service, to satisfy myself. I refused to sign a set of books which an accountant prepared. They were not in existence while I was with the firm. They were not made up, but were in process of being made up. Mr. Clayton made a mistake when he said I showed him the letters I wrote to the Registrar of Companies about you. I did not show them to anybody. The last time we had a row was when you asked me to sign the bogus books and I refused and you offered me a sovereign to do it. You sent a man named Simpson, the accountant who was preparing these books, after me, and said I would have nothing more to do with you. I went to the "Mason's Arms, " and was having a drink by myself and Geer and Simpson came with a cheque to persuade me to go back and sign these books. I told them to take the cheque back; that I would have nothing more to do with you or them either, and that I was determined to write to the Registrar. It was not because you would not give me ₤5 that I threatened to write. At that time Fletcher and I were trying to take premises at 89, Wigmore Street. Fletcher failed to get them. We did not try to get the premises at 78, High Street afterwards. (To the Court. I was very much annoyed with Wertheimer when I wrote the letters, because he has mislead me to rejoin the firm. My principal motive was to get released from my directorship of the company. It was not from a sense of public duty. The contents of the letter to the Registrar were true.
(Saturday, October 14.)
JOHN TAYLOR (recalled). Further cross-examined by Wertheimer. I first joined the company on December 5, 1910, left on February 25, and rejoined about April 8, though from March 24 I had been dropping in. My salary was ₤2 10s. a week and I had a commission on the business I introduced; there was some genuine business done. I was advised not to come to Brixton and help you to get the evidence together of the genuine business. Previously to joining you I was in partnership with another man and we agreed to part. (Mr. Travers Humphreys objected to witness being asked as to the reason, on the ground that it was irrelevant. Objection upheld.) Since this case has started I have seen the witnesses for the prosecution, but Clayton is the only one I have seen frequently. I was dissatisfied because I was continually finding out things, and I went on April 12 to see Mr. Taunton. He advised me to put a padlock on the door, because, as a director, I was responsible; and he said I was very foolish to take charge of the place and advised me to keep you out until you released.
me from my responsibility. The only sum that I received of the ₤60 drawn out on April 13 was ₤10; I can give an account of how the balance was spent; it was all entered up in the cash-book. I do not know what the ₤5 was drawn for on April 15. Out of the ₤11 drawn for wages on the 13th I gave Fletcher ₤2.
Cross-examined by Mr. Travers Humphreys. At the time I joined on December 5 there was an identical business carried on at 60, Pentonville Road, by Wertheimer, Clement Gardner, and Fletcher. I was given to understand that the business carried on in a different name at Baron Street had been given up prior to that date. I was supposed to manage the High Street premises, but I did not do so; Wertheimer was not occupied in managing the Pentonville premises; he came every morning to High Street. I do not remember anybody but he and I dictating the important letters, but I did not dictate a large number of them. No books were kept in December except the stock book, which I opened for the purpose of taking an inventory of all the cars that were received and sold. If I had personally seen the seller of a car I may have written one or two of the letters, but Wertheimer wrote the important ones after my reporting to him. I think he and I were both in the shop when Macdonald came in about the third week in December. I did not discuss with Wertheimer what to write to him. In December and January I sold, I think, in all three cars, in which the owners got the money; one was Macdonald, who got part of his money; the second one I know nothing about, I think it was a stock car, but I did not know the name of the owner, and the third was a Straker-Squire car, where the owner (a Mr. Manifold, I think) eventually got ₤50 out of the ₤230 which it was sold for. The business was in very low water when I joined it, and it continued about the same afterwards. Macdonald's car was in for ₤285 and it was sold by Wertheimer for ₤225. It was not an honest thing to do. I had offered the car to Bull, of Long Acre, and if he approved of it on my taking it to him on the following morning he said he would give me ₤300. On arriving at business the next morning I found Wertheimer had sold it for ₤225. I understood from Bull that it would be a cash transaction. Wertheimer had told me that he had got a buyer for ₤300 on three months' bills. I did not communicate with Macdonald in any way after the car was sold. It is true I signed this letter to him of January 24, saying that we were willing to buy the car ourselves on bills for ₤300, but I did no dictate it. I did not know then that the company could pay no such sum. Before I joined it was a habit of mine to sign all the letters. I will not swear I did not see this letter to Macdonald of January 2 saying we had an offer of ₤300. I did not dictate it; it is signed in my name, but I did not sign it. We had had no such offer. Macdonald accepted it. I did not write the letter of January 16 saying that our customer had offered to give bills for the ₤300. Wertheimer had told me he had such a customer, a stockbroker, living at Hampstead, but I never saw him in the shop; I should have done if he had come. It was Bull himself who eventually bought the car. He did not give me ₤5 commission. I went to him after I had heard what he had given for it and said he ought not to have bought
it at the price, as I could have sold it for a larger sum. He suggested giving me something but I refused. It appears he sent a cheque, but I never got it. Macdonald sued the company. It is true that the affidavit resisting the claim was in my name. I described myself as the proprietor, but that was because Wertheimer and Taunton had entered appearance in my name. Taunton told me that it was purely a formal matter. The reason why I opened the banking account in my name as proprietor and manager was that Mr. Cannell, the bank manager, said that he could not take my signature, "p.p. The Marylebone Motor Mart, " and suggested my doing as I did, saying that it would not matter, as the company was going to be registered in a few days. I had told him this from information previously given me by Wertheimer. I told Carden that I knew nothing, about his car. I expect I asked Wertheimer what had become of Burnand's car, but I have no recollection of it. After that letter I wrote to him myself I did not see any of the letters. When I saw Burnand on April 19 I knew it had been sold, but I do not know that it would have made any difference if I had told him. I could see there was some trouble brewing, and I was afraid to say a word for fear of prejudicing myself, When Creighton called on April 13 it was Geer who told him that his car had been practically sold to a doctor in the neighborhood. I knew it was untrue, and I thought the best thing I could do was to put him off for a day or two to see if I could get the car back. The car had been definitely sold to Bull at that time, and he had paid ₤45 on account. Wertheimer was away "at this time and had nothing to do with it. Exhibit 18 was dictated by Geer on Taunton's advice. I was present in Taunton's office when the advice was given. I knew nothing of the contents. Geer did all the business with Crighton. Geer told him of the arrangement he had made with Crighlton, and Taunton advised him to put it on record, and thus the letter was written, but I had already told Taunton that Crighton had repudiated it. It is true Geer was my subordinate, and I was then taking responsibility. I knew on April 8 that Rams-bottom's car had gone. His account of his interview with me on April 24 is quite incorrect; on the 25th all I told him was that the customer was not able to take the trial run that day; this is what Wertheimer told me to tell him. I said nothing about Palmer to him, and nothing was said to Ramsbottom about him in my hearing. It would be untrue to say that Palmer was the principal in the business. I never heard of or saw him. I did not like to tell Ramsbottom on the 11th when he called that his car was gone. I am afraid that as director of the company I did not understand my responsibility in these matters. The customer in Stretton's case was Geer's; the car came in on March 30, and I was not fully employed till April 8. I told him there was an Australian gentleman with whom we had not been able to fix up about the car, and made an appointment for him to see a member of the firm on the following evening. I do not remember Exhibits 50 and 51; I did not write them. I saw Bailey's car come in on April 15. I had nothing to do with the correspondence in his case. I remember Eadsforth's car coming in on April 8. I knew that the car was bought for ₤135
and ₤50 had been paid on account, for which sure Eadsforth gave a stamped receipt. I showed it to Clayton at the time, but I cannot produce it now. I do not remember receiving this writ from him. I remember a day or two after Wertheimer had gone away I was asked by Taunton if I would enter appearance in the action, and I said I would not. I know on April 8 ₤50 was borrowed on the car; I myself gave the receipt and gave Geer the money, which1 he disposed of according to Wertneimer' s instructions. I know now that it was a dishonest transaction, but if Eadsforth had received the ₤50 there would have been nothing dishonest in raising money on the car temporarily. I suppose the ₤50 was borrowed so that Wertheimer should have a bit to go away with on a holiday. I did not understand that it was required to keep the business on its legs. On March 20 Wertheimer told me that he had arranged for some capital to come into the firm and everything would be all right. I became director with another. No genuine business was done after that date; but I was not regularly there till April 8.
(Defence of Wertheimer, continued.)
WAITER HUBERT HILL . (TO Wertheimer.) In the early part of this year I was manager to Delmar's Motor Works. We advanced you some money on a Pigou car, with an option of repurchase. We let you have it back again to show to a customer, you depositing a de Dietrich car as security. You afterwards redeemed that car and took it away.
Cross-examined. This was about March, 1910. We inquired whether the de Dietrich car was his, and he said it was.
Re-examined. I do not think I was in the office when you brought in the car. We took it for granted that it was your car.
—PARTRIDGE(20). I remember your coming to the firm during March and saying that you had a de Dietrich car at Delmar's on which some money was due, and that you were anxious to save it. My partner released the car, and held it until you took it from us.
Cross-examined. 1 did not ask him whether it was his own car, as I assumed it was.
(Monday, October 16.)
GEORGE THOMAS BERRIDGE , National Bank, Islington. Examined by Wertheimar. I remember Clement Gardner opening an account on January 14, 1910. It was closed December 30. He ceased to operate in June after he became bankrupt. ₤5, 519 4s. 4d. passed through the account. There was also a No. 2 account. ₤1, 255 5s. passed through that. No cheques were presented after June.
(Defence of Geer, continued.)
Limited, and from 1908 to January, 1910, by the V.V. Bread Company. I left them through ill-health. I had good references from both. As soon as I was well I went to Clement Gardner and Co. as bookkeeper and salesman. That was my first experience of the motorcar trade. I began my duties on April 5. On April 21 Clement Gardner and Co. was registered, with my name as secretary. Wertheimer said the duties were merely nominal, as I was a bit nervous, and thought it was a responsible position. I kept the books of the company and wrote the minutes. i resigned on November 18 and left Wertheimer's employment at the same time. I sold accessories and packed stuff up more than anything. I had not an easy job. I left because, I did not have the opportunity to keep them as I thought they should be kepi I was never given any information of the money going out or goods bought. Petty cash was drawn; I could not get any vouchers. I was always told by Wertheimer, "You need not worry about that." I looked on him as a governor and did not like to talk to him as I might have done if it had been somebody else. Wertheimer would account in a way for money he got if be sold a car, but not as I thought it should be done. I could not keep the books properly. He wrote me two postcards and a letter, asking me to see him. When I got there I saw there was a different name over the shop, the Marylebone Motor Mart, and I said to his brother, "You have the name altered. Wertheimer was there. He explained to me about Clement Gardner's business being wound up, the books were in rough order, and would I do my best to get them a bit shipshape. I said I did not think I could do any more, but I would try to do something. Nothing was settled as to payment. I think he gave me 10S. now and then during the two or three weeks I was there. I did not do anything till the end of December. Wertheimer said it would be very similar to Clement Gardner's business, and he wanted to pay Clement Gardner's creditors so much in the ₤ and get a voluntary winding up. I understood he was going to pay it out of the new business. I failed to get the books in proper order. I could not get information of any kind. I did not do anything in particular. If anything wanted doing he would say, " Just do this or that, " and I would do it. Afterwards I was appointed secretary. There was not much book-keeping. I opened a banking account in the name of the Marylebone Motor Mart. Wertheimer told me "Taylor has had his account closed." I said that was rather unfortunate, and I should like a small account opened just for petty cash. He said, "You need not worry about it, it will be all right." It was practically a trustee account until the new company was registered, then he would get the directors to sign and transfer the account. The directors would most probably be Bowles and Palmer. I think there were some other names mentioned. Wertheimer mentioned those names. He did not tell me why he did not care to open an account in his own name. He asked me two or three times to open an account. I told the manager of the bank I was merely signing for the convenience of proprietors. I told him I was not the Marylebone Motor Mart or any part of it. He saw, "It is irregular for banking business, could not you sign as
trading as the Marylebone Motor Mart? " I said, "Yes." I afterwards thought, "I am not trading as the Marylebone Motor Mart, " and went and saw him again next day and asked whether he could not alter it. He said, " There is no other way unless you like to sign cheques without 'Marylebone Motor Mart' at all." That is how the account was altered. I had no control over the issue of cheques; the money was not mine. I frequently signed cheques and left them in the book for Wertheimer to use. Wertheimer asked me to do that. Towards the end of the time when one or two cheques came back I said to Wertheimer, "It is hardly the thing these cheques coming back on my account, " and asked him if he could not make some arrangement to conduct it better. He said, "That will be all right; I shall be arranging for money to meet these cheques." The money was never found. I complained of that to Miss Holmes. I do not remember signing the letter of September 23 to Mr. Carden. I used to sign nearly all the letters as secretary; I never used to dictate them. I did not write this letter, I merely signed it. I used to sign them all at night, never used to read them. I may have been present when Wertheimer was dictating letters, but I was generally downstairs messing about in the shop. I did not think anything as to the truth or untruth of Carden's letter. I did not know anything about it. I did not tell Mr. Carden the car was out. I do not know exactly what I told him. I did not tell him what I knew to be false. Wertheimer would say, " If so and so comes in say we have not got his car back, or it is out on trial." I was communicating with a firm in the north about Carden's car, asking them ₤202 for it. I was not earning commission at all then. Wertheimer knew that. I did not know it had been sold at that time. I knew Wertheimer had borrowed money on it from Mr. Sawyer, and if Sawyer sold it he was to pay Wertheimer a price something like ₤200; in the meantime I was to try and sell it. I always thought it could be got back from Sawyer when sold. Wertheimer gave me to understand Sawyer might find a customer for it at a fair price. I did not know the car was stripped of accessories. I had left the Maylebone Motor Mart, and they were left there. As to Burnand's car, I did not write the letter of January 14, or sign Taylor's name to it. I did not know it was sold when the letter was written saying we would try and fix up a sale. I understood Mr. Reed was trying to find a customer. I took Wertheimer's word that Bowles and Palmer were the proprietors. I saw Bowles once or twice. I know Reed had advanced money to Wertheimer on it. Mr. Crighton called on April 8. I told him his car was gone to the works to have the window tightened. It was a fact the window was loose, but I went upstairs while Crighton was there, and found it had gone to the works. I made some excuse and told him to come back later after I found out where the car was. Wertheimer was not on the premises then. The same afternoon I knew the car was at Mr. Bull's. I think I got it back from Bull's that day. Bull said he had bought the car from Wertheimer's; that was on the telephone. I said, " It is a funny thing the owner of it is here." This would be February 11 or 12. It was before Wertheimer went away. Wertheimer told me to tell Crighton that he could sell his car if he
could accept ₤20 and the balance in a month. I think that was the proposition. I forget whether it was to be a bill. I did not know the customer myself; I thought it was a doctor close handy. I wrote the letter confirming the proposition. Crighton called on April 13, the day I took the balance of the money from Bull. I found Wertheimer had made some arrangement with Bull. Bull rang up and said he had as good as arranged with Wertheimer to buy it at ₤120, but he could not give ₤120, he would give ₤110, and as Wertheimer had left it in my hands, he asked, "Would that be all right? " I said I did not know. I thought it over, and rang him up later, when I said, "It is only ₤10 difference, I do not see that it will matter much." He then told me he would give me the balance as arranged with Wertheimer. I went along and signed a receipt for ₤120. ₤60 was all I received. I had no power to sell it without consulting Wertheimer. Bull showed me a receipt for ₤45 which he had advanced. The balance should have been ₤65, but Bull said there was ₤5 commission for himself. I was paid in notes and gold. I paid it into the bank account, which was in my name. I saw Crighton that afternoon. After he went away I wrote Mr. Crighton. That was the letter offering ₤20 deposit. Taylor and I had been to see Mr. Taunton. It was on his advice I wrote the letter. Taunton and Taylor were supposed to see Crighton. I heard later they had not seen him. I was supposed to he in charge of the business while Wertheimer was away, but I was not. Wertheimer as good as asked me to take charge, but as soon as he had gone Taylor came and said he heard Wertheimer had made him responsible for a lot of things, and he was going to take over the management. I did not know what to do; I was between the devil and the deep sea. I saw Taunton and told him the position. After Wertheimer came back I went to Birmingham to see the people who had bought the car from Mr. Bull. I told Wertheimer Crighton had been in and that I was surprised at him selling it for ₤120 when Crighton wanted ₤200. I said, "I do not see how you can do anything in this matter." He said we must get the car back as Mr. Crighton was making a lot of fuss about it. The people in Birmingham said they could not let us have it back unless we paid ₤140 in cash, the price they had paid to Bull. I wired that to Wertheimer. He told me to wait there, and would send me the money to buy it back. Taunton did not tell us to try and get the car back. He told us to offer Crighton ₤20; the other was to be left over for a month, and he would come down with Taylor to offer it, so that it should be placed on record, or something of that kind. He came down, and they were supposed to offer this money. I found out later the same day they had not. They said they had thought it over and had altered their minds. I had arranged to leave Wertheimer before I went to Birmingham, but he asked me to do one or two things as a favour. As to Eadsforth's car, I gave him a post-dated cheque for ₤50 on March 30. Wertheimer was present. I did not know that Clayton had bought that car for ₤50. I knew Eadsforth was to get ₤135 for it. The ₤50 was a deposit on the price of ₤135. The car was then still in the shop. I happened to be in Wertheimer's office in Oxford Street, and he asked me to rings to Marylebone to see if
Clayton was there. Taylor answered, and said he was, and I gave Wertheimer the telephone to speak. I do not remember the amount Wertheimer asked Clayton to lend. When Wertheimer put the telephone down he said he had arranged to borrow some money on the car and asked me to go to Marylebone and take it later on in the day to his private house at Camden Road. He told me to pay one or two things at Marylebone out of the cash. Wertheimer did not go away by the 2.20 train. I saw him when it was dark in the evening on April 8. I believe he went on the Sunday, the 9th. After Wertheimer had gone away Clayton said there were one or two things wanted doing to the car, and did not know whether he was justified in doing them, as he thought Wertheimer was going to take the option up and have the car back, and did not want to pay the money out of his own pocket. I believe I told Taylor this, and told Clayton he was justified in doing it. Eadsforth's cheque was dishonoured. I was only in a position to say to Wertheimer, "This cheque has come back." I was not on the same footing with him. I never sold any of the cars. Wertheimer told me to tell Mr. Ramsbottom there would be a customer coming in during the day. I forget exactly how the question of the guarantee cropped up. Wertheimer said to me, "You might just type it out and sign it with Palmer's name, and put my initials under it. You can come down early in the morning before I get here and give it him if I am not here in time." It is quite possible I mentioned Palmer's name to Ramsbottom. The guarantee is ₤350. It was sold to Reed for ₤220. The cheque is endorsed "per pro Marylebone Motor Mart, C. H. Wertheimer, Manager." This is the first time I have seen the cheque. I take it it was cashed across the counter. Ramsbottom called on April 11. I told him the car was out. I did not know it had been sold four days before. As to the statements to Stretton about his car, they were true. There was a Mr. Crewe I thought this car would suit. He had two trial runs and was perfectly satisfied with it. Then he sent us a letter to say he was laid up with a cold. I tried my best to sell that car to him. As to Bailey's car, Clayton advanced ₤30 at Oxford Street, and Wertheimer gave me the money, the bare amount to pay the taxes out, ₤20 odd. I think that was after I had practically left, but Wertheimer asked me to do one or two things until I got something else to do. Wertheimer came back from the Continent. I saw him at Oxford Street the same day. I told him I did not like one or two things that happened while he was away. Crighton's car was the real thing; I could not make out him selling at a lower figure than he had arranged to sell it to Bull for. We had a long argument; he did not want me to go, and said that he had nobody else to go up there, and asked me to go there until he got somebody else. I think I went up there for two months. I am speaking of Oxford Street, not the Motor Mart. I was always leaving. Once I went down to Littlehampton; Wertheimer came down after I had been there a day or two and asked me to come back and help him with one or two little things in reference to the business at Marylebone. I did all I thought he wanted. The ₤100 paid into the bank on April 7 was part of the money that was given to Tredgold and Narlian when the composition of
25 per cent. was made to the creditors of Clement Gardner and Co., which was not accepted. The ₤50 drawn out on the 8th was by Wertheimer's instructions to pay one or two things. I do not know whether he paid them. The same with the ₤20. That was the day he went away or the day before. The ₤7 10s. drawn out on the 10th was made out to his wife. She cashed it, I think. Two days after he went away she called down at Marylebone and asked me if it was all right. I did not know anything about it. "Clark, ₤10." I think that is Wertheimer's sister. The ₤3 on the 10th is two weeks' wages to me.
"Taylor, ₤16, " on the 13th; I gave that to Taylor when I came back with the money from Bull. Re the Argyll car, he said he was going to take ₤10 out of it. I said, "Well, that is hardly fair to me to take it without any trace, why not take a cheque? " I gave him a cheque for ₤10. I did not have a farthing of that. "Cash, ₤5"; I think Fletcher had that. The ₤20 was drawn for the purpose of offering to Crighton. Except my wages I have not made a penny out of this concern.
Cross-examined by Wertheimer. When I first came to Clement Gardner I saw you. Gardner was away. I did not see you for a fortnight afterwards. I did not know Gardner was sole proprietor; he was always there assisting in the business. I knew you were not the proprietor. There was trouble over one car about the seller not getting his money. There is a minute showing my resignation. The signature of yours which was queried is not your writing. You told me to write it. You were present at the meeting. The minutes are not written until after the meeting. You were supposed to have resigned from the company on December 2. I should not like to say that is a true minute. I left the business on November 18. As to the writing of the minutes being mine up till January 6, when I came back the minutes were recorded in pencil by yourself or Fletcher, and you asked me to write them up in the minute book. Fletcher signed them all in one day. I swear you told me to sign Palmer's name on Ramsbottom's guarantee. I may have signed his name before; I do not think so. His name appeared as a director in the articles. I could not say who registered the company. Perhaps I am referring to the Bancroft Company. That was something to do with the Marylebone Motor Mart. They were all a wheel within a wheel; they were all the same. I do not remember you asking me to use Palmer's name otherwise than on that guarantee. I never refused to open a banking account for you. I daresay I should get the sack if I refused. I suppose you had not the money to open the account when you first asked me. That is the only reason I give for saying you asked me two or three times. I should not have thought of closing the account without asking you. I did not consider I could do so. It was considered your account. I was not satisfied with it. I was hardly in a position to refuse to write out the cheques. I always controlled the account as you directed. You frequently would take cheques away without my knowing where they went. As to Mr. Crighton, I was paid ₤60 on the 13th by Mr. Bull. Bull said he paid me ₤67 10s. Mr. Bull's evidence is absolutely untrue. I think he has contradicted himself. The cheque for ₤20
which Taylor held for a day or two was not handed back to me intact; he gave me the balance and accounted for what he had spent. I had a record of every halfpenny in the cash-book of the ₤60. (Copy account handed to witness). The ₤1 to Clarke, dated April 13, was a cheque you drew before you went away. The ₤10 to Taylor was given to him when he came along after you had gone, and said he was the principal. He wanted to take ₤10 out of Bull's ₤60. I said that would not be fair to me to have no record, and gave him a cheque. I paid also four guineas to Taunton and ₤5 to Fletcher. It is not true as Taylor says, that two cars were smashed up. A car came in which I took out to try. I had an accident with it. The repairs cost ₤4 15s., I think, which I paid. I cannot recollect Malcolm Bright, ₤1 2s. 6d. Simpson, ₤1, was a post-dated cheque you gave before you went. I do not produce it. Simpson had ₤5 altogether. That was for registering the new company. I did no business with the banking account without your authority except just the time you went away. I cannot say whether it was a bill you told me to suggest to Crighton or a month's credit; you certainly suggested this. The car had been sold when you left; I found that out after you had gone. Bull told me he had bought the car and you had received a deposit on it. The proposition to offer Crighton ₤20 was made before I went to Mr. Taunton. The day before you went away you told me to go to Crighton and make the suggestion to him. I said that this morning. I went to Mr. Taunton on the 15th. I first of all put the proposition to Crighton on the 6th, two days before you went away. You left general instructions behind in a list, where you said Bull had lent ₤45. The instructions do not definitely say you tell me to sell that car, but they infer it. Bull telephoned me. He said you would accept ₤120 for the car, and he would pay ₤110. I said, "If Mr. Wertheimer said he would accept ₤120, ₤10 is not much, in his absence I accept." If he had said you accepted ₤50 I should have accepted. I thought he was a friend of yours, and that he would not tell an untruth. That is why I let him have it at his own price. I do not remember taking the car from Crighton. I transacted some-of the business with him. I knew the price the car came in for was ₤200 or a little over, and could not understand you selling the car to Bull for such a figure. It was not my place to telegraph you. You had already given Bull a receipt, making out you had sold the car for ₤45. If you choose to do business in that way you should take the responsibility. (Judge Rentoul: Neither Bull nor Wertheimer could possibly have meant that ₤45 was to be the amount, because Bull gives some ₤65 more; whereas he could have said according to that receipt, "I will not give you a penny more; I have bought the car.") That was a loan on the car undoubtedly. You might have been away at the time I proposed giving Crighton a bill for ₤20, but you told me to do so before you went away. I never had ₤20 to offer. I do not agree with Clayton that when he went to the Marylebone Motor Mart both Taylor and I were there. I went down later. I was with you at Oxford Street, and you asked me to ring up Marylebone to speak to Clayton. You made out you tried to get Crichton's car back, but you did not do much in the end. I thought
you made a fool of me sending me to Birmingham if you ask me the truth. As regards Stretton's car, it is absolutely untrue I was present with Taylor when the deal was done, and took the cheque and paid it into my own bank. Mr. Taylor did not say so. I received the cheque later on from you at Marylebone. I do not think there are any in- structions to sell (Brighton's car or Bailey's car in your letters.
(Tuesday, October 17.)
WALTER GEER (prisoner, on oath). Cross-examined by Mr. Travers Humphreys. Clement Gardner's business was in low.water when I left in November. Several people complained they could not get the money. It was chiefly accessories accounts then. I went back in January. I did not know how things were there for some time after- wards. I did not take any active part in the business. I saw Cardan's car several times after going back to High Street, Marylebone. I used to give Garden messages received from Wertheimer. They appeared to me somewhat true at the time. I knew Sawyer had Mr. Carden's car at some time. I got in touch with a firm to try and sell it. I did not think it my duty to tell Carden that Sawyer had advanced money on it. I was in an awkward position. I do not say I would have told a deliberate lie to him. I think the letter I wrote to him on April 12, when Wertheimer was away, is true in the main. Wertheimer wrote me, and I understood the position was not quite clear. He wrote me "swank Carden." I do not know what that word means. I was not there when Mr. Burnand's car came in. I do not remember it going out. I had never seen it. I knew it was at the International Motor Mart on March 9, and that they had advanced money on it. Wertheimer said they were likely to sell it for him at a fair price, and when he re- ceived the balance of the money would pay it to Burnand. I thought borrowing money on other people's cars was not the usual business I was used to, but I did not know what they did in the motor trade. It was done once or twice by Clement Gardner. I never saw anybody of the name of Palmer. Wertheimer always gave me to understand I was not to use his name. I thought it a little funny, but I was not in a position to go any further than do just what he told me, being employed by him. I did not think at the time the things I said were untrue, otherwise I should not have told deliberate lies. I thought Palmer was coming into the company. I suppose that did not exactly make him proprietor. I think Burnand asked for the addresses of Bowles and Palmer. I did not know them. I heard Fletcher and Bowles talk about Palmer. I referred Burnand to Taylor because Taylor knew more than I did there. I told Crighton on April 11 that the car was out of the way to tighten the window. I thought that was true at first. I then inquired and found a driver had taken it to Bull's, I forget on what date. I think I told Crighton the care was out on trial. That was before I found out that Bull had got it. I told Crigihton it would be back from the trial by two o'clock. Nobody told me that. I told Bull the owner was here. Bull told me he had brought it from Wertheimer. It did not seem to me the right thing
to do with Crighton's car and I did not want to tell him. It is probable I to lc him it was sold to a local doctor. I thought it better to tell him that than to go to Bull and leave Wertheimer to clear it up. I understood at the first interview Crighton agreed to accept a bill. That was a misunderstanding; he wanted us to take the bill. I got the balance, ₤60, from Bull that day. I afterwards 6aw Mr. Taunton. Then I wrote suggesting ₤20 and a month's bill to Crighton, but he refused it. It was I who was angry when, Wertheimer came back about the car being sold out and out. I had seen loans made on several oars, but was never given to understand they were sold outright. This was the first I knew was sold outright. I remember Eadsforth asking about his car and I said, " We have not managed to do anything with it yet." I did not say we had sold it. Wertheimer saw him at this interview. I gave him a cheque for ₤10 dated April 1, which was dishonoured twice. A writ was issued. I went to see Mr. Taunton about it while Wertheimer was away. I knew Eadsforth wanted ₤135, that he had ₤50 on account, which cheque was dishonoured. I was not a party to the business; I was there. I was aware of some money being borrowed on it. Wages were paid with part of it and ₤25 paid into the bank. I took the balance to Wertheimer's house. The transaction struck me as a bit funny. I did not think it dishonest. Wertheimer was always saying he was arranging to put money in the business and take up the liabilities. Nobody was ever paid. As to Taunton entering the appearance to Eadsforth's writ I told him there was a letter from Wertheimer saying, "Put 'Bowles and Palmer.' "Taunton said, "Someone must stand; leave that to me." I gave him no insitructiotns. He was solicitor to the company. I do not know why Taunton put in Rudolph Wertheimer's name. I put "F. Palmer" on Ramsbottom's guarantee by Wertheimer's instructions. I was not there to argue with Wertheimer; I was in a subordinate position. I probably told him on April 7 that his car was out on approval or something like that. Wertheimer did not give me any particular explanation about this car, but he left a note saying there was ₤100 loan on and Mr. Reid was going to sell it for him. I understood Wertheimer wrote several letters to Mr. Bailey. He did not tell me anything about Bailey's car before he went away. I swear to the best of my recollection I did not write the letter giving the references. I paid the rates with the money that was borrowed on Bailey's car. I did that as a favour to Wertheimer after I told him I was leaving him. There was one case where a private individual got part of his money.
HERMANN WERTHEIMER (prisoner, not on oath). Gentlemen of the Jury, I ask you not to be prejudiced by the fact that I did not go into the box. I thought I had nothing to deny. I put before you the simple question whether after managing Clement Gardner and Company's business for 12 months, during which time I had under my management thousands of pounds in hard cash and one or two hundred motorcars. I should suddenly cease from that sort of business and become a party to a conspiracy to defraud seven people of seven cars just for the benefit of small sums for the benefit of the business. I called evidence to prove I did conduct a very large business and there has not
been one complaint of Any sort before this Court with regard to that. I had no necessity to come down and be a party to small some like ₤30, ₤40, or even ₤220 as one case is. The proceeds of the cars were used in the business and never touched by me. I knew all about the terms on which Carden's car come to Clement Gardner's as I was director of the company and responsible. He brought the oar in for sale in the ordinary way and later on we wanted some money on one of our own cars and we borrowed, as Hills tells us, ₤50 on a Kersey car temporarily. I made it my duty to see that oar was got back and returned to Garden. As to Stretton's car, that was sent to me at Oxford Street to raise enough to meet a ₤55 cheque of Mr. Hays which was at the bank waiting payment. I neither touched or handled that money. I handed it to Geer through Taylor to pay in the bank. Bailey's car was got in during my absence, and there is no evidence to show that I knew anything about how it was got in or the terms. When I returned from the Continent two weeks after, a man was in for rates and I raised from Clayton ₤30 on this car. I asked Clayton here would he not have advanced ₤50 or ₤60. He said "Yes." He lent me the bare amount to pay the rates. As to Ramsbottom's car I endorsed the cheque for ₤220 which was paid. Somebody has got to endorse a cheque on behalf of the firm. It was admitted none of the notes had been traced to me. Geer says that the ₤100 which was paid in was the sum the solicitors paid in. My answer is that was out of Mr. Ramsbottom'a money. You have had oneor two explanations how the business with Bull in regard to Crighton's car came about. Bull has told you that I refused to deal at ₤100. A few days after I go away he pays ₤65 to Geer. That shows I was honest in the transaction and would not be a party to selling that car outright unless I was sure of the circumstances. Eadsforth's car I took in myself and gave him a receipt, saying the car would not be disposed of unless he had ₤135 clear after the car was disposed of. The car is sold the same day as I go away, not by me. I am not connected with it in any way, except that Clayton says he spoke to me over the telephone, and I told him to do the business with Geer and Taylor. You can believe that or not. It is quite clear I did not do anything wrong. When I came back the first thing I did was to get in touch with Clayton, and see he had the money paid back to him that he had advanced in the hope of saving the car, and I did in fact get Taylor to repay the money and save the car. Burnand's car was dealt with early in January. I meant to ask my co-defendants about that. I certainly transacted the deal, and the money went into the business. There is no proof that the instructions I am alleged to have left for Geer before I went away is a genuine document. I think the letters I wrote from Monte Carlo are in my favour, although put in by the prosecution. I think you will come to the conclusion that certain of the evidence given by my codefendants is the result of collusion. I put it to Taylor, whether he wrote the letters to the landlords and the registrar of companies with any patriotic or other purpose. You will see that at that time I must have been suffering something at the hands of someone. When De-
tective-sergeant Jeffery was in the box I asked him about some pawn-tickets. Those pawn-tickets would have shown that at the time and after these charges I was pawning my own private jewellery and things to pay my way, whereas if I had control of this business it would have been a simple matter for me to have realised on two or three cars instead. That shows you I never had any dishonest intention.
Verdict, Wertheimer, Guilty of obtaining cars by false pretences, Not guilty of conspiracy; Geer and Taylor, Not guilty. Wertheimer was convicted at this court on March 2, 1909, and sentenced to six months' imprisonment in the second division for obtaining two motor-cars by false pretences.
Sentence (Wertheimer, October 18), Three years' penal servitude.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Wednesday, October 11.)
There were proved three previous convictions for stealing and house-breaking; prisoner was stated to have done some work.
Sentence, Eighteen months' hard labour.
NEWMAN, David (48, tailor) pleaded guilty , of obtaining by false pretences from Sarah Goodman 12 golf caps, the goods of Samuel Goodman, and from Samuel Cohen 12 pairs of trousers and one suit of clothes, in each case with intent to defraud.
Prisoner confessed to having been convicted at this court on November 15, 1910, receiving six months' hard labour for stealing a piano, after two other convictions.
Sentence, Eighteen months' hard labour.
CARLYLE, Henry (20, ship's quartermaster) pleaded guilty , of breaking and entering the counting-house of the Old Cheshire Company, Limited, and stealing therein ten keys and other articles, their goods.
Prisoner confessed to having been convicted on October 17, 1910, receiving 12 months' hard labour for shop-breaking and larceny, after four previous convictions.
Sentence, Eighteen months' hard labour.
Convictions proved: May 22, 1906, at North London Sessions, 3 1/2 years' penal servitude, three years' police supervision and licence revoked, for stealing; at this court in 1887, 20 months' for possessing counterfeit coin; in 1892 stealing a purse, 18 months'; and others,
including six summary convictions as a suspected person. Prisoner was stated to be weak-minded. Sentence, Eighteen months' hard labour.
DARIOLI, Teresio (20, waiter), RUFFINO, Emilio (16, waiter), ALBERICI, Americo (20, waiter) , all stealing one matchbox, the goods of Gamages, Limited . Darioli and Ruffino stealing one pair of field glasses, the goods of Frederick Bateman and Company, Limited ; Darioli and Ruffino stealing one pair of field glasses, the goods of Frederick Bateman and Company, Limited .
Darioli pleaded guilty of all charges. The other two prisoners were tried on the charge of stealing and receiving one matchbox.
MT. Heddon prosecuted; Mr. Thomas Carthew appeared for Darioli; Mr. Purcell and Mr. Fox-Daviee defended Ruffino.
Detective WALTER SMITH, City Police. On Saturday, September 9, at about 11 a.m. I saw the three prisoners in Ludgate Kill conversing together; Ruffino and Darioli, after calling at two or three shops, leaving Amberici outside, ultimately called at Gam-ages, leaving Amberici outside. I followed Ruffino and Darioli into the jewellery department, when I saw them looking at some silver matchboxes; Ruffino took up two and only put one back; Ruffino then gave an order and they walked out. I saw Ruffino touoh Alberici's right hand and place something in his hip pocket. Shortly afterwards I and other officers arrested them on the charge of frequenting shops for the purpose of committing a felony. Ruffino said, "I have not done anything." They were taken to Bridewell Police Station, where matchbox produced was found in Amberioi's hip pocket. When charged at Snow Hill Police Station Ruffino said, " I have not got anything to say." Alberici said about the matchbox, "I do not know anything about it; the other man gave it to me, " pointing to Ruffino.
Cross-examined. In my notebook I have put that Alberici said, "The other gave it to me, " but he really said, "The other man gave it to me." He spoke in broken English.
EMILY MARY REID , assistant, Gamages, Limited. On Saturday, September 9, Ruffino and Darioli came to my counter and asked to see silver matchboxes. I got some out; Ruffino took several in his hand, but I could not serve them because they wanted larger ones, and he gave an order in the name of Wartson for a larger kind of matchbox containing a cigarette holder, which he would come for on the Monday. The matchbox produced has stamped on it my firm's initials, "A W. G., Ltd."; there is also a ticket marked 10s. 6d. inside, which would have been taken out if it had been sold.
PIETRO DIVIANI , restaurant keeper, 125, Newgate Street. I speak Italian and was called to Snow Hill Police Station to act as interpreter for Darioli and Alberici. I told Alberici what he was charged with; he said that he found the matchbox in his pocket, but he did not know anything about it.
EMILIO RUFFINO (prisoner, on oath). I have only known Darioli a. little time and I did not know Alberici until September 9. Darioli offered to pay for my food and fare if I would interpret for him, because he wanted to buy some presents. I went to Gamages with him; under his instructions I asked to see some matchboxes and we were shown a number. I did not steal one of those boxes.
Cross-examined. I only took one matchbox in my hand. When I gave the order I gave the name of Watson, because it was easier to take down. We left Alberici outside. I did not touch him when I came out.
AMERICO ALBERICI (prisoner, on oath). On September 9 I met Darioli and Ruffino, whom I knew by sight, in Oxford Street. Ruffino said he was going to the City to buy a present for Darioli. We rode for about 10 minutes on a bus and then got down; the other two went into two or three shops, I remaining outside. They then went into Gamages; after about five minutes they came out, when Darioli put the matchbox produced in my side coat pocket. After going on for five minutes I asked him why he put it in my pocket; he said, "Keep it there." The two then went into an optician's and rejoined me. When the officers arrested us I did not know what for, until Diviani interpreted the charge to me.
The Jury disagreed. (For further proceedings see page 737.)
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Wednesday, October 11.)
Prisoner had not been convicted before. He had been in prison seven weeks.
Sentence, Five months' hard labour.
FLAUNTY, Thomas (37, labourer), and TYLER, William (31, labourer) pleaded guilty , of conspiring and agreeing together by false pretences to prevent and defeat the due course of law and justice, and wrongly and unjustly to procure the release of the said William Tyler from His Majesty's Prison, Wandsworth, before he the said W. Tyler should be discharged by due course of law from the said prison at the expiration of three months' hard labour which he, the said W. Tyler, had been sentenced to at the Woolwich Police Court on August 28, 1911; both attempting to prevent and defeat the due course of law and justice as aforesaid.
On August 28 Tyler was sentenced to three months' imprisonment with hard labour at the Woolwich Police Court for assaulting the police and Flaunty to 21 days' imprisonment with have labour for
drunkenness and disorderly conduct. At Wandsworth Prison each man impersonated the other, Tyler answering in the name of Flaunty and the latter as Tyler. Flaunty afterwards said that as he had got Tyler into the trouble he thought it was only right that he should serve his sentence; But an explanation might be found in the fact that Flaunty could at will dislocate his ankle, and that when in goal he was always placed in the infirmary and so escaped the hard labour. Tyler was stated to be a violent man, especially when in drink, and to have been many times convicted of assaulting the police. Four convictions of felony were proved against him. Against Flaunty nine summary convictions and two convictions for felony were proved.
Sentences (each prisoner), Six months' hard labour, the sentences to date from yesterday.
Mr. Leycester prosecuted; Mr. Schultess-Young defended.
The hearing of this case was not concluded until October 13.
In summing up the Common Serjeant said he could not help thinking that the police had shown unusual anxiety to convict the accused. He did not know that it would have made much difference had they supplied Mr. Marshall, a barrister who applied on her behalf at the police court, with the names of the man and woman found in the house and had the inspection of the diary found in the premises been allowed. Police officers in dealing with accused persons should not take advantage of them, as they 'were entitled not only to a fair trial but to know where to go for evidence. Although the matters about which Mr. Marshall desired information might have been immaterial, its refusal showed an unusual desire to secure a conviction and an unusual treatment of a woman on her defense. If the jury found that an officer had taken one step or another to prevent a person he honestly believed to be a criminal from having information or sifting the evidence, he might be a very zealous officer, but he was a very onesided one.
Verdict, Not guilty.
The Common Serjeant made an order that the costs of the defense should be paid by the prosecution in accordance with the Costs in Criminal Cases Act. The costs of the prosecution were disallowed.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Thursday, October 12.)
Prisoner having been three weeks in custody and bearing an excellent character, was sentenced to Three days' imprisonment.
PRESTON, John Dennis (22, clerk) pleaded guilty , of feloniously uttering, knowing the same to be forged, a certain request for the payment of money, to wit, a banker's cheque for ₤40 14s. 10d., with intent to defraud.
Prisoner confessed to having been convicted on July 5, 1910, at Birmingham Quarter Sessions, receiving 15 months' hard labour and one year police supervision for warehouse-breaking, after nine previous convictions, including nine and six months. He was stated to be a very dangerous young criminal, connected with a gang of forgers.
Sentence, Twenty-two months' hard labour.
Prisoner served in the Navy for 15 years, and was discharged with an exemplary character.
Sentence was postponed till next Sessions, prisoner to remain in custody.
MILES, Harry (21, engine cleaner), GREEN, Herbert James Charles (19, engine cleaner), SELF, George Frederick (17, engine cleaner), CRESSWELL, Elizabeth Mary (22, servant), and GUY, Mary (18) . Miles, Green, Self, and Cresswell breaking and entering the dwelling-house of Alice Wheeler and stealing therein one costume and other articles, her goods; all stealing five quilts and other articles, the goods of Flora Mallan ; Miles, Green, and Self forging and uttering, knowing the same to be forged, an order for the payment of money, to wit, a "pay to bearer wages" form for the sum of ₤4 3s. 9d., with intent to defraud the London and South-Western Railway Company, their masters.
Miles, Green, Self, and Guy pleaded guilty; Cresswell pleaded guilty of receiving.
Sentences, Miles, Fifteen months' hard labour; Green, Twelve months' hard labour; Self, Three months' imprisonment, second division; Guy to be detained in a Borstal institution for two years; Cresswell, sentence postponed to next Sessions.
WHITE, David (22, porter), WESTALL, William (21, porter), and DALEY, Frederick, otherwise ROBERTS (22, porter); all pleaded guility of burglary in the dwelling house of Jane Butler and Louisa Butler and stealing therein one brooch, two knives, and other articles, their goods.
White and Daley confessed to have been convicted together on May 3 1910, at the County of London Sessions, both receiving 15 months' hard labour, for warehouse breaking after two previous convictions in each case.
Since his release on May 22, 1911, White was stated to have done some work. Westall was stated to be of good character.
Sentences, White, Eighteen months' hard labour; Daley, Eighteen months' hard labour; Westall, Six months' hard labour.
Mr. Bryan prosecuted.
ARTHUR DAMAYNE , seaman. About 5 p.m. on October 3 I was drinking in a public-house in Whitechapel and got into conversation with the prisoner, who was a stranger to me. We had drinks at several houses, than prisoner said that I looked dirty and he could take me to where I could wash; I then went with him to a lodging-house, and was washing in the scullery when prisoner came behind me, put his hand over my eyes and took from my trouser pockets all my money, 27s. 6d. I said, "Give me my money back." He said, "I will give you your money back—if you say another word I will smash, your brains out." He then walked sharply out of the house; I followed, complained to a police-constable and, after searching through several public-houses, we found prisoner drinking with six other men. I at once recognised him and am sure he is the man. I gave him into custody, charging him with stealing my money; he said, "You have got the wrong man this time."Prisoner was searched and foreign coin produced belonging to me was found on him. I found him 20 minutes after he robbed me. I was not sober and I was not drunk.
Police-Constable HARRY TILLING, 254 H, corroborated. I found on prisoner 4s. 5d. and a foreign coin. We found prisoner in the "Archers" public-house, Osborne Street, five minutes' walk from the common lodging house in which prosecutor says he was robbed. He made no reply to the charge.
DANIEL O'CONNOR (prisoner, on oath). On the night of October 3 I met prisoner and had some drinks with him. He was drunk. I suggested that we should go and have a wash and took him to a house where I had stayed. I did not touch him or rob him. While I was washing he turned round to me and said I had his money. I denied it and went out. As I was going out I picked up coin produced from the floor.
(Friday, October 13). Prisoner confessed to having been convicted at Bow Street on July 20, 1908, receiving six months' hard labour for stealing a watch and chain, after two short convictions. Since his release on May 11, 1908, prisoner was stated to have been regularly working as a miner in Glamorganshire. Sentence postponed to next Sessions.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE SCRUTTON.
(Friday, October 13.)
Mr. Graham-Campbell prosecuted; Mr. Percy Oliver appeared for prisoner.
Mr. Justice Scrutton: I understand that in this case prisoner was indicted for murder, and that the Grand Jury threw out the bill, a
course which they have followed in three other cases. I can only say that I think such a course is extremely to be regretted. The prisoner has to come for trial anyhow, and it is very unfortunate that the Grand Jury, without any direction in law from the Judge as to the difference between murder and manslaughter (an obscure subject which even some of us do not completely understand), should take upon themselves to settle what crime a prisoner is to be tried for.
Sentence, Six months' imprisonment, second division.
Mr. Graham-Campbell prosecuted; Mr. Warburton appeared for prisoners.
The jury were first sworn to try whether Albert Gale was sane and fit to stand his trial.
SIDNEY REGINALD DYER , medical officer, Brixton Prison. I have had prisoner under my special observation since September 8, and have made myself acquainted with his family history. I do not think he has sufficient intellect to comprehend the proceedings or to make a proper defence. I consider him an imbecile.
The jury returned a verdict of "Insane, " and Albert Gale was ordered to be detained during His Majesty's pleasure.
The female prisoner pleaded guilty of concealment of birth. No evidence was offered by the prosecution on the charge of murder, and a verdict of Not guilty was entered on that charge.
DR. SULLIVAN, medical officer, Holloway Prison. I have made a report on this case. Prisoner is very feeble-minded, and was exposed to considerable privation during her pregnancy.
Sentence, Three days' imprisonment, entitling prisoner to be at once discharged.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Friday, October 13.)
Prisoner pleaded guilty of uttering, which plea was accepted by the prosecution. Prisoner confessed to having been convicted on August 10, 1909, at Newington Sessions, receiving 18 months' hard labour for house-breaking. Three other convictions of two, eight, and 15 months' hard labour were proved...
Sentence, Twenty-two months' hard labour.
WAITE, James William, and POWELL, Thomas both pleaded guilty , of stealing six metal filament lamps on August 23, 1911, and six metal filament lamps on September 14, 1911, the goods of Siemen's Brothers Dynamo Works, Limited, the employers of the said J. W. Waite; between February 1, and September 19, 1911, unlawfully conspiring and agreeing together by divers fraudulent transactions and false entries to defraud Siemen'a Brothers Dynamo Works, Limited, of their goods.
Both prisoners were stated to be of good character; the prosecutors recommended Waite to mercy.
Sentence (Powell), Nine months' hard labour; sentence on Waite was postponed to next Sessions.
Mr. Warburton prosecuted; Mr. A. C. Fox-Davies defended Smith; Mr. T. A. Pace defended Craig.
Police-constable HENRY BEARD, 200 G. On Saturday, September 25, at about 11.50 p.m. I was in plain clothes and was getting off a tram at the corner of Essex Street and Kingsland Road, when the prisoner Smith, who was standing at the corner, tripped me up. I fell to the ground and he clutched at my gold watch and chain (produced). I wrestled with him, when I was struck a violent blow on the jaw by the prisoner Craig. I let go Smith and caught Craig. Smith ran down the Essex Road and was arrested by Police-constable Webb. Craig kicked me on the side. Sergeant Orr came to my assistance and Oraig was taken to the station. I lost part of my gold chain, value ₤2 10s. I was on the sick list for eight days owing to my injuries. When charged Smith said, "I was walking along the road with my wife when he asked her to spend the night with him." Craig said, "This is what I have got for helping him." I had not spoken to Smith's wife. Cross-examined. Smith was not drunk, he did not lurch up to me. A crowd collected. I was well enough next day to give evidence at the police-court. (To Mr. Pace.) I did not notice Craig before he struck me.
Police-constable ERNEST WEBB, 135 G. On Saturday, September 25, at 11.55 p.m. I was in uniform in Essex Street, when I saw a souffle at the corner of Kingsland Road. Smith ran up Essex Street; when he saw me he ran back. I caught him; he said, "I have not got it." I had said nothing to him before. I took him to the sitation; be struggled violently; two women and a man tried to assist Smith to get away; I used my truncheon on the man. Both prisoners were sober.
Cross-examined. Craig at the police-station said, "This is what I get for helping him"—meaning the police-constable.
Sergeant ALEXANDER ORR, 36 G. About 11.45 p.m. on September 25 I saw Craig and Beard struggling on the ground, Craig kicking Beard. I assisted in taking Craig, who was very violent, to the station.
Prisoners' statements before the magistrate: Smith, "I never touched the man; I was along with my wife." Craig, "I never touched the gentleman."
(Defence of Smith.)
FREDERICK GOLD , potman at the "Star and Woolpack" public-house, 132, Kingsland Road. My public-house is a stone's throw from the corner of Essex Street and Kingsland Road. On September 25 at 11.55 p.m. Smith came into my public-house and asked for a glass of ale; a woman came in and said, "Will you eject my husband, as he is drunk." I did so because I saw he was drunk.
Cross-examined. I gave a proof to a solicitor. I identify the man in the dock as being the man who came into my public-house, although the only time I over saw him was when I ejected him for being drunk.
ALBERT SMITH (prisoner, on oath). My real name is Heath. On the might of Saturday, September 25, I was so drunk that I did not remember anything until I woke up in the police-station the next morning.
Mrs. LOUISA HEATH, wife of the prisoner Smith, 29, Long Street, Hackney. On Saturday, September 25, I met my husband, who was drunk, at 11.30 p.m. We walked along the Kingsland Road to the "Woolpack" public-house. My husband went in; I followed and prevented him from being served. We went across the road, met his brother and his brother's wife and all went into the "Carpenter's Arms" public-house, leaving Smith outside. When I came out I saw Smith across the road scuffling with another man. I said, "Do not touch my husband, he is only drunk, " when a police-constable took Smith to the station. I have since seen Gold, the potman.
Cross-examined by Mr. Warburton. Smith could not possibly have run up Essex Street. (To Mr. Pace.) I did not see Craig that night. I do not know him.
HENRY HEATH , brother of prisoner Smith, 13, Essex Street, umbrella maker. On Saturday, September 25, at about 11.5 p.m. I met Smith, his wife, and my wife at the corner of Essex Street; Craig was standing at the other corner. I invited them all into the "Carpenter's Arms" to have a drink, but I did not give Smith a drink because he was drunk. When I came out I noticed he was on the other side of the road in a squabble with another man. I walked across with Craig and said, "He is only drunk." Smith could not have run away. I picked up Beard's hat and gave it to him. I did not follow to the station.
Cross-examined. Police-constable Webb hit me with his truncheon. (To Mr. Pace.) Craig did nothing but try to separate Beard and Smith.
(Saturday, October 14.) Mrs. ROSE HEATH, wife of Henry Heath, corroborated him.
(Defence of Craig.)
GEORGE HENRY CRAIG (prisoner, on oath). I live at 3, Cambridge Terrace, Hackney Green. On the night of my arrest Heath invited me to have a drink. Smith, whom I had known a week previously, was also there. We came out and all of a sudden I saw Smith, who
was drunk, struggling with Beard. I and his brother, Heath, went across the road to stop them. I said, "He is only drunk"; Beard then let go of Smith, caught me and said, "I am a police officer." I said, "I have done nothing to you, let me go, I have done no wrong." He threw me to the ground; I started struggling, was arrested, and taken to the station.
Police-constable HENRY BEARD, recalled. Nobody handed me my hat; I never recovered my hat.
Smith confessed to having been convicted at this Court on December 8, 1908, receiving three years' penal servitude for warehouse breaking, having 278 days still to serve, after three previous convictions, including nine and 18 months. Craig confessed to having been convicted at this Court on September 10, 1907, receiving five years' penal servitude for warehouse breaking, having one year and 103 days to serve, after convictions of three, three, 12, six, six, 12, and 21 months. Sentences, Smith, five years' penal servitude; Craig, six years' penal servitude.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT. (Friday, October 13.)
Mr. Beaumont Morice prosecuted; Mr. Beresford defended. MAGGIE SPARKES, assistant to F. J. Bunker, dairyman, 146, Green Lanes. Between 6 and 8 p.m. on September 6 I served prisoner with two eggs in a bag similar to this (Exhibit 3), on which was Mr. Bunker's name. He tendered this shilling (produced), and I gave him 10d. change. I put it in the till amongst the other silver.
Cross-examined. I have no special reason for identifying the shilling; anyone might have given it me. A few minutes elapsed before I identified prisoner at the police-station, I saw the row of men. I went to the door and then came back again. I did not go out. I said to Sergeant Haynes, "I can see the man, " and he said, " Go and touch him."
MAGALIA BRAZIER , confectioner, Newington Green Road. About 7 p.m. on September 6, prisoner came in and asked for a pennyworth of assorted chocolates. He tendered me a shilling in payment, and I placed it in the till in which there was no other silver. I went to the parlour to get change, and on returning I took it out. I asked my son to light the gas. I then went into the parlour, put the shilling between my teeth and it bent. I came back and said to prisoner, "This is a funny coin you are trying to pass on me; it is a bad one, "and returned it to him. He said, "I know where I got it from; I received it from a public-house in change for half-a-crown. I will take it back." He
gave me a good shilling and left the shop. I subsequently identified him without difficulty.
Cross-examined. Prisoner offered to light the gas, but I would not let him do it. I took the shilling out of the till, because it ought not to have been put there.
JANE ELIZABETH BROOKS , confectioner, Green Lanes, Stoke Newington. Between 8 and 8.30 p.m. on September 6 prisoner came in and asked for a pennyworth of Arabian gums. He tendered a shilling in payment, and I gave 11d. change. As soon as he had left I discovered the shilling was bad, and I went to the door to see if I could see him. I saw him looking round the corner, and as soon as he saw me he turned from the corner. I went in again to serve another customer, and then went to the door a second time. I saw prisoner round the corner. Each time he saw me he bobbed back. I sent a constable after him. He brought him back into the shop. The constable said to him, "This lady accuses you of giving her a bad shilling." He said, "Yes, I gave her a shilling." The constable asked him if he had any more bad money, and he said, "Yes, " and took out of his pocket another shilling, which proved to be bad also. I gave the constable the shilling prisoner had tendered me.
Cross-examined. As soon as I have given change I always put the money in the till. There were a boy and girl in the shop at the time. It would surprise me to know that prisoner stood outside the shop for About two minutes after he left. I found by ringing the shilling on the counter that it was bad before I served my other customers, but I could not leave the shop just then as I was alone.
Cross-examined. Directly I found it I marked it with a pencil, but it is rubbed off now.
Police-constable CHARLES WILDISH, 440 N. About 8.40 on September 6 Mrs. Brooks made a communication to me and I arrested prisoner, who was going in the direction of High bury Quadrant. I said, "Have you been to the shop round the corner? " and he said, "Yes." I said, "Do you know you have given the lady a bad shilling? " He said, "No." I took him back to the shop, where Mrs. Brooks said, "This man has given me a bad shilling, ' and handed me Exhibit 1. Prisoner said, "Yes, I gave the lady that, " and he handed me another saying, "Here is another." I was about to search him when he did that. Both coins are dated 1910. I marked them. I took him to the station and on searching him found two sixpences, two eggs in a bag, two packets of Fry's chocolate, a packet of Woodbine cigarettes, and a pawnticket. When charged he said, "Very good."
Cross-examined. Before Mrs. Brooks made the communication to me I did not notice prisoner at all.
THOMAS ALBERT CARSBERG (prisoner, on oath), 35, Roman, Road, Barnsbury. I am a married man and have a child; was recently laboratory attendant at the Royal Institute of Public Health. On the evening of September 6 I left home to keep an appointment to meet a friend, Walter Matthews. I put a five-shilling piece in my pocket. I met him and we entered a public-house just by the corner of Balls Pond Road. I paid for drinks with the five-shilling piece and received in change a half-crown, two shillings, and threepence. The threepence I spent in another two drinks. We left there and went into another public-house, where I tendered the half-a-crown in payment for some more drinks and a packet of Woodbines. I received two separate shillings and 2d. change. I then said Good-bye to my friend and turned into Newington Green Road. I had an appointment at 8 p.m. at the corner of Riversdale Road with a Mr. Wilcox. I bought some chocolates from Mrs. Brazier and apologised when she returned me my shilling, saying it was bad; I said I knew where I had got it and gave her a good shilling. On getting outside I put it in my pocket and thought no more about it. I did not know that the shilling that I tendered to the girl at Bunker's was bad. On leaving there I went to the corner of Riversdale Road, at the corner of which is Mrs. Brooks's shop. I went into the Highbury Quadrant, a public-house just there, and not seeing my friend I came out and went with Mr. Brooks's and bought some gums. I waited outside two or three minutes, waiting for my friend. Not seeing him I went into the public-house again. I occasionally came out and went to the corner to see if my friend was waiting at the next corner. Not seeing him I was going home, when a constable came and took me back to Mrs. Brooks' shop. When she produced the bad shilling I produced the coin Mrs. Brazier had returned to me. The chocolates I bought for my little girl.
Cross-examined. I bad been suspended from work. I wrote on Tuesday and asked Matthews to be here, but I do not know whether he is. I do not know the names of the public-houses I changed the money at, although I could find them. I did not meet my friend Wilcox because I was locked up. I straightened out the first shilling that had been tendered by me, put in into a separate pocket, and forgot all about it. I did not see Mrs. Brooks when I was looking round the corner for my friend.
After a deliberation of 35 minutes the Jury were unable to agree and were accordingly discharged. Prisoner (stating that he had been in custody 41 days) was released on bail on his own recognisances in ₤20 until next Sessions.
Harvey had never been convicted before; he worked when his health permitted him to do so. Against Wilson three previous convictions, the first of which was in 1905 (none for coinage offences), were proved; he had been doing honest work for the past four years. Against Smith
no previous convictions were recorded, and nothing was known about him.
Sentences: Wilson, Four months' hard labour; Smith, Two months' hard labour; Harvey was released on his own recognisances in ₤10 to come up for judgment if called upon.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE SCRUTTON.
(Saturday, October 14.)
Mr. Leycester and Mr. Adrian Black prosecuted.
Verdict, Guilty of incest.
Sentence, Three years' penal servitude.
Mr. Whiteley prosecuted; Mr. Du Pare defended.
FRANK EDWARD BROOKS , 15, Bartholomew Villas, Kentish Town, chemist. On August 30 I was managing a shop for Needham's, Limited, Newington Butts, when a woman, came in with a baby in her arms and asked for six pennyworth of laudanum; that is about an ounce and a half. I do not recognise prisoner as the woman. I supplied the laudanum in bottle produced; it has "Poison" on it and on the back "Not to be taken." She said she Wanted it for a neighbour, and I told her the proper dose internally was not more than five drops.
Cross-examined. There is no direction on the bottle as to dose. There would be enough in the bottle to kill three or four people; we sell a considerable quantify of it; it is a household remedy for diarrhoea and vomiting. I always rely on verbal statements as to the dose. It is a poison that need not be entered in the poisons book.
ELLEN DAVIS , wife of Ernest Davis, 18, Hale Street, Lambeth. Prisoner and her husband have lived on second floor of our house about 12 months. I have seen a great deal of her and been on friendly terms with them both. On the morning of August 30 prisoner went out with her baby between 11 and 12. The baby was about three months old. I next saw her the same evening about 10 past 7. I went to her room and saw her on the bed with the baby. She was semi-conscious and the baby was unconscious. I saw bottle, produced, on the table in the room; it had contained laudanum. There was a glass and a spoon by it; the bottle was empty. I took the baby away from her and tried to rouse her, but she only murmured. "They have taken my baby away from me." The doctor then arrived, and I accompanied prisoner and baby to St. Thomas's Hospital.
Cross-examined. Prisoner lived quite happily with her husband and was a good wife; there was no trouble whatever in their home.
The child was born in June and up to that time she was a bright, happy woman. The child was in delicate health and used to cry a great deal. Prisoner was worried and depressed and weak after her confinement.
Re-examined. I have heard her say she could not think how women could have the heart to do away with her baby, as she was passionately fond of it.
ROBBET CULLUM-GULLY , M.D., 66, St. George's Road, Lambeth. About 7.30 p.m. on August 30 I was called to 18, Hale Street. I there found prisoner on the bed dressed and half unconscious. The baby was on the lap of the last witness. It was comatose and it died soon after admission to hospital. I asked prisoner what, she had been doing, and I then said, "How much did you give the baby? " She said, "Three teaspoonfuls, and I took the rest." She said she got the laudanum from Needham's, Newington Butts. I gave her an emetic and took her to the hospital, -having first tried artificial respiration on the baby.
Cross-examined. Whenever I [prescribe laudanum I always see that explicit instructions as to dose are on the bottle. I would no think it safe merely to ask the person whether the laudanum was for herself or someone else. Prisoner did not seem very well in health. I have heard that she had trouble with parasites in her hair during her confinement.
JAMES BURLEIGH , House Physician, St. Thomas's Hospital. About 8 p.m. on August 30 prisoner and "her child were brought to the hospital. The child was comatose. I formed the opinion that it was suffering from opium poisoning. The stomach was washed out, and the child received stimulants and artificial respiration, but it died at 10.30. I made a post-mortem examination next day and formed the opinion that the child died from opium poisoning. Prisoner was in a semi-comatose condition; she was treated in the same way and soon recovered.
Gross-examined. Prisoner's head was in a very bad state with parasites; we bad great difficulty with it.
Police-constable EDWIN PEDLER, 105, L Division. The bottle, tumbler, and teaspoon produced were handed to me at 18, Hale "Street, and I took them to Kennington Road Police Station.
Sergeant TOM ANDREWS, L Division. About 8 p.m. on August 31 I saw prisoner at St. Thomas's Hospital. She had then been discharged. I told her I was a police officer and should arrest her for the wilful murder of her child, Walter John Home, aged 12 weeks, by giving him laudanum at 18, Hale Street, on the evening of August 30, and further with attempting to commit suicide by taking laudanum at the same time and place. I cautioned her as to what she might say in answer. She said, "Oh do not say my baby is dead. Oh, my God, what did I do; I did not mean to kill him." When charged at Kennington Road Police Station she made no reply.
Cross-examined. The result of the coroner's inquest was a verdict of accidental death. Prisoner was charged before the inquest. There
is nothing whatever against either prisoner or her husband; they are most respectable, decent people.
ALICE GIBBONS , Harkness Road, Canonbury, mission teacher in Clerkenwell (called to prisoner's character). Prisoner attended our mission for five years previous to her marriage; it was a Bible class for young women; she is a woman of excellent character and a good diving girl.
Mr. Justice Scrutton, in summing up, said that this case came before the jury in an extremely unsatisfactory way, because it was idle to shut one's eyes to the fact that one of the possible or probable inferences to be drawn from the facts was that the woman meant to kill the child and herself, but that at the time it was just after her confinement—she was not in a state of health to appreciate what she was doing. That could have been investigated on a bill for murder, bat the Grand Jury had stopped that by taking upon themselves to settle what crime she should be charged with. He desired to say vanearnestly that juries must not allow their sympathies to interfere with their giving true answers to the question of fact. He had at these Sessions to try a list of four cases where young babies had been killed immediately after birth. If it once got about that all a mother had to do in such a case was to go to the sympathies of a jury, and the jury to find that death was accidental, there would be a very large number of young babies killed immediately after birth in order to get them out of the way. The jury's business was to answer questions of fact according to the facts and not according to their sympathies. They must do him the justice to believe that, although he had got on a red robe and a wig, he was a man with exactly the same feelings and sympathies as themselves.
The jury returned a verdict of "Guilty, but not responsible for her actions at the time."
Mr. Justice Scrutton pointed out that as the verdict stood it would have the effect of sending the prisoner to a criminal lunatic asylum, and he did not think the jury intended that consequence.
The jury then found the prisoner Guilty, with a strong recommendation to mercy.
Sentence, Five days' imprisonment, entitling prisoner to be immediately discharged.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Saturday, October 14.)
Prisoner was released on her own recognisances in ₤10 to come up for judgment if called upon.
FITZGERALD, John (27, cab driver), having received certain property, to wit, ₤1 13s., for and on account of Clive Burton Heaton, unlawfully did fraudulently convert the same to his own use and benefit; being one of two or more beneficial owners of the sum of ₤2 4s., embezzling ₤1 13s. of such moneys, the property of such beneficial owners.
Prisoner pleaded guilty of fraudulent conversion, which plea was Accepted.
Prisoner was stated to be of good character and to have intended to repay the money.
Sentence was postponed to next Session.
BOUTELL, George Squire (30, cab-driver) , having received certain property, to wit, ₤4 11s., for and on account of Clive Burton Heaton, unlawfully did fraudulently convert the same to his own use and benefit; being one of two or more beneficial owners of the sum of ₤511s., embezzling ₤4 11s. of such moneys, the property of such beneficial owners.
Prisoner pleaded guilty of fraudulent conversion, which plea was accepted by the prosecution.
Sentence was postponed to next Sessions.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE SCRUTTON.
(Monday, October 16.)
Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Leycester, and Mr. Percival Clarke prosecuted; Mr. St. John Hutchinson defended.
Sergeant GEORGE DOBETOE(R Division) produced and proved plan of the ground and first floors of No. 3, Rothbury Terrace and stated that the distance from the "East India Arms" public-house to those premise was just over two miles by either of the direct routes.
Detective WILLIAM MACBRIDE(Scotland Yard) produced and proved photographs of No. 3, Rothbury Terrace.
LEWIS ERNEST ECKARDT , donkeyman and fireman, ss. Ballochbuie. I have for years been employed on that ship, which trades between Goole and London in weekly voyages; on an average I can stop in London 24 or 36 hours. In January, 1907, I was married to deceased, who would have been 28 years old this year. We lived in various parts of Bermondsey, Rotherhithe, and Poplar. In May this year I took the parlour, kitchen, and scullery on the ground floor and two adjoining rooms on the first floor of 3, Rothbury Terrace. A week before the murder Mrs. Lange came and occupied the upper part. In January, 1910, my wife left me and in March of the same year she returned and I took her back again. In April this year she Left me for about a fortnight. When she returned she told me that she had been in service. I did not know where she had been. Bruno Koch
was employed on the same ship as myself as fireman for nine months up till last December and I got on pretty good terms with him. After leaving the Ballachbuie he went on a two months' trip. I did not see him again until August. While he was on the Ballochbuie he used to visit us. In about 1908 deceased introduced prisoner to me in the street and he has visited us at our lodgings. About 18 months ago I heard something, in consequence of which I spoke to deceased. While my wife was away from January to March I spoke to prisoner about this, as he did not know where she was. The last time he visited us was in the summer of last year; I had no knowledge of his visiting 3, Rothbury Terrace. I met him in the street once and we had a drink together. On the evening of August 15 Koch brought three boxes of chocolate, which he gave to my wife. We all spent the evening together and parted after midnight. About 9 a.m. the following morning I saw him on board my ship, which was going to sail that day. In the course of the afternoon he and my wife bid me good-bye. I returned on the evening of the 20th. This postcard (Exhibit 7) I got on the 25t, h or 26th; it had been sent to Goole and came back on the Ballochbuie. I did not know deceased had written to Koch on August 15. Exhibit 1 is in deceased's handwriting. On August 21 I saw her dead body.
Cross-examined. The date on Exhibit 7 is August 19, the words are, "Mrs. Bruno Koch stopped here last night."
CHARLES LEES . I was steward of the Working Men's Club in Poplar, and I lived at 146, High Street, Poplar. Prisoner was a member. He was there on the night of August 18 and we left at midnight. We went to the "East India Arms" public-house with two other men and my wife and stayed till 12.30. On coming outside I left them. Prisoner walked towards Blackwall Tunnel. About 10.30 the following morning he came to the club and I saw him several times during the day. At 11 a.m. on the 20th I saw him at the club. He asked me for the loan of a bag and I lent this portmanteau (Exhibit 14) to him. He took it away. On the 18th he was wearing a blue serge suit, similar to Exhibits 15, 16, and 17.
ALBERT HOLMAN , labourer, 61, Old Woolwich Road, East Greenwich. I left home at 4.25 a.m. on August 19. At 4.40 I saw prisoner standing at the corner of Azof Street, in Blackwall Lane. He had a piece of string in his hand playing with it. I heard of the murder at 3 p.m. and communicated with the police. On September 9 I identified prisoner. BRUNO KOCH, ship's fireman. I last lived at the German Sailors' Home. I have been voyages for some months in the Ballochbuie with Eckardt and I got on friendly terms with him. I got to know deceased. I was paid off on August 15 at Manchester. When I got a letter from her I came to London, bought three boxes of chocolate, and took them to their house and gave them to her. I spent the evening with them. About 8 a.m. the following morning I went to the house again. Eckardt was not there. I stayed till 8.45; and then went on board the Ballochbuie to see Eckhardt. Later on I saw deceased near the docks. We were all there together during parts of that day. In the
afternoon deceased and I said "Good-bye" to Eckardt, and I went with her to her house. I stopped for half an hour and then went home. She promised to see me about 6.30 p.m. at the corner of Burdett Road. I met her there and we went to Tower Bridge to see if the boat was gone; then we went to the theatre. I saw her home. About 10 a.m. next morning, the 17th, I went to see her and took her half a bottle of Floridor water, a pair of garters, and a packet of soap (Exhibits 9, 10, and 11). 1 remained there till next morning, sleeping with her. I returned in the afternoon at about two and spent the evening with her in the parlour. At about 12 p.m. we went upstairs. I left my coat, waistcoat, cap and boots in the parlour. In my coat was my discharge book. Between one and two deceased woke me up; she was standing at the window looking into the road. I heard some rattling coining from the front door. I dressed myself and the rattling started again. 'Deceased said something to me and I went into Mrs. Lange's kitchen, which is next to the sitting-room. She went downstairs in her nightdress. I heard a man's voice, but I could not distinguish what he said. I heard deceased speak. I heard heavy footsteps come upstairs and go into the sitting-room and bedroom. They went down again and then I heard a tired voice saying, "Yes, yes." I could not say whether it was a man's voice or a woman's. I heard nothing more. I remained in the kitchen till about 7 a.m. when I went and looked over the bannisters. I saw some marks against the wall. Later on I looked farther down and saw some blood-marks on the bottom steps and the body lying there. I went down the stairs to the yard and into Mrs. Taylor's house, where I remained until the police came. I had left my presents on the parlour table, before going upstairs on the previous night. I have never seen prisoner before.
FLORA MATILDA TAYLOR , 4, Rothbury Terrace. I knew deceased. When she first came to take the fiat prisoner was with her and she told me it was her brother Fred. After that I saw him two or three times in the back yard of No. 3. I have also met him in Blackwall Lane and I saw him once at the gate of No. 3. I only saw Koch on Thursday, August 17. I saw him about three times that day in the kitchen. Early on Saturday morning he came into my flat and stayed there while somebody went to fetch the police.
Inspector HERBERT WOODMORE, R Division. At 7.50 a.m. on August 19 I went to 4, "Rothbury Terrace, where I saw Koch, who was dressed in his trousers, socks, and shirt only. He made a statement to me. I Then went to No. 3 and tried to get in at the front door. Not succeeding I went through No. 4, climbed over the fence, and got into tine garden of No. 3. I went up the back staircase and entered by the kitchen on the first floor and descended the staircase. At the foot of the stairs I saw the body of the deceased. This postcard (Exhibit 18) was lying with the portion now marked with a dark stain to the floor. It says, "Mrs. Eckhardt plus Mr. Koch, Mrs. Lenge plus Koch's pal. Hope you all had a good night." It is an ordinary postcard, not stamped. I sent for Dr. Davis. In the top front bedroom Mrs. Lange was lying asleep. On a chair in the parlour on the ground-floor I saw a coat, waistcoat, and cap and under the table a
pair of brown boots. Inside the coat pocket was a seaman's note in the name of Koch. On the table there were three boxes containing chocolates, a bottle of Florida water, a box of garters, and a packed containing soap. The front window was closed, but unfastened and on the paint of the window-sill there was a distinct graze, as if caused by a man's foot.
HUGH DAVIS , divisional surgeon. At 7.45 a.m. on August 19 I was called to 3, Rothbury Terrace. At the bottom of the staircase I saw deceased lying with her head towards the passage door and her feet towards the stairs; she only had her chemise on, I should say she had been dead about six hours. There was a large gaping wound in front of the neck going down to the spine. It would be impossible for (her to speak after such a wound. It could be inflicted with one blow delivered by this razor. (Exhibit 13.) There is a nick at the top of the blade which, in my opinion was caused by contact with the spinal bone, which was cut in two. It would require very great force for such a wound to be inflicted and the blood would immediately spurt out all over the place. The cause of death was hemorrhage and shock. The wound could not have been self-inflicted. The assailant must have been in front of the deceased. There were bloodstaims on the walls on both sides, on the front door and up to the sixth, step. There was a pool of blood on the passage floor where the head was lying. I found this postcard (Exhibit 18) lying in the passage and I formed the opinion that it had been thrown through the letter-box after the deed had been done, because the blood had clotted and the card had stuck to the floor. The top of the card was also free from blood. I gathered by the stains that she Walked up from the door to the passage, then up three or four steps, and then fell dead. I afterwards (examined this blue serge suit (Exhibit 15, 16, and 17) and on the front of the waistcoat, trousers, and coat found fresh stains of human blood. They showed indications of having been, cleaned.
Cross-examined. Very extraordinary force must have been used. There was not very much blood on the clothes. I agree with this statement in Taylor's "Principles and Practice of Medical Jurisprudence" under the heading "Impulsive Insanity": "Occasionally the act of murder is perpetrated with great deliberation and apparently with all the marks of sanity. These cases are rendered difficult by the fact that there may be no distinct proof of the existence past and present of any disorder of the mind, so that the chief evidence of mental disorder is the act itself. Of the existence of insanity in the common or legal acceptation of the term before and after perpetration of the crime there may be either no evidence whatever or it may be so slight as not to amount to proof. Sudden restoration to reason is not infrequent in such cases of homicidal mania."
Re-examined. I have not examined prisoner at all. I should not like to express an opinion as to whether this proposition applies to him. I do not think that such a person could possess the consciousness of a dear motive for doing the act or a clear recollection afterwards of being actuated by that motive. Homicidal mania occurs persons who have had suspicions, have threatened persons and then in a sudden fit of mania committed homicide.
Farther cross-examined. There are other forms of homicidal mania besides the one I have referred to.
WILHELMENA HIGGS , 150, High Street, Poplar. On August 20 prisoner left this bag (Exhibit 14) and asked if he could; leave it until he called for it later in the evening. At about 11.15 p.m. he called and took it away again. About 2.30 p.m. next day his son brought it book and left it with me. I saw an account in the paper of the murder and I spoke to the detective about it. I handed it to Detective Wedden.
Detective-Constable RICHARD WEDDEN, R Division. On August 23 I went to 150, High Street, where Mrs. Higgs handed me this portmanteau. Inside I found this blue serge suit (Exhibits 15, 16, and 17). I noticed some marks on it which smelt strongly of spirits of naphtha. I handed it to Sergeant Chatt.
Detective-sergeant ALBIRT CHATT, R Division. I received this portmanteau with blue serge suit from the last witness and banded it to Inspector Brown.
Detective-sergeant CHARLES CANNING, R Division. At 7.30 p.m., August 29, I received this blue serge suit from Inspector Brown and took it to Dr. Davis.
Detective-inspector WILLIAM BROWN, R Division. About 6.30 a.m., on August 19, I was called to 3, Rothbury Terrace, where I saw the body of the deceased. In the coarse of the inquiries I made I saw prisoner on August 21 at his house at 245, Brunswick Road, Poplar. I said, "I want you to account for your movements on last Friday night." He said, " I was at home at a quarter to one and slept in the front room on the couch." I said, "Alone? " He said, "Yes. I said, "What time did you get up? " He said, "I took the papers in at eight o'clock." I said, "Do you know a Mrs. Eckardt? " He did not answer. I said, "You had better be careful. I have reason to believe you have been there quite recently." He said, "Not since Saturday week." I said, "Do you know a man named Bruno Koch? " He said, "No, I do not know him nor ever heard of him." I said, "Do you know anyone named Lange that lived in the house? " He said, "No, no one but Mrs. Eckardt lives there; she has got the house on her own and if anyone else is there it is unknown to me." I said, "You will have to come to Poplar Police Station whilst I make inquiries. The woman Eckardt has been murdered. It is a serious matter." He said, "I was at the Poplar Club till quarter to one and then came home." I took him to the station and then went at about 3 p.m. to his house. I returned to the station about five, when Sergeant Beavis made a communication to me. I went to see prisoner in the waiting-room. He said, "If you go round to my house, Mr. Brown, you will find a confession on the mantel-piece." I returned to the house and at the back of the over-mantel, behind the looking-glass, I found this unsealed envelope, which contained a letter and a fivepaged document (Exhibits 28, 1 and 2). I returned to the station, reaching there about 6.30 p.m. I said to prisoner, "I have found these at your house and I shall arrest you for the wilful murder of Ann Eckhardt." He said, "It is quite true." I took him to Black-
Heath Road Police Station. On the way coming through Blackheath Lane he said, "Look, Mr. Brown, that is where I threw the razor I did it with, " and he pointed to a piece of waste land. I afterwards searched the place, but could find nothing. At the station I searched him myself and found nothing material. I did not take his boots off. Exhibits 1 and 2 are in his handwriting.
Detective-sergeant FRANK BEAVIS, RDivision. On August 21 at Poplar Police Station I took a statement from prisoner by means of question and answer; he raised no objection of any Kind. I read it over to him and he signed it. (Exhibit 26.) He then got up from his chair, stopped me; I was then adding something that he wished me to add to the statement. He said, "I want to tell the truth. Some of the stuff you have got in that statement is lies." I cautioned him. Exhibit 26 was then read. In it prisoner stated that he was a commission agent and a married man with three children; that he first met deceased in 1908, having previously met her husband; that from that time he had had in her husband's absence adulterous intercourse with deceased, she advising him by letter when her husband would be away; that he had visited her three or four times a week at 3, Rothbury Terrace and the last time he had seen her was on August 12; that he had often heard her speak of Bruno Koch, but that he had never seen, him; that on the morning of Friday, August 18, he had received this letter from her, "My dearest Fred,—At Last I have found five minutes to write to you. E. has been home every morning, as they had a strike at Waddle's. I do next know whether they will get paid affiant Stanton's. I hope business is better with you, old dear. She has moved in upstairs and is not going to work this morning. I will write or wire you when it is safe to see you.—I remain your ever loving and affectionate little wifio, Annie." He then accounted for his movements on the 18th, reiterated the statements he had made when arrested and added that he had no knowledge of the murder. In the further statement he added that deceased and himself had lived together for five or six weeks from April last; that no one had 6lept with him on the night of August 18; and that the suit he was then wearing he had been wearing for the past two days.) This is his subsequent statement: "I went then to 3, Rothbury Terrace, a few minutes after one o'clock on Friday night. I got in the window by knocking the catch back. Mrs. Eckardt heard the noise and came down in her chemise only. I said, 'You have got b—Bruno Koch upstairs.' She said, 'He is sleeping upstairs on a single bedstead." I said, 'I am going to satisfy myself.' She said, 'Lizzie has been sleeping with me.' I went Upstairs and looked round. I saw she had made the bed up. I came downstairs, went into the parlour, and she followed me in. I said, 'I left my darling boys for you and you deceive me like this.' I had my suspicions that when Koch returned home she would pay him some attention. I did not know he was at home. She asked me to leave then and she would see me at the 'Ship and Billet' that morning. I said, 'Will you say good-bye for ever? ' She said, 'Do go! ' I saw a box of chocolates and a box of garters, amber colour, on the table. As I came out of the front door I made one slash at her throat
with the razor and I think I must have cut her head half off. I drew the razor from left to right on her throat. I heard the blood spurt. She did not murmur. I stood at the corner of Street in the shadows until 4.35 a.m. in the morning. I had a Guinness at the 'Dock House' and went home. I threw the razor away in the field on the left before I got to the tunnel. Some of the blood went on my hand, but very little. I have volunteered this statement, which is true.—Frederick Henry Thomas. Exhibit 1, the letter which prisoner had said he had left behind the looking-glass, was not before him or me when he made has statement as to it; it is almost in exactly the same terms as he stated. (It was read.) Exhibit 2 is the statement which was found with the letter. (It was read.) Prisoner gave full details of his relations with deceased and stated, " As to what has occurred at Greenwich I am not at all a little bit sorry for, " and "I can only make things cleared up short by my admitting of the doing of the murder. No doubt the result of the inquest on my own body will be one of suicide whilst of unsound mind, but such is not the case; neither was it done in a drunken frenzy." On the early morning of August 22 prisoner was found injured. On September 2, whilst in the cab on the way to Brixton Prison, he said, " How is Mr. Eckardt? Does he seem very much upset? Has he gone away from that house yet? I sent a postcard to Goole for him. I printed it the same as that one I put through the letter-box after I had murdered her." I said, " Yes, he did have a card. He has handed it to Mr. Brown." He was referring to Exhibit 7.
Sergeant FREDERICK EVERITT, R Division. On August 21 I was station sergeant at Blackheath Road Police Station. At 12.20 a.m. on the 22n3 I was called to prisoner's cell, when I found him bleeding profusely from a wound in his throat. In between his legs there was this razor. He said, "I have done this with the razor which I done the other job with. I secreted it in my boot and I told the detectives that I had thrown the razor away at Blackwall Lane." In his cell I found these six letters in his writing. (Exhibits 19 to 24 were read. They were letters of farewell to hi* wife and others.)
Dr. WILLIAM THOMPSON, 90, London Street, Woolwich. On the early morning of August 22 I found prisoner at the station suffering from incised wounds in the throat and across the stomach, both of which could have been caused by this razor.
Cross-examined. A person having committed a deed in impulsive insanity might afterwards remember that deed.
Re-examined. I have never examined prisoner's mental condition. I do not, apply my answer to him particularly.
SIDNEY REGINALD DYER , medical officer, Brixton Prison. Since September 2 I have seen prisoner almost daily and have had several conversations with him. I have been unable to discover any trace of mental disorder.
Cross-examined. I did not see him at all before September 2.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Monday, October 16.)
Mr. A. S. Carr prosecuted.
MAUD PEARCE , wife of Thomas Pearce, 12, Kenton Street, Russell Square. On September 12, at 12.30 to 12.40 a.m., I was standing at my door waiting for my husband, when prisoner came up and said, "It is a nice evening, madam." I said, "It is." He went on, returned, and said, "This is enough of this. If you give me half a sovereign I will quash the idea of this being a bad house." He said he had been watching the place for three weeks, and that he was a member of the Borough Council. I said, "What have I to give you half a sovereign for? " He said, "That is to save you from getting into any trouble." I said, "You had better wait for my husband, " who was having the last drink at the "Cornwallis" public-house. He came up shortly afterwards, and gave prisoner in charge. Prisoner said I was a prostitute.
Cross-examined. I am now living at 20, Union-street, Great Titchfield Street. A week ago I lived at 85, Marchmont Street. A young woman named Halley lived with me at Kenton Street. She was not on the door-step when prisoner came up; she did not speak to prisoner. I have been married twelve years; not to Thomas Pearce; I have been living with him for some years; my name is Maud Baker. In March last Pearce was charged with living on my immoral earnings and sentenced to three months' hard labour. I am not now a common prostitute. I did not demand money from prisoner. He did not say, "No, I have no money to spend in that way." He did not threaten to charge Pearce with blackmailing him and say he would report the case to the Borough Council.
THOMAS PEARCE corroborated Maud Pearce. I am the husband of the last witness. I am not married to her. I have been convicted (wrongly) of living on her immoral earnings. Since that my people are making me an allowance; I have money coming to me when my father dies.
Cross-examined. My name is Thomas Evans. I am married to a woman whose name was Minnie Carr. I am not a member of a gang of "Souteneurs." I have had nothing to do with the white slave traffic.
Police-constable ALEXANDER CORMACK, 222 E. On September 12, at 1 a.m., Thomas Pearce spoke to me about prisoner. His wife afterwards gave Mm into custody for demanding 10s. on false pretences. Prisoner denied the charge.
The Jury intimated they had heard enough of the case, and returned a verdict of Not guilty.
SULLIVAN, John (41, dealer), and NEWMAN, Charles (39, tuner), both stealing one watch and chain, the goods of George Parkes, from his person.
Mr. P. A. Currie prosecuted.
GEORGE PARKES , 5, Outram Street, King's Cross, letter-caster. On September 23, about 3 p.m., I left my daughter and her husband outside the "Metropolitan" public-house, in Farringdon Road,. and was getting on a tram when three men, two of whom I identify as the prisoners, rushed as if they wanted to get on the tram, and hustled me. I entered the tram. As it started, my daughter, who was on the kerb, called to me, and I noticed my watch and chain was gone. I then stopped the tram and got out. On September 26, at the police station, I picked Newman out from a number of others.
ALICE MARSHALL , wife of Ernest Marshall. On September 23 I was with my father and my husband by the " Metropolitan " public-house in Farringdon Road, when my father left us to get into a tram. Three men, one of whom I can identify as Sullivan, hustled him. I saw Sullivan take my father's watch and chain from his pocket and try to hide it in a pocket-handkerchief. I called to my father and spoke to my husband, who followed the three men as they walked away.
EDWARD MARSHALL , warehouseman. On September 23 I was with my wife and father-in-law in Farringdon Street. He went to get into a tram when three men, two of whom I identify as the prisoners, seemed to be trying to get on the car. My wife spoke to me; the car stopped; I then followed the three men into the " Coach and Horses " publichouse, and saw Sullivan hand myfather-in-law's watch to Newman. I went outside and spoke to a police-constable; he then called another police-constable, and Sullivan was arrested, the other two men being left in the public-house. On the next Tuesday night I picked out Newman from among a number of others.
Police-constable WILLIAM ELVIN, 464 E, corroborated.
Detective-sergeant GEORGE BAKER, E Division. At about 9.30, on September 26, I arrested Newman in Gray's Inn Road. I told him the charge. He said, "All right, sir." When charged he said, "This has been got up for me."
JOHN SULLIVAN (prisoner, not on oath). On the day I was arrested I was going down Farringdon Road to meet a man from whom I usually borrow money, and I went into a public-house with another man, when I was taken into custody. I am quite innocent.
Verdict (each), Guilty.
Sullivan confessed to having been convicted on February 6, 1906, at Clerken well Sessions, receiving 3( years' penal servitude and two years' police supervision for larceny from a van. Some 20 previous convictions were proved, commencing in 1887, including four years in in 1900. Prisoner was stated to have been at work since his release
on September 22, 1908. Newman confessed to a conviction on February 17, 1911, at Guildhall, receiving six months' hard labour, for stealing a barrow and contents; three other convictions proved.
Sentence (each prisoner), Two months' hard labour.
SUGAR, Joseph (20, coster), having received certain property, to wit, 30 baskets of strawberries and other articles, unlawfully did fraudulently convert the same to his own use.
Mr. A. R. Churchill prosecuted.
LOUIS ADLEB, 3, Upper Marylebone Street, fruiterer. During Coronation week I employed the prisoner to sell fruit on a barrow at 25s. a week and board and lodging. On the Wednesday after the Coronation he went out with 30 small baskets of strawberries and three baskets of cherries. About an hour later he returned, and was given some more fruit by my wife, the total value of the fruit being ₤4 10s. As he did not come back I communicated with the police, and on September 17 I saw him at Bishopsgate Police Station, and charged him with misappropriating the fruit.
Cross-examined. I went to the man who recommended the prisoner to me to see how much I should pay him. I paid prisoner his wages in money; I did not pay him by giving him the fruit.
MILLIE ADLER , wife of prosecutor. On Wednesday, June 28, prisoner was entrusted with some fruit; later on in the day he came back, and I gave him some more, the total value of the fruit being ₤4 10s. His wages were 25s., with board and lodging, for Coronation week, which he told me himself had been paid. After receiving the second lot of fruit he did not come back again.
Detective ALFRED DYER, T Division. At 7.30 p.m. on September 16 I saw the prisoner at Bishopsgate Police Station, and charged him with stealing a quantity of fruit, value ₤4 10s., the property of Louis Adler, on June 28 last. He said, "That has got to be proved. He owed me ₤2 commission, and I took the goods." I was looking for the prisoner from June 29 to September 16.
JOSEPH SUGAR (prisoner, not on oath). I engaged to sell the fruit for prosecutor on a commission of 2d. in the shilling. I have always been honest; it would not pay me to be otherwise. It is impossible to put fruit to the value of ₤4 10s. on a barrow. Prosecutor paid me in fruit because he had no money.
Detective ALFRED DYER, recalled. Prisoner is a respectable costermonger, of good character.
SAM SOLESKI , costermonger. I was employed by prosecutor and kept the accounts. Prisoner was employed at a commission of 2d. in the Is. Just after Coronation prisoner asked prosecutor to pay his wages. Prosecutor put Him off, and finally on Wednesday, instead of his wages, which amounted to ₤3 6s. 10d., gave him 30 baskets of strawberries, and two stalks of bananas.
always pay men who work for me. Alder said that was too much, but said he would pay prisoner 25s. a week. I endeavoured to get prisoner to take this.
Verdict, Not guilty.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Monday, October 16.)
Mr. H. Cassie Holden prosecuted; Mr. Louis S. Green defended.
ERNEST CABLE , cashier, London City and Midland Bank, 196, Oxford Street. About 11.30 a.m., on September 9, prisoner presented to me for payment bill (produced) for ₤300, purporting to be drawn on a customer of the bank, Mr. Wilson Hawkins. I put the usual question, "How do you want the money? " and my impression is he replied, "Small notes." I was not satisfied with the signature of the acceptor, and I took the bill to the manager (Coleman). I then asked prisoner into the bank parlour, and communicated with Mr. Hawkins, who arrived at the bank a few minutes later. He was shown in to the manager's office with prisoner. Mr. Hawkins then repudiated the signature. Prisoner said he had had some transaction with a man and got the bill from him, and was going to take the money outside to him. Prisoner was then given in charge.
Cross-examined. Prisoner made no attempt to get away.
HENRY JAMES COLEMAN . The last witness brought prisoner and Mr. Hawkins into my room. Prisoner said he had sold a man some jewellery settings for ₤15, and the man had not the cash, but said, "If you like to take this bill of exchange to the bank and cash it you can pay yourself and band me the difference." 1 told him, "You are in rather a serious position." He said, "It is not me; it is the man who is waiting outside.
WILSON HENRY HAWKINS . I carry on business in Regent Street, close to the bank. On September 9 I received a message from the bank, and went there immediately. In presence of prisoner, Mr. Coleman showed me the bill. I said, "That is not my bill." Prisoner said he had been sent in to cash the bill by a man who was waiting" outside. He gave a description of the man.
Detective ERNEST SEYMOUR, D Division. I was called to the bank. I said to prisoner, "lama police officer, and shall charge you with uttering this bill of exchange for ₤300." On the way to the station he said, "I sold a man ₤15 worth of jewellery in Hatton Garden yesterday. He had a bill of exchange, and we went to change it and got as far as Holborn when he said it was too late to change it, and he asked me to meet him to-morrow. I met him, and he came with me
to the bank and told me to go in and cash it." As we got out of the bank prisoner said, "No, the man is not about here." I asked him if he could find the man in any restaurant in Hatton Garden, and he said, "No, I only saw him yesterday for the first time." In reply to the charge he said, "I do not understand all the charge, " and an interpreter was brought later who read the charge over to him, and took a statement from him.
Cross-examined. Prisoner is a working jeweller, making gold settings. He does do business in Hatton Garden. He gave me the names of a number of respectable people, of whom I made inquiries, and they all say he is a very respectable man.
WOOLF LEVY interpreter. On September 9 I was called to Tottenham Court Road Police Station. I interpreted charge to prisoner, and cautioned him, and he said, "I was yesterday in Hatton Garden, in Lyons' coffee-shop, No. 192. I sold some ring mounts, and whilst I made the deal with one man another man who was sitting by the table asked me to show him some of the mounts. I did so, and he bought some ring mounts to the value of ₤15. He told me that he had no money, but that he had a bill of exchange. We went yesterday to the bank, as far as Holborn Circus, but it was too late. He told me to come this morning, and I did so. I was having something to eat there, and I sold a bracelet to Mr. Bach, and I told him I was waiting for a man who had a bill of exchange to cash. I met this man with the bill, and we went to the bank. On the way he said, 'Let me have a look again at the stuff, and if you are afraid you can have the bill and go to the bank and get the money. I will wait outside for you.' He also told me to get small notes, so that he could pay me. He told me he was going to buy something, and would wait outside the door of the bank. I went into the bank and gave the bill and asked for small money as he told me. I was asked to sit down and wait, and after that I was arrested.
MORICE ECKLEMAN (prisoner, on oath). I am a jeweller, and make mounts for rings and bracelets. I have several customers, some in Hatton Garden and some in the East End of London. We transact business in Lyons' Coffee Shop, in Hatton Garden, and at another restaurant, 2, Charles Street. On Friday, September 8, I was in Lyons' for about three hours. While I was showing a Mr. Woolf some ring mounts another man beckoned to me, and asked me if I had some ring mounted to sell. He picked out some to the value of ₤15. He then said, "I have no money with me, but I have a bill of exchange, and if you like to go with me to change the same you will get your money." I went with him as far as Holborn, and he looked at the time and said, "It is too late, but if you like to meet me at Lyons' tomorrow I will buy the goods from you."I met him there next morning, and took the goods with me. He said, "Come with me and I will change the bill and give you the money." Not far from the bank he asked me to show him the goods again. I said not in the open street, I do not like it,
and he said, "If you are afraid, there is the bill; go into the bank and get your money." I then parted with the jewellery, and he gave me the bill and said, "Go inside, take the money and come out and wait for me, I will soon be back; don't you go away." He said, "I have to go to a shop and buy something, " and he also told me to get small money so that he could pay me at once. I took the bill into the bank, and was afterwards given into custody.
Cross-examined. I have never been paid with a bill of exchange in this way before. I was not thinking for the moment that it was strange he should give me a bill for ₤300 to cash for ₤15 worth of goods. I have never seen him before. He was lower than I am, stoutish, with a fair moustache, black hat, and coloured suit. I do not know his name. I asked Mr. Hawkins to go outside with me, and I would point the man out.
Three witnesses were called to character.
Verdict, Not guilty.
DAVIS, Ernest (24, labourer), HAIN, Emma (24), and TWITCHING, Henry (22, gold blocker). Davis and Hain stealing one bicycle and other articles, the goods of Henry George Deller, and feloniously receiving the same; Davis and Hain stealing two watches and other articles, the goods of Gertrude Margaret Gibbons, and feloniously receiving the same; Twitching feloniously receiving one bicycle, the goods of the said H. G. Deller, well knowing it to have been stolen.
Davis and Hain pleaded guilty.
Mr. Greenfield prosecuted.
JULIA DELLER , wife of Henry George Deller, 27, Denmark Road, Islington. On September 9 Davis engaged a furnished room at our house and returned with Hain and a baby. On the 11th he asked my husband for the loan of his bicycle, on which he rode away, and I did not see him again until I saw him at the police court.
Sergeant ERNEST CASTLETONN Division. On September 21 I saw Twitching at his house in Hoxton. I said, " I am a police officer, and am here to see you respecting a bicycle I have found at this house. There is a man in custody, and he sold it to, a man who lives here." He replied, "I bought the bike for 11s." I asked him if he got a receipt for it, and whether he asked the man if the machine was his own, and he said "No." I told him I should arrest ham for receiving it. I produce the bicycle.
HENRY TWITCHING (prisoner, not on oath). I did not know the bike was stolen. He just brought it to me, and said, "I am in want of money; do you want to buy a bicycle? " I asked him "How much do you want for it? " He said 15s, I said, "All the money I have got is 11s." After a little while he agreed to take it, and so I bought it, and paid him 11s. for the machine.
Verdict(Twitching), Not guilty.
Against Hain a previous conviction was proved, when she was charged with Davis. The latter bad only done one day's work since his release from prison in January, He had got into touch with Hain, and there had been about 20 larcenies from lodgings, with which
they were identified, the property totalling to the value of ₤90 18s. On his information the bicycle and other goods of Deller's were re- covered, but pone of the other property. Hain is a married woman separated from her husband about two years, and has a child by Davis. The two prisoners had to stand their trial at the next Chelmsford Assizes for larceny committed at Southend-on-Sea.
Prisoners intimated that they wished the Southend charge dealt with by the Court in giving sentence, as they pleaded guilty to it.
Sentences, Davis, Twelve months' hard labour; Hain, Six months' hard labour.
MESSER, Robert (29, taxi-driver) , having received certain property, to wit, the sum of ₤6 3s. 6d., for and on account of Robert Bell, unlawfully did fraudulently convert the same to his own use and benefit.
Mr. Bassett Hopkins prosecuted; Mr. Kent defended.
FREDERICK SAMUEL STOKES , manager to Robert Bell, taxi-cab proprietor, Horseferry Road, Westminster. Prisoner was a driver in Mr. Bell's employ. He took a cab out on September 2, which he ought to have brought back next morning and had the readings on the meter taken off. He would then have been paid for his day's work, and would have handed us the difference. He did not return, and the next time I saw the cab was on the early morning of the 9th in the garage. I examined the cab, and found that the wire connecting the police seal on the star-wheel had been broken, the wheel disconnected, and the wire replaced. The wheel was then in working order. He had had the cab out eight days and eight nights, and the meter registered ₤8 odd, so that he should have paid in ₤6 3s. 6d. to the company, that is, three-fourths of the amount registered, but he failed to do so. He has not paid a penny of that money. I wrote him on the 11th, and also on the 13th, by registered letter, asking him for the money. I received no answer, and on the 16th (with a solicitor) I went to Rochester Row Police Station and laid an information. Before that I had sent him a telegram, demanding him to bring the cab home. Telegram (produced) was found on him when arrested.
Cross-examined. When a driver keeps a cab out all night the cabwashers do not get paid for washing a cab. Just previous to September 2 Messer kept his cab out for two or three nights, but I cautioned him about doing it. It is possible when the cab-washers are washing between the spokes for the star-wheel to get disconnected. If the washers had a grudge against a man they might knock his police seal off. and they would not be likely to replace it. The meter registered 400 miles exactly from the 2nd to the night of the 8th. That would be a fair average for an ordinary driver working eight or nine hours a day, but not for this man. In the account I sent him on the 13th there were amounts included for dates prior to September. If the money had been paid we should not have prosecuted.
THOMAS STRETTON , yard foreman. On September 2 I handed the taxi-cab over to prisoner, and he signed the sheet for it (Exhibit 1). It was in perfect condition and it had only been sealed by the police the
day before. I saw it when it came back on the 9th and noticed that the wire connecting the star-wheel had been broken and put back again. The seal is put on to prevent disconnection. I have known prisoner since he has worked at the yard and on several occasions have heard him say that as soon as he got the money he was going to Australia.
Cross-examined. I know drivers are not supposed to keep their cabs out all night but they do. This man had done it before. The seal was on but the wire was broken. He came in at half-past two, but did not see the cab till six o'clock in the morning. I do not know that the washers sometimes have a spite against drivers and do these things.
Cross-examined. My orders are to take no money; it has to be paid the next day. I was in the office at the moment he came in but I came down at once.
Detective-sergeant WILLIAM CHILD, A Division. On September 16 I received a warrant for the arrest of prisoner. At 11 o'clock the samenight I sam him in Burn Road, Balham; he was pointed out to me by prosecutor, who was with me. I asked him if his name was Robert Messer. He said, "Yes." I said, "I am a police officer and hold a warrant for your arrest." I read the warrant over to him and he replied, "I lost my purse containing ₤7 out of my trousers pocket." I took him to Rochester Row police Station, and when he was charged ha made no reply. I searched him and found the telegram and letter from Mr. Stokes on him.
Cross-examined. He at once admitted who he was. I went to his home with him so that he might leave a parcel. It did not look very wealthy. I only found a little money on him and I did not take it.
Mr. Kent submitted that there was no case to go to the jury, as the prosecution had failed to prove that the money was the money of the prosecutor, further, that according to the evidence it had not been shown that defendant wag a servant of the prosecutor, and that by Bending in the bill to defendant the prosecutor had established a private contract for hire, and the debt was recoverable in a civil and not a criminal court. (Cited Smith v. General Motor Cab Company, L.R. Appeal Cases, 1911, p. 188, as showing the position of bailor and bailee.)
The Common Serjeant stated that he could not withdraw the case from the jury, as he was bound by Rex v. Solomons. (1909, 2 K.B., 890; 2 Cr. App. R., 288; 25 T. L. R., 747; 73 J. P., 467.)
(Wednesday, October 18.)
Mr. Kent stated that, according to the report of Solomon's case in the Justice of the Peace, the Lord Chief Justice had decided that case on the assumption that appellant was a servant of the prosecutor; but that since then the House
of Lords had held, in Smith v. General Motor Cab Company, that taxi-cab drivers were not servants. He further submitted that once the cab had left the yard the prosecutor had no further control over it; that prisoner took out the cab for a time not precisely determined, and that he was only agent for the prosecutor in respect of third parties.
The Common Serjeant adhered to his decision to leave the case to the jury.
ROBERT MESSER (prisoner, on oath). I have been a licensed cabdriver six years. I have driven for prosecutor since the end of last February. I have kept cabs out three or four days at a time. I had no written contract with him. I paid him, as was the custom, 75 per cent, of my takings. For about four days previous to August 31 I was away ill. On that day I took out a cab, having paid what I owed from previous cab, and returned it on September 1 and paid up. On the morning of September 2 I took this cab out and returned with it on the following Friday evening between 12 and one at night. The reason why I did not take it back before then is because it was a habit of mine to keep the cab at a garage near my house at Balham, because at nine or ten in the morning I stood a better chance of getting good fares between 2s. 6d. and 33. 6d. at the rank I used at "The Plough, "Clapham. When I got home on the Friday night my wife told me that there was a wire, saying, "Bring back the cab at once, " waiting for me. I drove the cab to the Horseferry Road garage and left it in the alleyway, the usual place to leave it when the garage is full; there were two cabs in front of me, so I expect it was full. I left it there, un- attended to, said "Good night" to the washers, and went home by tramcar. I reported to nobody as was my practice. It was exactly in the same condition as when I took it out. I reached home about 2 a.m. On the following day and Sunday I had indigestion so badly that I did not go out. On Monday I had an attack of piles, and I was too nervous to go and sit on a cab. On the Wednesday, the 13th, feeling better, I went upstairs to get my trousers, where I had left my purse. I had last seen it on Friday night, the 8th; I changed half a sovereign for a friend. I found the purse and money had gone; the pocket was torn from the trousers; the purse had slipped down between the pocket and the trousers. On the following morning I received this account for ₤6 3s. 6d. for the cab hire. When arrested I told the detective I had lost the money. My wife and I had not a copper between us. I have already been in prison altogether 15 days. My home has been sold up to maintain my wife. The washers have never borne me any amount of good feeling.
Cross-examined. (On prisoner declining to answer question with reference to his previous employment by the Chesham Cab Company, the Common Serjeant ruled such matters to be irrelevant). In the ordinary course I should sign a sheet like this (Exhibit 1) on my leaving and returning with a cab; in it I declare that I have taken the cab out in good condition, and make myself responsible for any violation of police regulations. Every night, between September 2 and 9, I was
left stranded in the south-west of London. I took roughly about ₤9 I admit the account for ₤5 3s. 6d. is correct. I have on several occasions stayed out more than one night. The only occasion on which have been told by Mr. Stokes this was not the rule was in March, but I think I have since that had permission to do so. I telephoned the book-keeper, Mrs. Stokes, that I could not bring the cab back, and she said it would be all right. It is quite true that I did not telephone during the seven days I bad this cab out. I most emphatically deny that I tampered with the police seal. Five sovereigns and two half sovereigns were in my purse when I last saw it; I had changed my takings into gold during the week. My trousers were in my bedroom the whole time. I do not say anybody stole the purse. I do not think I told the detective that I had lost it through a hole in my pocket.
It was stated that there had been complaints from previous employers, the Chesham Cab Company, as to his having done a similar thing.
Sentence, Six months' hard labour, the Common Serjeant remarking that it seemed clear that prisoner had been guilty of deliberate fraud and had tampered with the meter.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE SCRUTTON
(Tuesday, October 17.)
Mr. Travers Humphreys and Mr. Montague Shearman prosecuted; Mr. Symmons defended.
MARY ANNIE COLLINS , 147, Morning Lane, Hackney. Deceased, who was a fruiterer, was my husband. I last saw him alive at 1.30 p.m. on September 4; he was taking a pair of my boots to be repaired. At about 1.40 I saw him lying outside Hill's shop. I know Hill; I have seen prisoner, who is his son, but I have not spoken to him.
Cross-examined. As far as I know my husband had no quarrel with prisoner.
WILLIAM AUGUSTUS FISHEB , Chalgrove Road, Hackney. Prisoner is my brother-in-law. About 1.30 p.m. on September 4 I was in the kitchen behind his father's shop talking to him about football. Be suddenly got up and said, "There is a limit to all pleasures"; I am sure he did, not say patience." He was in his shiitt sleeves. He got up and ran into the shop after he had put his coat on. Mrs. Benson, prisoner's farther, and deceased were in the shop. I saw deceased stagger out of the shop directly after prisoner had gone in. I saw nothing in prisoner's hand when he went out.
Cross-examined. He sat facing the door leading into the stop; I had my back to it. Up to the time that he sprang up he was perfectly quiet. What he said about "pleasures" had nothing to do with our conversation.
JOSEPH HILL bootmaker, 158, Morning Lane, Hackney. Prisoner is my son; he is aged 27. I have had nine. He has never left home. I had known deceased 26 years. About 1.15 p.m. on the day he died he came into the shop. I was in the shop with Mrs. Benson. Standing in the kitchen behind you can see who comes into the shop. Deceased had just time to give me the boots when prisoner came from the kitchen and, as I thought, touched him on the side. Deceased walked into the street and fell down. I saw nothing in prisoner's hand. This dagger (produced) is mine; I fancy it was at the back of the shop; I deal in such curios.
Cross-examined. Prisoner was a good boy at school and is a good boy at home. He had not the slightest reason for a grievance against prisoner. He has the delusion that the police suspect him; he has told me he could hear them and everybody else talking about him when they are a hundred yards off. I have reasoned with him, but he has only smiled. He seemed to fancy they were getting up a plot against him. This has been going on ever since last Christmas. A few police men would stop outside the shop, and he always said they were talking about him. If there had ever been any big burglary or crime in Lon don he said the police suspected him of it. There is insanity on my wife's side. Prisoner's elder brother has been in the asylum six years. During the last month prisoner has complained very much of insomnia.
Re-examined. He has worked in the shop with me. I did not think he was bad enough to see a doctor about him; I thought he would get right soon. He got a scholarship for engineering at school.
ROBERT BEAR , tailor, 17, Homerton Street, Homerton. At about 1.20 p.m. on September 4 I was in Morning Lane, just going into a tobacconist's shop, next door to Hill's shop, when I saw deceased stagger off Hill's step into a policeman's arms; he was bleeding from a wound in the back. Prisoner was standing just outside. Whilst I was attending to deceased, who was on the ground, prisoner said to me, "He has been in here aggravating me, and he called me a 'cattle-get and bastard. He has got it now, and he won't get over it." Pointing to his father, he said, "He deserves the same."
Cross-examined. He had nothing in his hand. He was shaking.
CHARLES WILSON , tin-plate worker, 5, Hockley Street, Hackney. At 1.15 p.m., on September 4, I was in Morning Lane, just going into a tobacconist's shop, next Hill's shop, when I saw deceased cross the road with a pair of boots in his hand. I went in and bought some tobacco. On coming out I saw deceased lying on the pavement, with prisoner standing by the side of him. I asked prisoner what was the matter, and he made no reply. He turned round to someone in the shop and said, "He has been aggravating me for months, and you have got what you want."
Cross-examined. I did not notice many people about. I was only in the shop a very short time. I did not see deceased go into the shop.
JOHN WILSON , son of last witness. At 1.15 p.m., on September 4, my father came in, and in consequence of what he said I ran oat to Hill's shop. I saw deceased lying on the pavement with prisoner standing beside him. Somebody asked me who had done it. I said, indicating prisoner, "That bloke' there." Prisoner said, "Yes, I done it Do you want to know any more? "
Cross-examined. My father and I are not getting up this case against prisoner; I never knew him before. (Mr. Symmons explained that he had put this question at prisoner's request.)
Police-constable JOHN BUTCHER, 590 J. About 1.30 p.m. prisoner came out of the doorway of 158, Morning Lane, and said, "Come here; you are wanted." I went over and saw deceased standing in the doorway with blood dripping from his clothing. I asked him what was the matter, and he said, "I don't know." He staggered into my arms and I laid him down. Prisoner said, "I am the man who done it. He has asked for it, and now he has got it. He has been at me for a long while." I took him to the station.
Cross-examined. He made no attempt to escape. He could have said what Bear stated he said without my hearing it. I was there before Bear.
Cross-examined. It must have been a very strong blow; it went almost through the body.
Detective-inspector ERNEST HAY, J. Division. On September 4 I saw prisoner at Hackney Bead Police Station. I cautioned him, and charged him with the murder of deceased. I took possession of his clothing, directed his attention to bloodstains, and said he could explain them if he desired. He said, " I shall say nothing. I shall reserve everything." On being formally charged, he said, "I understand." I had previously been to 158, Morning Lane, where I saw bloodstains on the floor and on the pavement outside. Between a box containing tools and a bench, about three paces from the door, I found this dagger (produced) wedged tightly. A small piece of woollen material, apparently from deceased's vest, was adhering to the blade. The handle was sticking out.
Cross-examined. I nave known this district some years. I have never known prisoner before. The police have never encouraged him in his delusions. (This was put. at prisoner's request.) We have never suspected him of burglaries.
big burglary and other crime that had been committed in London, and that everybody was conspiring against him, including deceased, his father, his brother-in-law, and the whole of the J Division of Police. He clothed the movements of others with some hidden meaning. His delusions are absolutely fixed. He wrote a very incoherent account of himself which confirmed my view as to his sanity. His is a case of delusional insanity, but, but, apart from his delusions he is fairly rational, and I came to the opinion that he was fit to plead. He would have been insane on September 4 so as not to appreciate the nature and quality of his act.
Cross-examined. One of his fixed delusions was that deceased had been attacking his character, and he (prisoner) had a grievance against him in consequence. In attacking him with a weapon I think he might know the nature, but his mind was so diseased that I do not think he would know the quality of his act. He might know that the result of his act would be to kill the man, but I do not think he was capable of knowing that it was wrong. The fact that he called a policeman afterwards does not alter my opinion.
Re-examined. The fact that he did not try to run away confirms my opinion.
Verdict, Guilty, but insane. Prisoner was ordered to be detained until His Majesty's pleasure be known.
Prisoner was tried on the first indictment.
Mr. Travers Humphreys and Mr. Symmons prosecuted; Mr. Curtis Bennett defended.
ELLEN ELIZA LAWRENCE . I am at present staying with my daughter at 84, Sutherland Avenue. I was married to prisoner in 1887, and have four children, one of them named May, aged 18. I did not live happily with my husband, there being continual quarrels. From time to time I left and then rejoined him. In 1908 we lived at 25, Sarsfeld Road, Balham, where prisoner's brother, William Ernest, lived with us for a time. In December, 1910, I left prisoner to live with my daughter, May, at a flat in Sutherland Avenue. May had been married and divorced. Prisoner's brother lived with us also. The flat was my daughter's. In May I returned to prisoner at Sarsfeld Road; my youngest daughter was with him. I have also a son in the Army and a married daughter. As the quarrels continued I left him again in July; he told me all along he intended swinging for me and I got frightened; he gave no special reason for saying that. I returned to my daughter at her flat, which was then in Elgin Avenue; my brother-in-law was still with her and she also had a friend, Dorcas Webb, with her. In August we all went to a flat May took in Hyde Park Mansions; she paid all expenses; my brother-in-law and I earned no money. Prisoner wrote me several letters, amongst which was this one dated August 7 (Exhibit 1): "For God's sake, Nell, do come and see me if only for a quarter of an hour.... I have
seen another doctor to-day and I am sure no medicine in this world can cure a broken heart.... Do show a grain of pity and don't be afraid to see me. I would willingly come to you if I had the strength enough to get out... From your sorrowing and heartbroken husband, F. E. Lawrence.") I did not go. On August 26 I received this registered envelope addressed to my daughter, enclosing my marriage certificate and a telegraph form in his writing, on which were these words, "This is now no use. Died August 20.—Percy." Percy is the name of my son. About 1 p.m. on August 28 I left the flat with Miss Webb to do some shopping, leaving my daughter and brother-in-law in. I returned about half an hour later and was turning the handle of the front door of the flat, which is on the ground floor, when I felt something touching my neck behind and heard a shot. I turned round to see who it was and then felt another shot over my eye. I saw prisoner, who said,
"You b—. I told you what I would do." My brother-in-law had come down by then. I was taken to the hospital. Prisoner is a rate collector; he has been in the same employment 25 years.
Cross-examined. Prisoner has made accusations against me as regards my conduct with other men, but that has not been the chief cause of our quarrels. I know nothing about what led to my brother-in-law being separated from his wife; I do not think he deserted her and his children. It is true that prisoner, on his return from Devonport, one night in July, 1909, accused me of coming out of his brother's bedroom, but it was not the fact; he was too drunk to know what he was talking about. May was married at 16 and divorced at 17. Three or four days after leaving my husband in December, 1910, my brother-in-law left him at his request and came to us. He had to leave his employment on account of prisoner persecuting him, not through me. He certainly did not live with me as man and wife. When I said at the police court I had never lived with him as such I was only referring to the time up to the shooting. May, my brother-in-law, and I lived on an allowance made to the three of us and what I raised on jewellery; I produce some pawntickets. In May I met prisoner and my youngest daughter; they implored me to go home and I did so. Exhibit 7 is a letter May wrote to me on May 15, saying, "I suppose you know your own business best, but you have placed uncle in a very embarrassing position... You might have thought of that before uncle gave up his work for you that you were going to leave him stranded." I still say I was not living with him as man and wife then. The allowance was sent to my daughter for the three of us until her intended husband came back; since then she has been receiving the money through a friend of his who has come from abroad; it was not sent direct to either myself or my brother-in-law. I will certainly produce letters saying that the money was for the three of us. I cannot say the amount that this man "G." sent us between March and August, but it was more than ₤45. (On Mr. Justice Scrutton remarking that the Jury had not to investigate the immoral relations which may have existed between prosecutrix and her brother-in-law, Mr. Curtis Bennett stated that the object
of his cross-examination was to show the state of prisoner's mind owing to prosecutrix's conduct, the defence being that prisoner had gone to her flat with the intention of committing suicide, but had accidentally shot the prosecutrix, whom he had not previously threatened in any way.) Prisoner on one occasion attempted suicide. Shortly after I left him he had to go in a nursing home for Bright's disease. When he was there I went home and took away a number of papers, but I did not know they included my marriage certificate. I returned it to him. Letters in the name of "Lady Lawrence" have been sent me, but I certainly never passed as such. May used to address prisoner as "Sir Frederick Lawrence" and me as "Lady Lawrence, " and the joke was kept up. I have seen gentlemen visitors come to see May at the flat.
WILLIAM ERNEST LAWRENCE . I have no fixed abode. I have no occupation, but I have prospects. In the latter part of August I was staying as a guest at a flat in Hyde Park Mansions rented by my niece, May. My sister-in-law was there also. I got up on August 28 at 12 a.m. My sister-in-law went out at about 1 p.m. After she had gone this telegram (Exhibit 10) came. Exhibit 11 is the original in prisoner's handwriting; it is addressed to "Mrs. Anderson, " my niece, and says, "Tell mother.to meet me, Marble Arch, 2 o'clock Sunday.—William." About 1.30 p.m. I was shaving in the bathroom when I heard a pistol shot and a scream. I rushed into the hall and saw my sister-in-law in a sitting position. Prisoner was lying on his back with his head towards the hall door, which was wide open. I went to him to take the revolver away from him. He was bleeding from the face and had a revolver in his right hand and was attempting to put his forefinger on the trigger. Looking towards his wife, he said, "I told you what I would do, you b—." In the struggle I had with him the revolver went off. The police took it away from him. Mrs. Lawrence was taken to the hospital.
Cross-examined. I was living with Mrs. Lawrence after we had to turn out of Hyde Park Mansions through this affair; I had to find a place for a wounded woman. I first went to live at the flat in January. In March I lost my employment because prisoner accused me of petty theft, which I am innocent of. I continued living with my niece and sister-in-law, being supported by my niece. I was still being supported by her at Lanark Villas, where we went. She really supported her mother and what she lived on I lived on. I was dependent upon my niece for out-of-pocket expenses and she has supplied me with articles of clothing. I said at the police court that the gentleman who made my niece an allowance also made me an allowance; he asked me to look after my niece and Mrs. Lawrence. Before he left in February he sent ₤30 by telegram and I went with May to cash the order. The money was given to her to support the three of us. It is a mistake if I am taken down as having said that the money was given me in cash by him. He is 21 years old and went abroad in February. I am not aware that he has sent any money since March, but he has sent jewellery. A friend of his has been supporting my niece with money until this gentleman arrives home, when
he will get it back again. I can prove cheques have been sent since March. I do not know whether prisoner intended the expression he used for me, but he was looking at Ms wife at the time. He shot himself in the head and hand.
Re-examined. It was about 10 minutes before I heard the shot that the telegram came.
Police-constable WILLIAM STEVENS, 308 D. About 1.30 p.m. on August 28 I was on duty in Chapel Street, when together with Policeconstable Lovelock, I went to a flat at 2d, Hyde Park Mansions, where I saw prisoner and Ernest William Lawrence struggling on the floor. I assisted to take this revolver and this razor from prisoner (produced). There was a lot of blood about his throat. I took him to the hospital.
Police-constable JOHN LOVELOCK, 139 D, corroborated. There were two live and three spent cartridges in the revolver. I picked up a spent bullet by the side of prisoner.
ALEC WILLIAM BOURNE , House Surgeon, St. Mary's Hospital. At 2 p.m. on August 28 I examined Mrs. Lawrence; she was suffering considerably from shock and she had a wound in the neck and over the left eyebrow; the latter was quite superficial and might have been caused by a fall; it did not appear as if it had been caused by a bullet.
Cross-examined. Prisoner had two incised wounds on the neck, which might have been caused by a. razor; they were not dangerous. He had also a bullet wound on his right temple and a slight abrasion on his left hand, which could have been caused by a bullet grazing it.
HERBERT RICHARD SMITH , assistant, Gamage's, outfitters, Holborn. About the middle of the day on August 28 prisoner came and asked for a revolver. On his telling me he had no licence I said he must get one. He went away end returned with this licence (Exhibit 12). I sold him the revolver (produced) and a box of 50 cartridges.
Inspector JOHN MCPHERSON, D Division. At 11.5 a.m. on September 12 I saw prisoner at St. Mary's Hospital and arrested him for, as I told him, feloniously wounding prosecutrix, with intent to kill, and attempting to commit suicide. He made no reply. On being taken to the station and being formally charged, he asked the date. He was told August 28 and he said nothing else.
Cross-examined. Upon a number of documents found upon him there were remarks in his handwriting about his brother, amongst which were "Certificate of character of William Erneet Lawrence. Deserted his own wife and child.... Robbed me of my wife after 25 years." "Managed a brothel.... seen correspondence at Scotland Yard." "Living on the immoral earnings of his, own niece, aged 17, since January... They have now got hold of a man. I am not going to mention his name, beginning with G., with plenty of money, " and others. In none of them were any threats against his wife. So far as I can ascertain all prisoner's children
except May have been on friendly terms with him. He has for 10 years been employed by the Borough Council.
JOHN ROWATT , M.D., 1, Marius Road, Tooting. At 12.15 a.m. on July 27 I was called to 75, Nevis Road, Balham, where I found prisoner huddled up with his arms round his neck; he every now and again looked out of the corner of his eye sharply as if he were in a state of delirium. I found him suffering from extensive kidney trouble. He was removed at once to a nursing home, where he stayed for a week; I wanted him to remain a month. On leaving he was still reticent and morose. His state of mind was far from normal.
Cross-examined. His brain was congested indirectly as the result of the kidney trouble. His physical condition improved very much during the week but not his mental condition. I did not see him after he left the home. I should not say he was insane then, but his was a borderland case.
LILY BROWN , wife of Ernest Brown, 75, Nevis Road, Balham. I am a daughter of prisoner. I have been on friendly terms with him but not with my mother. On July 25 prisoner came to our house and then went to a nursing home. Mother returned to him in May and stayed till July. On the day she left again my husband and I went to see him. When he came to the door he seemed very weak and ill. We found a note in his writing saying, "For God's sake, don't light the gas. Good-bye all. Your loving father, F. E. Lawrence."I have never seen him use acts of violence.
KATHLEEN HILDA LAWRENCE , a daughter of prisoner. Up to the time of this affair I lived with my father. As the result of a conversation father and I had with mother in Edgware Road in May she returned. When she left again in July he seemed ill and very much upset. I have never known him to use acts of violence.
At the conclusion of his summing-up, his Lordship left questions to the jury, which they answered as follows: (1) Did the pistol go of accidentally or did prisoner intend to fire it? (A.) He intended to fire it. (2) If he intended to fire it, with what intent did he fire it. (A.) With intent to kill his wife. The jury added that they desired to strongly recommend him to mercy on account of the strong provocation he received.
On these findings the Judge directed the jury to return a verdict of Guilty of wounding with intent to murder.
Sentence, Twelve months' hard labour.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Tuesday, October 17.)
COOMBES, Valentine Lacey (40, no occupation) , in incurring certain debts and liabilities did obtain credit by false pretences and other fraud, to wit, from Robert Bingley Herbert the sum of ₤1, 968 19s.; from John William Bertram Jones and another the sum of ₤1, 808 18s. 6d., and from Thomas Gordon Hensler the sum of ₤981 6s. 6d., in each case with intent to defraud; being an undischarged bankrupt unlawfully obtaining credit to the extent of ₤20 and upwards, to wit, from Robert Bingley Herbert to the extent of ₤1, 968 19s.; from John William Bertram Jones and another to the extent of ₤1, 808 18s. 6d., and from Thomas Gordon Hensler to the extent of ₤981 6s. 6d., in each case without informing them that he was an undischarged bankrupt.
Mr. Curttas Bennett and Mr. Ronald Cruikshank prosecuted.
FREDERICK CHARLES MACKRELL , office keeper, Wandsworth County Court. I produce the file of the bankruptcy of Valentine Lacey Coombes, the prisoner, whom I recognise. The order of adjudication was on January 28, 1907, liabilities ₤1, 512 ls. 8d., assets ₤3 16s. 2d. There is no discharge on the file.
THOMAS GORDEN HENSLER , 6, Moorgate Street, member of London Stock Exchange. On September 12 I received letter (Exhibit 1), purporting to come from Jamas Brown, of 4, the Broadway, West Worthing, enclosing a letter of introduction from a Mr. Simpson, whom I knew very well, and asking me to buy for him ₤1, 500 worth of Great Eastern Ordinary stock, which I bought the same day and sent the contract note to prisoner. It amounted to ₤981 6s. 6d., including charges, for settlement September 28. As a result of certain inquiries I decided not to wait for the settlement and sold the stock at a loss of ₤3 15s.
At this point prisoner withdrew his plea of not guilty and pleaded guilty, in the case of Hensler, to obtaining credit without informing him that he was an undischarged bankrupt. The other charges were not proceeded with.
Inspector HENRY PHILLIPS, City Police. I was present at this Court on February 8, 1910, when prisoner was sentenced to 18 months for obtaining credit by false pretences. Also at this Court on October 21, 1901, he was bound over by your Lordship; but within 12 months he commenced these same operations, and he was brought up again and sentenced to six months for breach of his recognisances. On January 11, 1901, he received 12 months for obtaining credit by fraud, and on January 7, 1908, six months for the same thing.
Sentence, Twelve months' hard labour.
RICHARDS, Benjamin (38, tailor) , obtaining by false pretences from Marks Rayman divers moneys amounting to ₤10 or thereabouts, from Abraham Coren the sums of 4s. and 6s. respectively, and from Hannah Blanchflower divers moneys amounting to ₤2 5s., in each case with intent to defraud.
Mr. Bodkin and Mr. Leycester prosecuted; Mr. Louis Green and Mr. Horace B. Samuel defended.
Prisoner pleaded guilty to certain counts of the indictment; the remaining counts were not proceeded with and sentence was postponed till the first day of next Sessions.
Mr. H. Hurrell prosecuted; Mr. Purcell defended Dove.
ISAAC MARCELLIS , fishmonger, 70, Rhodeswell Road, Stepney. On August 18 I was standing near my shop speaking with some neighbours when a man named Roland Hill, who is now serving three months' hard labour in respect of this assault, came towards me, followed by prisoners. Hoy asked for a cucumber. I said, "I have none." Hoy said, "Yes you have, give me one, " and pushed me. I went across the road into my shop. The three of them followed me and Dove caught me in the middle and held my arms up, Hoy took me by the throat, and the marks were on it when I went to the police station, and the third man put his hand into my pocket. He did not find anything, although I had five pounds in a little front pocket. I cried out "Murder, " but people were too frightened to come in. Hoy hit me in the middle and Dove banged me on the head and knocked out one of my teeth. My wife fetched a policeman, but prisoners ran off before he came. I picked Dove out at the West India Docks Police Court on September 14 and Hoy at Bow Police Court on the 21st. I gave evidence against the other man, Hill, and he was sentenced to three months' hard labour.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purcell. I am quite certain, although he was a perfect stranger to me, that Dove was one of the three men.
Cross-examined by Roy. I have never said that it was Hill who caught me by the throat.
Police-constable GEORGE DEAN, 634 K. I was on duty at the time and saw prosecutor cross the road to his shop, followed by prisoners and the man Hill, who was convicted before Judge Rentoul last session. I know Hill and Hoy. They surrounded prosecutor and hustled him into his shop. I went to the shop; prisoners bolted and I arrested the man Hill.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purcell. I had a doubt about Dove at the identification and I would not touch him, but I have no doubt now that he was the man.
Police-constable BERNARD SIMS, K Division. On September 13 I went to 18, Padstow Place, Limehouse, where I saw Dove. I told him I should arrest him for this assault and attempted robbery. He said, "You have made a proper mistake; if I go away from this I shall be surprised."
At this point Dove pleaded guilty.
Sergeant NORRIS. On September 21 I arrested Hoy at his house, 4, Halwood Street, Bromley-by-Bow. He said, "You have made bloomer." I took him to Bow Police Court, placed him among nine men, and prosecutor identified him.
Verdict (each), Guilty.
A number of previous convictions were proved against both prisoners.
Sentences: Hoy, Twenty-two months' hard labour; Dove, Twelve months' hard labour.
Mr. Stewart prosecuted.
ALFRED MOORE , assistant to Mr. Quartermain, tailor, 38, Walbrook. On August 30, while the cashier was engaged talking to a lady in the shop a man came in offering clothes for sale. He was closely followed by prisoner, who took the overcoat and coat-hanger produced off the rail in the shop and walked off with it. I and the cashier ran after him and took the coat from him and gave him into custody.
Police-constable ETHELBURT DENTRT, 246 A. I was called by last witness and arrested prisoner. I searched him at the station and found a pawnticket relating to another overcoat and 3s. 31/2d. in money on him.
CHARLES WILSON (prisoner, on oath). I was walking down Walbrook when I was stopped by the prosecutor's assistant and a constable. The assistant had the coat over his arm and he says to the constable, "I want to give this man into custody for stealing this overcoat." I deny that I took the coat. The assistant has made a mistake.
Cross-examined. I never had the coat. The assistant had it over his arm when he followed me. I suggest that it is a false charge against me, and that Moore prepared himself in order to prefer the charge against me by bringing the coat with him. I do not know why he should, as he is a complete stranger to me.
Three previous convictions were proved against prisoner.
Sentence, Eighteen months' hard labour.
JORDAN, Philip (18, carman), EVANSKY, Nathan (17, tailor), and GOLDSTEIN, Hyman (17, furrier). Evansky and Jordan attempting to obtain by false pretences from Stanley Tamsett Goldup two pieces of silk lining, the goods of Alexander Gerand, Limited, with intent to defraud; Evansky obtaining by false pretences from Kate Weller 43 pieces of ribbon, the goods of Michael Jalon, with intent to defraud; Jordan, obtaining by false pretences from Harry Lawrence 35 yards length of silk serge, the goods of Herbert Moll and another, with intent to defraud; Goldstein by false pretences from Harry Lawrence four pieces of silk serge, the goods of Herbert Moll and another, with intent to defraud.
Mr. Percival Clarke prosecuted; Mr. Macdonald appeared for Jordan; Mr. Louis Green defended Evansky; Mr. David White appeared for Goldstein.
Jordan and Goldstein pleaded guilty.
KATE WELLEE , assistant to Michael Jalon, ribbon merchant, 10, Duke Street, Aldgate. On August 23 Evansky came to our place of business and said he came from Woolfe, customers of ours, and asked for certain ribbons which I gave him to the value of ₤6 9s. 111/2d. He signed for them as J. Levy.
Cross-examined. I had never seen Evansky before.
STANLEY TAMSETT GOLDUP , assistant to Gerands, Limited, Cheapside. On August 31 Evansky came to our place and said he had come for the two pieces for Finegold's—customers of ours. We had previously received a telephone message that they were sending a man for them. He signed the book for them in the name of J. Morris and took them out of the shop. The value of the goods was ₤13 12s. We knew he was coming, and we had detectives waiting outside for him. I have seen Jordan; he was once in Finegold's employ. I had never seen Evansky before.
Detective-sergeant GEORGE GALE, City Police. In consequence of information received I waited outside Gerand's place at midday on August 31. Evansky came up with Jordan. Evansky went inside and came out shortly with a parcel, which he attempted to hand to Jordan. I stopped him and said, "You have just come from Gerand's."He said, "Yes." I said, "I am a police officer and shall detain you for inquiries."He said, "I know nothing about it. That man"—pointing to Jordan—"asked me in Middlesex Street this morning if I wanted to earn a few pence. We went to Gerand's and he said, ' Go up and get two pieces of silk; say you come from Finegold's" I took them to the station, and on Jordan I found Gerand's telephone number.
Cross-examined. At the station Evansky said he did not know Jordan. Jordan said, " You are a liar; you do know me."
NATHAN EVANSKY (prisoner, on oath). I am a tailor and worked for Mr Morris, 16, Aldgate Avenue. I left his employment 15 months before my arrest. Since then I have worked for my father, a master tailor. I knew Jordan in school. On August 23 I was
going to McCoombie Brothers, Fenchurch Street, for my father, when I met Jordan and another fellow whose name I do not know. Jordan said, "How are you getting on? " I said, "All right." He said, "Will you do me a favour? " I said I would, and the other fellow spoke some words and then Jordan wrote out some numbers of ribbons and told me to go to Jalon's. He said, "When you get in there say you come from Woolf and Co." I did not know where Jordan worked at that time. He also said, "They will make the bill out for you and when they give you the book to sign, sign the name of. Levy."I got the ribbons and handed them to him and he gave me 3d., and said, "I will see you another time."I then went to McCoombie's. About a week later I met Jordan again and he asked me if I would like to earn a lew pence. I said I did not mind, and he took me to Cheapside and showed me a place and told me to go in and say I had come for the two pieces of silk for Finegold's. He told me to sign the name of J. Morris for them. I went in to Gerand's and got the silk, and as I was handing the parcel to Jordan I was arrested. At the station I said I did not know Jordan as a pal, but I knew him from school.
Cross-examined. When I went to Gerand's I thought Jordan was in Finegold's employ. I did not ask him why he did not fetch them himself. These are the only transactions I have ever done. I thought they were honest ones.
Verdict (Evansky), Guilty.
Detective FRANCIS DYKE, City Police. Jordan was employed by a Mr. Godfrey, of Spit al fields, for about two years, he has also done casual work for a fruit salesman. They give him a good character. He was in the employ of Mr. Finegold for 18 months and from inquiries I have made he was robbing him the whole time. I have no doubt he is the ringleader of this business. This conspiracy has been going on between a number of lads for about six months. They have endeavoured to obtain goods from a number of places without success, but from other places they have obtained goods within 11 days to the value of over ₤50. They have been using a restaurant in Commercial Road and that is where the conspiracy has been going on. There is no doubt other lads are engaged in it with them, but we have not got sufficient evidence against them. I do not think there is anything to choose between Evansky and Goldstein; they have all had their share in it. Evansky worked for Mr. Morris, of Aldgate Avenue, for three weeks: he gave me two other names of people who had employed him. One of them said he did not remember him and the other said he did not know him. Mr. Roose, of Commercial Road, gave him a good character. Goldstein has worked for Felstein's, furriers, of St. Lukes., for 12 months as errand boy. He left to better himself; his character was very good there. He also worked for Mr. Wolzer, furrier, of Aldgate Avenue, since December last Mr. Wolzer gives him a good character. He was arrested at Mr. Schneider's, 4, Wilks Street, wilks he had been for only two days.
Cross-examined by Mr. Macdonald. Jordan has a very respectable home.
Cross-examined by Mr. Green. One of the boys charged with being associated with Jordan was acquitted.
Cross-examined by Mr. White. Goldstein's people are very respectable hard-working people. Since he has been out on bail he has been employed by a firm of furriers the whole time.
Mr. WOLZER. Goldstein has been in my employ since November last. I had a very good opinion of him and will take him back and be surety for his good behaviour while with me, if he is released.
Goldstein was released on Mr. Wolzer's recognisances in ₤50 and his own in ₤10 to come up for judgment if called upon; Jordan was sentenced to eight months' imprisonment; Evansky to six months' imprisonment.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Wednesday, October 18.)
SMITH, Charles Herbert (30, cabdriver) , having received certain property, to wit, the sum of ₤4 17s. 5( d., for and on account of the British Motor Cab Company, Limited, unlawfully did fraudulently convert the same to his own use and benefit.
Mr. Curtis Bennett and Mr. St. John Hutchinson prosecuted; Mr. Wickham defended.
THOMAS STANLEY ATKINS , receiving clerk, British Motor Cab Company, Limited, 111, Grosvenor Road, Pimlico. I produce prisoner's way-bill of August 29, 1911, showing total mileage 4, 180; 2d. charges, 2, 590; 8d. charges, 711; extras at 2d., 1, 613. It is signed by the prisoner and initialled by me.
JOHN WALTER BRYANT , meter reader, British Motor Cab Company, Limited. I produce the readings of the meter of prisoner's, taxi-cab on August 25. On August 29, when prisoner next returned I his cab after deducting 25 per cent., he owed the company ₤4 17s. 51/2d.
RALPH MUNDAY , receiving clerk to prosecutors. On August 29 prisoner brought me way-bill showing that he owed ₤4 17s. 5(d.; he I did not dispute the amount, but said he would see the traffic manager about it.
Cross-examined. If prisoner had torn up his way-bill the previous record with the present readings of the meter would have shown the amount due from him.
Major EDWARD WILLLIAM ERCOTT, traffic manager, British Motor Cab Company. The rules of my company require all drivers to return their cabs to the garage within 24 hours unless special permission is obtained. The rules are now put up in the garage, but were not in September last; the rule is stated on the way-bills. On September 11 prisoner was brought in to my office; he desired to have a cab out, there being due from him since August 29 ₤4 17s. 5(d. I said he would have to pay that before he could go to work again. He said he could not pay. I told him if he would bring ₤2 next morning I
would go into the case again. I asked why he had kept the cab out for four days; he gave no satisfactory reason. I do not remember what he said. He came the next day but brought no money; I handed the matter over to the Claims Department. In July last he had kept the cab out for a number of days. I warned him that he would not be allowed to keep out a cab out for more than 24 hours and he must pay in the money each day; he accepted the condition. He then owed about ₤20; he repaid a large portion of it then, and was allowed to pay up the balance by instalments, which he did.
Cross-examined. Prisoner has a good character; there is nothing against him except this charge. The 24 hours' rule was not then put up in the garage—it is now. We now employ over 1, 000 drivers. Drivers are allowed to take a country job, involving their being away some days, provided they telephone to the office. On two occasions since July prisoner has been indebted to the company for short payment and been allowed to pay up by instalments; on one occasion that was for damage to a cab. I do not know if Stevens and Tackier, two other drivers, have been allowed to pay up by instalment. Prisoner having been discharged from our service, he was charged before the magistrate with converting this money and his license was sent to the police court. Prisoner afterwards brought back the license, which was stamped up by my company, so that he could enter another employment. I did not swear the information, but I believe criminal proceedings had then been commenced: This is the first prosecution by my company. I told prisoner to bring me the ₤2 so as to help him to repay his debt. I told him his case would be reconsidered if he did so.
The Recorder held that the prosecutors had treated the indebtedness as a civil debt, and, moreover, had signed the license, enabling prisoner to enter into other employment. On this ground he directed the jury to acquit. There was no doubt the conduct of the prisoner was most dishonest, but if the company desired to treat it as a criminal matter more stringent rules must be made and adhered to. He was clearly of opinion that, if a man acted as the prisoner undoubtedly had, he ought not to have the license treated as if he had done nothing.
Verdict, Not guilty.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Wednesday, October 18.)
Mr. Collard prosecuted.
Prisoner pleaded guilty to unlawfully wounding, but the plea was not accepted by the prosecution.
ALICE OWEN . I am an assistant at a dairy shop at 161, South Lambeth Road. About 11 a.m. on September 30 prisoner, who was a stranger to me, came in and asked for 6d. worth of eggs. I was alone. I gave them to him and he said, "I will have 6d. worth of better eggs." I turned round to put them in a bag when I heard what I thought was a pistol shot. I turned and faced him and saw him holding something in his hand. I ran into the sitting-room screaming. When I had got round the corner he struck me on the head. A little girl came up and prisoner ran out out of the shop. I followed him.
EDMUND HARTLEY . On September 30 I was called into 161, South Lambeth Road, where I saw Miss Owen. She was suffering from two lacerated wounds, one on the top of and one behind the head, probably caused by some blunt instrument similar to this (produced). The blows would have been dangerous if they had been struck on parts of the head unprotected by hair.
ALBERT BARTON , 100, Wilcox Road, South Lambeth. I am 12 years old. On the morning of September 30 I was standing outside 161, South Lambeth Road, when I heard a scream from the inside of the shop. I then saw prisoner come out; he was carrying something in a piece of red printed paper like this (produced). He ran round St. Stephen's Terrace and went into a garden. Miss Owen followed him out, calling out, "Thief! " I went to fetch a policeman.
WILLIAM MOUNSERLL , printers' labourer. On the morning of September 30 I was passing through St. Stephen's Terrace when I saw prisoner dash into a garden and hide himself behind some bushes He attempted to get out of the gate and Barton said to me in his hearing, "Hold him, guv'nor; he's a thief." I held him and he struggled hard to get away. Assistance arrived and I took him back to 161, South Lambeth Road.
Police-constable HENRY MOTTURE. On the morning of September 30 I was called to 161 South Lambeth Road, where I saw prisoner detained by last witness. I sent for the doctor. Prisoner was given into my custody and I told him I should charge him. I did not hear him say anything. He was sober.
Police-constable ALFRED JOHNS. On the morning of September 30 I was called to 161, South Lambeth Road, where I saw prisoner detained. He said, "She may have made a mistake. What are you going to charge me with? " In a garden in the neighbourhood, about 15 yards from this dairy, I found this iron bar wrapped in some paper, of which this (produced) is a piece. I noticed no signs of intoxication about prisoner.
GEORGE SMITH (prisoner, not on oath). On this particular day I had had a lot of drink and not being used to drink and being very low in health I did not know what I was doing at the time I did it only realised it after I had done it and in an excitement like that a man can get sober in a few seconds. I have never been guilty of such a thing before.
Verdict, Guilty of unlawful wounding.
Prisoner confessed to a previous conviction of felony at Clerkenwell Sessions on April 9, 1908. Sixteen previous convictions, dating from 1883, were proved. He was released on license from his last sentence on September 25 of this year.
Sentence, Three years' penal servitude.
MAY, Henry Gomer (46, actor), maliciously publishing a certain defamatory libel of and concerning Samuel Henry Henderson; maliciously publishing a certain defamatory libel of and concerning George Edmund Bellamy.
Mr. J. P. Grain prosecuted.
The indictment relating to G. E. Bellamy was proceeded with.
Prisoner had not lodged a plea of justification.
At the conclusion of Mr. Grain's opening speech prisoner stated that when he pleaded "not guilty" he was under the impression that it meant "justification."
The Common Serjeant stated that prisoner had had ample time to take any course he wished to take, and he was now in charge of the jury.
GEORGE EDMUND BELLAMY , actor. I have known prisoner many years. He is an actor and I have occasionally assisted him in obtaining situations. Last year I heard there was a dispute between him and Mr. Henderson, whose wife runs my-sketches, under the name of "Miss Beresford." Between October 8, 1910, and August 30, 1911, I received these letters and postcards from him; they are all in his handwriting (Exhibits 1, 2a to 10a). On about September 11 I received this letter (Exhibit 11a), dated September 2, and this envelope (Exhibit 12a), in prisoner's handwriting, from Mr. Wynne, an actor in the same theatre as myself. Exhibit 11a says, "Dear Bellamy,—I charge you with being a thief, a liar, a rotter, a dirty dog of the vilest description. Your lies to me at the Empire I have asked you to explain. You replied with a letter full of lies. I answered that and asked for an explanation. None was forthcoming. You have since done your best to injure me. I have not struck you because I know I could kill you in one hit. I am wondering how I can thrash you without killing you. I enclose an extract from John Bull' on Keir Hardie. It refers to a filthy s—, who makes a lying remark and then is not man enough to apologise for his lies when proved a liar. This is exactly you. Mr. Paget told me you were not worth twopence a week in his pantomime. I heard this and was not mean enough to tell you or repeat it. You have dragged it out of me.—H.G.M." He categorically then stated what he alleged to be ✗ lies on prosecutor's part about him: "N.B.—The last persecution—not prosecution—of me was to get me out of the way.... I have kept a copy of this and if you go for me it will be produced in court.".) This was in an envelope addressed to "E. H. Wynne, Esq., Adelphi Theatre, London, W.C." I received this letter (Exhibit 13a) from him addressed to Mr. Wynne; I suppose he had inadvertently sent my letter to Mr. Wynne and his letter to Mr. Wynne to me. "Dear Wynne,—I sup
pose you have heard the trouble I had with that dreadful woman Beresford. It is all through George Bellamy. He poses as an author. He has never written one thing worth twopenny worth of gin. 'The Half Caste' that I played in with Miss Beresford is on the bills as written by Sidney Blow and George Bellamy. The play is 'The Drums of Oude." How two men with any conscience calling themselves authors can so deliberately steal another author's play is past my brain. What would they say if any one stole their original ideas, if they ever had any? This Bellamy came to me and lied and lied and lied. I have asked him in a reasonable manner to apologise. He has not. He was engaged, I believe, for a panto, at Peckham, and the manager stated he had far better have paid him to stop off. The only reason I have not punched Bellamy is that I know that one blow would kill him. I don't want to be a murderer, but I will have twopence out of Bellamy before I die some way. I think I had better tell the members of the Green Room Club what he is and get him kicked out." About the same time I received this letter from him, dated September 9, asking me who was the author of the "Drums of Oude." Some of these letters went to my home, my club, my theatre, and the Actors' Association.
Cross-examined. I have stated that as far back as 1888 I got you out of a booth in Wales and got you with Miss Martin; I understood you were in a booth and I gave you an introduction to Miss Martin. (Prisoner was about to cross-examine witness as to certain statements he had made when the Common Serjeant pointed out to him that all that the jury had to decide was whether he had published the libels, and were not concerned whether the statements contained therein were true or no.) I had written a letter in reply to your allegations and that I considered sufficient. You were once in a sketch with Mr. Blow called "No. 9, " and all I said was that your performance was not what it used to be. I never brought any contracts to Euston Station. I do not remember reading a part over to you which you said you did not understand. (Here prisoner, on being interrupted by the Judge, stated that he did not know how to proceed, as he had proposed justifying the libels.)
HENRY GOMER MAY (prisoner, on oath) stated that last year he had been engaged for certain parts by Mr. and Mrs. Henderson at a salary of ₤4 a week; that Mrs. Henderson had asked him to take a lesser sum for a short period and he had refused to do so; that prosecutor had promised him constant employment in sketches he was producing, but he had again refused; that prosecutor had tricked him into contracts containing the lesser figure; that on finding the management a dishonest one he had left; that the prosecutor had told lies about him as regards his capabilities as an actor until he lost his temper and wrote the letters to Mr. and Mrs. Henderson for which he was brought up before Judge Lumley Smith and bound over; that having written letters to Bellamy he was brought up on his own recognisances and sentenced
to seven days' imprisonment, though he deemed he had not broken Jus recognisances; and that if he had been treated reasonably and had received proper explanation from prosecutor he would not have written the letters complained of.
Verdict, " Guilty, whilst labouring under a fancied grievance, and recommended to mercy."
Mr. Grain said there was another indictment for a libel concerning Mr. Henderson. In January last the defendant pleaded guilty at this Court, before Judge Lumley Smith, of publishing a libel concerning Mr. Henderson, and was released on his own recognisances in ₤20 to come up for judgment if called upon. In May he was brought before Judge Lumley Smith for having committed a breach of that recognisance by an alleged repetition of the libel, and he was sentenced to 14 days' imprisonment in the second division. The defendant said it was seven days.
The Common Serjeant said that the other indictment would remain on the file of the Court and the prosecution could consider whether they would proceed with it.
Sentence, Six weeks' imprisonment, second division.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Tuesday, October 17.)
Prisoner was released on his own and another recognisance in ₤5 to come up for judgment if called upon.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOULM.
(Wednesday, October 18.)
NATHAN, Simon (32, dealer), BAKER, Alfred (31, labourer) and MURPHY, John (24, labourer). , All stealing 12 bales of drapery, the goods of Henry Evans and Sons, Limited, and feloniously receiving the same.
Mr. Ernest Beard prosecuted; Mr. Puroell and Mr. Green defended Nathan.
Baker pleaded guilty.
HARRY SHEIN , 410, Bethnal Green Road, hatter. Nathan rented a shed from me on August 24. He paid 3s. 6d. that day and 3s. 6d. a few days afterwards. A Mr. Cohen, whom he said was going to be a sub-tenant for part of the shed, had the key on the following Sunday. Nathan said he wanted it for the purpose of storing rags.
JAMES SMITH , 78, St. Dunstan's Place, E. I have been employed as carman by prosecutors between five and seven months. I had seen Baker previous to September 11. He made suggestions concerning the loads which were in my charge. I received certain instructions from my employers in consequence of my communicating that information to them. On September 11 I collected 12 bales of drapery from Manchester Wharf and signed for them. 1 had to deliver them at five different places in the City. While driving along Cannon Street Road Baker got on the shaft of my van. He asked me if I did not think it better to let him have a load. He told me I should get ₤50 for my share and suggested I should take the load to Viaduct Place, Bethnal Green. I did so. When I got there I saw Nathan. He spoke to Baker. Baker put his hand inside a hole in the shed, pulled out an iron bar, and broke the staple off so as to open the door. They then unloaded the van and put the bales in the shed. I deserted my van at the back of Liverpool Street Station, Finsbury Market. Baker had given me a paper as follows: "September 11. J. Smith. Give bearer your team and orders and return to yard at once, important. G. Stevens." Stevens is the manager of Evans. The goods were given to Nathan and Baker. I telephoned prosecutors what I had done from Hudson's Soap Stores. They gave me certain instructions and I went to Commercial Street Police Station. Before I drove the van away I saw Murphy and his brother. Nathan was there. Murphy said they had another load coming there. I went back to the shed with a. police officer. Nathan had then been arrested.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purcell. Baker did not succeed in corrupting me. I was not going to rob my master for him. When I drove the van away I watched to see if I was being followed. Having got out of sight I telephoned my employers. They told me to go to the police station.
Cross-examined by Murphy. When I drove up with the van you were on the corner of the turning. Nathan was standing close by. (To the Judge.) I do not know what Murphy had to do with the job. His brother said they had another load. That might have been a load of anything.
Inspector WENSLEY, H Division. I went to the shed and found Sergeant Jordan, Detective Stevens, and two other officers there. I said to Nathan, "I am given to understand about two hours ago you and another man took 12 bales from a van that pulled up outside the shed." Nathan replied, "Nothing of the kind; I did not touch them; I only rent the upstairs." I told him he would be detained and he said, "Who told you I helped to unload the van? " I replied, "The driver of the van; he is just outside the door." He then said, "I must put up with it; I have a good character." When charged with the other prisoners neither made any reply.
Police-constable HENRY ROPER, 422 H. I found the van unattended in Finsbury Market.
Detective JOHN STEVENS, H Division. About 1.45 on September 11 I went to Viaduct Place. I saw Nathan unlock the door of the shed and go in. He pulled the door to behind him. I saw him examine some bales in the shed. Sergeant Jordan came afterwards. He looked through the doors and pulled them open. The bales were lying in different parts of the shed. As the door was pulled open Nathan made a rush to some steps at the far end of the shed and went to the floor above.
Cross-examined by Mr. Purcell. I went to keep observation to flee who used the shed in consequence of certain information. There was, a new flap in the loft, but it had never been fixed. I found on Murphy the slip produced, "Give bearer your team and orders and return to yard, important." He then said, "That's done it." He had a sample on him of some of the stuff that was in the bales.
Sergeant GEORGE JORDAN, H. I saw Nathan arrive at the shed. He unlocked the padlock and went in. I looked in and saw 12 bales of drapery on the floor. He then hurried away up a sort of step ladder leading to the other floor.
Detective GEORGE HAY, H. I saw Nathan at this shed. He said to me, "You cannot do me for receiving, you cannot show I have paid for it. I have a good character." I said to Murphy, "What are you doing here? " or "What is your business? " He said, "What is that to do with you? " I said, "I am a police officer and want to know your business." He then tried to rush out.
Mr. Purcell submitted that there was no case, the goods never having been out of the possession of the owner. (Cited R. v. Schmidt L.R., 1 C.C.R. p. 15.) Judge Rentoul upheld the objection and, on his direction, the jury returned a formal verdict of Not guilty in regard to the three prisoners.
Verdict, Not guilty.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Thursday, October 19.)
Mr. Horace Samuel prosecuted; Mr. G. St. John McDonald defended.
ALICE MACINTYRE , 182, Church Road, Teddington. Prisoner has served me with greengrocery for years; two or three years ago I lent him a little money and since then he has avoided me. On the night of September 21 I went to the "Willoughby Arms" public-house in Church Road, and bought a bottle of beer; outside I saw prisoner with some other people; prisoner thanked me for lending him the money. I said that was all right and walked towards my home. Prisoner followed me and again spoke about the money; as I saw he had had too much to drink I walked on. I came to my house and entered the garden, when the prisoner knocked me down and said, "I mean having something out of you." I screamed and said, "Oh, Mr. Newman, what are you doing this for after thanking me twice to-night? " He said, "That is all past." I said, "Mr. Newman, there is somebody coming." He snatched away my bag, which contained a half-crown, a florin, and a handkerchief, and ran away.
Cross-examined. At the police court I said nothing about my saying to the prisoner, "Oh, Mr. Newman, what are you doing this for after thanking me twice to-night." Nobody has since suggested those words to me. I am sure it was prisoner who assaulted me. I was not in the habit of calling him "Mr. Newman."
Detective-sergeant WOOLLETT, T Division. At 10.15 on September 22, in company with Sergeant Laing, I arrested prisoner. I said, "We are police officers; is your name T. Newman? " He replied "No." I said, "What is it? " After some hesitation he said, "James Newman." I then said, "I shall arrest you for stealing a handbag and contents and money in Church Road last night." He said, "What, not me; you have made a mistake, for I ain't got a penny on me." On the way to the station he said, "I know I was drunk last night, but thieving—no." When passing the "Willoughby public-house on the way to the station he said to one of three women who were standing there, "Mrs. Jackson, I am taken for sneaking a purse in Church Road. What time was it I was here with you? " She said, "Why, at about a quarter to 11." He said, "That is right; you be my witness that I was here at that time."
Sergeant LAING, 92 T Division, corroborated. At 5.30 p.m. on September 22 I examined the garden of prosecutrix's house; I found evidence of a struggle having taken place, the footmarks of a man and a woman, and a mark as if somebody had fallen down. They were too blurred to be of any use for identification purposes.
GEORGE COTTRELL , barman at the "Red Lion, " Stanley Road, Teddington. I know the prisoner by sight. At a quarter to 10 on September 21 I was serving in the bar of the "Red Lion"; prisoner did not come in.
loughby Arms" and stayed there a quarter of an hour. He spoke to a woman.
Cross-examined. I only saw the back of the woman and cannot identify her.
Mrs. ANNIE JOHNSON. I was called by the prosecution to give evidence in this case; I gave a statement to the police. On Thursday, September 21, at 10 p.m., I saw prisoner at the "Willoughby Arms"; we had a drink and then I went part of the way home, but met my sister and came back again. Prisoner was still there and was talking to a woman whom I cannot identify. That is true. It was 10.30 p.m. when I saw him talking to the woman. I went away for 25 minutes, and when I returned the woman had gone, but prisoner was still there and did not leave till 10.45, when he went home.
JAMES NEWMAN (prisoner, on oath). On September 21 I was the worse for drink. In the evening I remember being at the "Willoughby" and seeing the women who have given evidence, but I do not remember seeing Mrs. MacIntyre. The depositions say that I said I was at the "Red Lion"; if I did say that it was a mistake. I neither assaulted nor robbed Mrs. MacIntyre.
Prisoner was stated to have been sentenced seven years ago to three months' hard labour for assaulting his wife, but otherwise was a hardworking man, who had given way to drink.
(October 25.) Prisoner was released on his own recognisances in ₤10 to come up for judgment if called upon.
Verdict, Turnpenny, Guilty; Baxter, Not guilty.
Sentence (Turnpenny), Ten days' imprisonment.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Friday, October 20.)
RAPER, Walter (52, publisher), and SQUIRE, Thomas George (45, traveller) , both conspiring together and with others unknown by false pretences to obtain from such liege subjects of our Lord the King as should thereafter be induced to pay to them sums of money by way of payment for renewal of advertisements divers large sums of their moneys and to cheat and defraud them thereof; conspiring to defraud William Bagshaw Marchington and A. C. Wells and Company, the Thames Steam Tug and Lighterage Company, Limited, and William Whetpen and Samuel Jones and Company: both obtaining by false pretences from Alfred Herbert Hayes ₤1 5s., and from William Whitpen 4s., in each case with intent to defraud; Raper obtaining by false pretences from William Bagshaw Marchington ₤3 6s. 6d., from Charles Lowe 5s., from William Burch Hookham 10s., and from Frances Clark 5s., in each case with intent to defraud.
Mr. Travers Humphreys, Mr. Rowsell, and Mr. Roome prosecuted; Mr. Symmons and Mr. Montague Shearman, jun., defended Raper.
Mr. Symmons submitted that counts 2, 3, and 4 should be quashed on the ground that there had been no committal on those counts and no leave of the Court obtained to add them. (22 and 23 Vic., c. 17; Archbold, 24th edit., p. 93; R. v. Bradlaugh (15 Cox, 156); R. v. Clarke, 59 J.P., 248.)
Judge Rentoul directed the application to be made at a later stage of the case.
FRANK HENRY PEARSON , 3, Whitefriars Gate, Hull, consulting engineer and naval architect, in practice for 11 years. I have for two years inserted an advertisement in the "Shipping Trades' Index." On July 18, 1910, I paid 25s. by cheque to Cruse and Co.; Cruse was the canvasser. On March 29, 1911, Squire brought my previous order and asked if I wanted it reinserted and if I wished any correction made. I made some corrections in red ink and handed it back to him. Squires said Cruse had left the company's service. What he produced was Exhibit 51—my previous advertisement stuck on to a paper headed "Shipping Industries." I thought I was dealing with a representative of "Shipping Trades' Index." I subsequently found that Squire represented the Harrison Advertising Company, to whom I wrote, requesting repayment of the money. I received reply signed, "W. Raper, Managing Director, " enclosing a notice and stating that the advertisement was obtained for "Shipping Industries." I replied stated that Squire had led me to understand he represented the "Shipping Trades' Index"; that in any case I had received no copy of their publication, and as I had paid 25s. under a misapprehension I asked for the return of my money. I had no answer to that letter and have seen no copy of "Shipping Industries."
Cross-examined by Mr. Symmons. I think Squire said about Cruse, "He is not in our employ." Order (produced) signed by me does not bear the name "Shipping Trades' Index." The receipt given me is in the name of "Harrison's Advertising Company Shipping Industries." In correcting the advertisement I did not notice the heading "Shipping Industries, " which was on the paper. I did not write to protest until I was advised by the "Shipping Index" that I had made a mistake when Cruse called for the subscription. I gave Squire a cheque payable to Harrison's Advertising Company. I may have said to Squire, "Shall I make it payable to 'Shipping Industries' or to you personally? " I did not know whether I was subscribing for the publication of 1911 or 1912.
JAMES WILLIAM SOPWITH , 23, Alpha Place, North Shields, cashier to Thomas and Co., North Shields, shipping ironmongers and manufacturers. My firm had advertised for 15 years in the "Shipping Trades' Index." In October, 1911, Squire called on me and said he had called for a renewal of our advertisements in the "Shipping
Trades' Index."I asked what had become of Mr. Cruse, who had called upon us for so many years. He said, "I do not know—he is not now with us" or "with the firm." I brought out copy of the "Shipping Trades' Index" for 1910 and said we had not received the copy for 1911. He expressed surprise at our not having received a copy for the current year and said we should have it. I then renewed the advertisement and paid him ₤3 10s., believing I was advertising in the "Index."(To the Judge.) I was renewing the advertisement; I should not have advertised in a new publication without referring to my principals.
To Mr. Symmons. I said at the police court I was not certain Squire did not show me a document headed "Shipping Industries"—I am certain now. Document (produced) headed "Shipping Industries" may have been what he showed me.
FRANCIS HUGH RICHMOND , clerk in Companies' Registration Office, Somerset House. I produce file of Harrison's Publishing Company, registered July 9, 1897; capital ₤5, 000; directors in 1901, Walter Raper and Richard Condy; dissolved May 24, 1910. The City of London Publishing Company was registered March 27, 1907; capital ₤10, 000, in ₤1 shares; among the signatories are Charles Thomas Wilding and Horace Walter Raper; wound up by extraordinary resolution on October 9, 1909. The City of London Publishing and Advertising Company was registered April 7, 1910; capital ₤2, 000, in ₤1 shares; directors on November 14, 1910, Walter Raper and William Richardson. I have no return showing an allotment of shares. On October 27, 1910, there is an extraordinary resolution to change the name to the Harris Publishing and Advertising Company, confirmed November 7, 1910. On November 18, 1910, there was a resolution to change the name again to Harrison's Advertising Company, which was confirmed on December 3, 1910.
JOHN GEORGE HAMMOND , managing director of J. G. Hammond and Co., Limited, Midland Works, Birmingham, and 32 to 36, Fleet Lane, Old Bailey, E.C., printing contractors. From about 18 years ago I have printed the "Commercial Directory"—since 1907 for the City of London Publishing Company, Limited; I also printed for that company three other directories and diaries; Raper was managing director of that company. The company got into arrears and in 1909 owed about ₤1, 000, for which I held debentures of the company for ₤500. On September 9, 1909, I was appointed receiver for the Debenture holders and I employed Raper to act as manager under agreement of January 27, 1910. I afterwards issued writ (produced) in an action by me and my company against Raper and obtained order that he should deliver up to me all books, etc., belonging to the company and an injunction not to deal with them and to deliver to me all moneys received. Defendant handed to me a portion of the counterfoils of the orders but none of the books. On June 2, 1910, a further order was obtained from the court under which some further documents were handed to me. On June 28, 1910, Raper admitted breach of the injunction and a further interim order was made, and on Octo
ber 28 the action was stayed upon terms of order (produced). Raper was discharged by me in May, 1910, from which date he had no authority to collect subscriptions or renewals of advertisements for the "Commercial Directory" or "Shipping Trades' Index"; he handed me no moneys so collected. Squire was never in my employ as receiver and manager and had no authority to represent me.
(Monday, October 23.)
JOHN GEORGE HAMMOND , recalled, cross-examined by Mr. Symmons. I have known Raper a number of years as carrying on the business of publishing directories. I have printed those directories for him for 18 years. The turnover has been about ₤700 a year, and after the 18 years the total debt is about ₤1, 000. I object to his publishing anything that is a colourable imitation of what he gave to us as security for our money. Raper was not sent to prison by me; he was committed by the High Court for disobedience to their order not to interfere with the business of the company. When I am asked, I shall submit an account to whoever is legally entitled to ask for it. Through Raper's interference I am another ₤500 worse off now. It has cost more to produce the publications of the company since he has been carrying on this persecution against the company and its customers. While with us, Raper in 1910 started a company called the City of London Publishing and Advertising Company. That was to my knowledge. In my absence he altered the title page and the 1910 "Shipping Index" was published in the name of that company. I regret to find that through an oversight the 1911 edition was also published under that name; we omitted to delete the words "and Advertising." When we discovered it we had slips printed and pasted over with the proper name, the City of London Publishing Company. It could not have been done to take custom away from us, as it was on our book that it was put. We do not want to keep him out of the directory business altogether—only out of such directories as he assigned to us as security for our money and which would be rivals of our publications or any directory connected with shipping or any commercial directory or any brewers' diary or any hotel guide. Although under different names, they would be an interference with our business. This prosecution was brought because he was robbing our customers and they appealed to us to defend them from him. He was obtaining money from them by false pretences. If you like to put it so, it was also to stop trade rivalry, but I would not bring a criminal prosecution against any man in order to protect my business. When he was in prison I wrote him offering terms, and if he accepted them I said I would facilitate his release, but I could not keep him there any longer than the judge considered right. It was addressed to Walter Raper, Brixton Prison. The "Mr." was left out purely by a clerical error, and I wrote apologising for it.
Re-examined. Defendant was represented in the High Court proceedings by solicitors and so were we, and he was committed, after being heard, for contempt of the order "to restrain from interfering
in any way with the business of the City of London Publishing Company, Limited, or with any of their employes." I saw his solicitors before I wrote the letter to him in Brixton Prison. He made an application for release, which I did not oppose, and he was released by the judge at the end of the month.
WILLIAM BAGSHAW MARCHINGTON , manager, A. C. Wells and Co., St. Pancras, engineers. Our firm has advertised in the "Shipping Index" for about 15 years. I used to see the gentleman who called for the advertisement. Last December a person called whom I was not accustomed to see, and produced the "Shipping Trades' Index" and a book of counterfoils showing an order form signed by our firm. I gave him an order, but refused payment. I have ascertained since that his name was Moules.
Mr. Symmons submitted that there was no evidence to show that Moules was sent by Raper, and also no evidence of conspiracy.
Mr. Travers Humphreys intimated that he had other witnesses as to conspiracy, and leave was given to interpose them, and recall thiswitness, if necessary.
CHARLES LOWE , cashier to H. B. Sedgwick and Co., 31, Lombard Street, insurance brokers. For some years our firm have advertised in the "Commercial Directory." On January 3, 1910, I renewed the order. I do not know the name of the person who used to call for the advertisement. It was not always the same person. I understood that Mr. Hammond had to do with the publication. In December, 1910, Raper called and asked for five shillings for the "Commercial Directory, " which I paid him. He produced a counterfoil order, which I had previously signed. He gave me receipt produced (Exhibit 45). I noticed it bore "Harrison's Directory" and not "Commercial Directory." I said, "We have never advertised before in Harrison's and I understood it was the Commercial he had come up for." He said that Harrison's and the Commercial were practically one and the same, and that Harrison's had taken over the "Commercial Directory." I believed that statement.
Cross-examined. I knew it as the "Commercial Directory" and did not attach much importance to the name of the publisher. When I saw the word "Harrison's" it made me think it was not the directory we were in the habit of advertising in. I know now that the counterfoil he showed me could not have been the previous year's order that I signed. I was under the impression that that was the one he showed me. We advertise in a good many directories, and it must have been some other counterfoil I was shown. I attached very little importance to the matter. When I paid the 5s. I knew by the receipt that I was paying for an advertisement in "Harrison's Directory." He presented me with one of the almanacks produced. There is nothing about Hammond and Co. on it. It was the "Commercial Directory" I troubled about, not who published it. If "Harrison's Directory" had come out with as large a circulation and a number of professional men advertising in it it would have been just as good for our purposes.
Re-examined. Whether as valuable or not I have never seen a copy of "Harrison's Directory." I am quite sure Raper told me that Harrison's had taken over the "Commercial Directory." Document row produced to me and marked Exhibit 66 is the counterfoil of the receipt (Exhibit 45). The name of Harrison is not on it. It is the order signed by me, "Please insert our trade advertisement in your next issue."
WILLIAM BIRCH HOOKHAM , manager to R. Scully and Co., Banner Street, St. Luke's, moulding manufacturers. My firm has been accustomed to insert advertisements in the "Commercial Directory." In 1910 a canvasser called about "Harrison's Directory, " but as he had not got the previous year's order I told him to go. On December 20, 1910, Raper called, asked for an advertisement in the "Commercial Directory" and showed me a counterfoil (produced) with my firm's name on it in my writing; he said nothing about "Harrison's Directory" and I knew nothing about it. I repeated the order, meaning to advertise in the same periodical as I had advertised in before, and gave him 10s., for which he gave receipt (produced). That receipt was filed by the clerk and I never saw it.
To Mr. Symmons. If I had read the receipt he gave me I could have seen it was "Harrison's Directory."
ALFRED HERBERT HAYES , cashier to Thames Steam Tug and Lighterage Company, 24 and 25, Great Tower Street. For some years my firm has advertised in the "Shipping Trades' Index." In the beginning of 1911 a canvasser called upon us and produced a form headed "Shipping Industries, " with our advertisement in it.
Mr. Symmons objected to this evidence.
Mr. Travers Humphreys submitted that this canvasser was one of the "persons unknown" charged in the indictment, pursuing the same modus operandi as the prisoners; therefore his statement was evidence.
Judge Rentoul decided to exclude the evidence.
Examination continued. This canvasser called again; then Squire called; I told him that the other canvasser had called, whose statement was not satisfactory. Squire produced the previous year's counterfoil with a print of the advertisement, and on April 23 I paid him 25s. for an advertisement in the "Shipping Trades' Directory, " for which he gave me receipt (produced).
To Mr. Symmons. Squire showed me a document (produced) which had "Shipping Industries" quite plainly printed on it. (To Squire.) I do not connect Squire in any way with the first canvasser. I do not know Raper.
Sergeant GEORGE COLE, E Division, Bow Street, gave evidence of the service of summons.
To Mr. Symmons. Both prisoners have never had a criminal charge made against them.
(Tuesday, October 24.)
Mr. Travers Humphreys stated that the defendant Raper having undertaken not to publish or be connected with the publication of any directory connected with the shipping trade or any directory which is a colourable imitation of the prosecutors', he was prepared to accept that defence; and that, if that undertaking had been given at the commencement of the case, he should have offered no evidence. The prosecutor desired to accept the defendant's undertaking as an honourable man and would, in respect of the moneys paid to Raper, give advertisements in the publications in which the advertisements were intended to appear.
The Jury then returned a verdict of Not guilty in respect of both prisoners.
BEFORE JUDGE LUMLEY SMITH.
(Monday, October 23.)
COOPER, Elizabeth (39, ironer), EVANS, Amelia (26, ironer), ROBERTS, Florence (22, cashier), BULLOCK, James (69, dealer), and BULLOCK, Jane (59, boxmaker); Cooper, Evans and Roberts stealing 13 chemises and other articles, the goods of Selfridge and Company, Limited ; Cooper, Evans and Roberts stealing five table covers and other articles, the goods of William Whiteley, Limited ; Cooper, Evans and Roberts, stealing one skirt, the goods of Derry and Toms ; James Bullock and Jane Bullock feloniously receiving the said goods, in each case well knowing them to have been stolen.
Mr. Curtis Bennett prosecuted; Mr. Purcell defended James Bullock.
All the prisoners pleaded guilty with the exception of James Bullock.
Mr. Curtis Bennett in his opening told the jury that they need only concern themselves with the question whether James Bullock in fact received the property knowing it to have been stolen.
Detective ALFRED PEARCE, Scotland Yard. On September 13 I was with other officers keeping observation upon Cooper and Evans. Among other places they went to Messrs. Bourne and Hollingsworth's, drapers, Oxford Street. On September 15 we followed Cooper, Evans, and Roberts down to Stratford, where they entered two or three drapers' shops; they returned westwards, and eventually went into Messrs. Selfridge's, in Oxford Street. On leaving Selfridge's Cooper appeared to be very bulky round the waist; the three went to the "Horseshoe"; on leaving the "Horseshoe" Cooper was thinner round the waist and Evans was carrying a brown paper parcel which she had not had before. The latter two women went by bus to Islington and entered 44, Queen's Head Street, the address at which James and Jane Bullock lived. James entered three minutes afterwards. Ten minutes later Cooper and Evans came out, without the parcel. On September 18 Cooper and Evans and Roberts were followed to a
number of drapers' shops, among others Whiteley's, in Bayswater, and Derry and Toms, Kensington; leaving those places they were stout; they went into a public house and on leaving were thin again, Roberts carrying a bag and a parcel on her arm. We followed them to 6, Queen's Head Street, the address of Cooper; later, Cooper and Evans went to No. 44. I and other officers entered No. 44. I saw Jane Bullock and Evans in a room there; Roberts came in later. In that room we found on a table the articles produced, including a number of articles of female clothing, a child's frock, etc. James Bullock presently came in. (Witness detailed the conversation between Goodwillie and James Bullock, for which see Goodwillie's evidence.)
Mr. Curtis Bennett proposed to examine the witness with the view of showing that in prisoner's room there was other property stolen within twelve months.
Mr. Purcell submitted that this evidence was not admissible (Prevention of Crimea Act, 1871, s. 19). The question in this case was whether the property referred to in the indictment was in prisoner's possession. The evidence proposed to be given could have no reference to the question whether the prisoner had guilty knowledge in regard to the goods referred to in the indictment.
Judge Rentoul: If the property is in his house, that is some evidence that it is in his possession.
Mr. Purcell: No. (Cited R. v. Lewis, 4 Cr. App. R., p. 96). There must be something more than the mere finding of the stolen property in the house; there must be some evidence that the alleged receiver knew that it was there.
Judge Rentoul, without saying that there was nothing in the objection, decided to admit the evidence.
Examination continued. When I went into the room I saw Cooper, Evans, and Jane Bullock, and besides Selfridge's property I also found a quantity of other property. This silk skirt, which has been identified as Derry and Toms's, was on the table. On September 18, when I was watching Cooper, Evans, and Roberts, none of them went anywhere near Selfridge's.
Cross-examined. The property on the table at the house was in one bundle, uncovered. I could not say whether it bad been examined or not. I did not see any brown paper covering. When I say that James Bullock came into the house, I think he knocked at the door and one of the police officers let him in. No conversation in my presence took place and I did not see Bullock hand Sergeant Goodwillie his pocketbook and another book. Bullock never had any actual possession of the stolen articles.
Detective-sergeant GOODWILLIE, Scotland Yard. About 4 p.m. on September 18 I was with Inspector Divall at the "Angel" publichouse, Islington, and saw Cooper, Evans, and Roberts enter 44, Queen's Head Street. They were not carrying anything. Before that I had seen another woman come from 6, Queen's Head Street (Cooper's address), with a bundle. I then saw James Bullock enter the house. I went to the house and found Jane Bullock sitting on a sofa; the other two women were there in the room. I saw the property identified as Selfridge's on the sofa, loose. On the table was other property, the curtains and silk underskirt. James Bullock came into the room shortly afterwards. I said to him. "We are police officers, I under stand you are the occupier of this house." He said "Yes." I then said, pointing to the articles belonging to Whiteley's and Derry and
Toms's, "This property has been found in your house, and I have every reason to believe it has been stolen; how do you account for the possession of it? " Bullock said, "I know nothing about it, my game is dealing with 'jargoons'" ("dud, " or spurious, jewellery). Mrs. Bullock said, "I am more responsible than him, these two women brought it here." The prisoners were taken to the station and searched. On James Bullock was found this ticket, which refers to a dress identified as Bourne and Hollingsworth's, which had been stolen. He said, "That was on the table, " pointing to the table immediately in front of him at the station. It had not been on the table until it was produced from his pocket. I heard Divall say to James Bullock, "Where did you get these goods? " He replied, "I did not know about it, I went out this morning at 8.30 to Hann Gardens." He was asked, "Whom did you see? " He said, "No one, I came straight home." Prisoner when charged made no reply.
Cross-examined. When James Bullock came in and I had spoken to him, he placed a pocket-book and another book on the table at his house. There was only one table in the room. These curtains and dress were on it just as they are now. There was nothing else on the table that I am aware of. There might have been a flower stand and the usual table decorations, but no other property. I did not noticeany envelopes. He asked, I believe, to go to his bedroom to relieve himself, and was allowed to go. An officer went with him. He asked to have his tobacco. He picked it up and his pocket-book and put them in his pocket. When at the police station he went to the watercloset, before he was searched. When he came back he produced the books. The officer who searched him handed me the ticket. He did not say, "That is not my ticket, I picked it up from the table." I do not think I told the magistrate that he did say that. If I did I made a mistake. Prisoner asked me at the court, "Was not that ticket on the table? " or something like that.
Re-examined. Prisoner said the ticket was on the table. He denied from the beginning that it was his. The ticket certainly was not on the table. I did not see it until it was produced at the station in prisoner's possession.
FREDERICK CHARLES DRAPER , superintendent to. Perry and Toms. I identify this property as my firm's, value 18s. 11d. On September 18 I first missed them. On that day I had seen Cooper and Evans at our shop. Our flimsey is on the goods; they had been sold but not delivered. They were placed in a recess.
Sergeant FRANK FAIRHALL, 43 F. On September 18 I was at Notting Hill Police Station when James Bullock was brought in. I searched hint and found this ticket (Exhibit 1) in his inside jacket pocket.
Cross-examined. At the search prisoner produced from his pockets his pocket-book and tobacco pouch and a pawnticket. He was asked if that was all he had; he said "Yes." This ticket was then brought out and he said he picked it up off the table.
WILLIAM BROWN , manager to Bourne and Hollingsworth. This ticket (Exhibit 1) is my firm's property; it was attached to a gown in our costume department, of the value of ₤5 19s. 6d. The police drew my attention to the ticket and then the dress was missed. If the dress had been sold the assistant who sold it would have put his number on the ticket. There is no such number on it.
Cross-examined. I know nothing of these figures on the ticket. The letters "M. D." indicate the department; there is nothing to indicate any date.
ALICE SACHER , saleswoman to Bourne and Hollingsworth. I had in my charge the velveteen cloth dress to which this ticket refers. The last date I saw it was August 28, and it was not missed till the police drew attention to it. This dress was not sold. I have seen Cooper and Evans in the shop.
EDWARD STEPHEN LAWRENCE , certified bailiff, rent collector to George Pearce and Sons, agents for 44, Queen's Head Street. I let that house to James Bullock on July 24, 1911, at ₤1 1s. a week. He had the whole house.
Cross-examined. The rent was paid by the woman described as Mrs. Bullock, with the exception of the last two weeks, when the lodger paid on behalf of the prisoner.
James Bullock's statement before the Magistrate: "I plead not guilty and reserve my defence."
JAMES BULLOCK (prisoner, on oath). I took the house from the last witness in July last. I lived there with the woman who passes as Mrs. Bullock. I got my living by selling cheap jewellery. Mrs. Bullock was a wardrobe dealer. She had nothing to do with my business nor I with her's. I went out every morning. The officers say they watched the house three days before the 18th and saw me enter it two or three minutes after the women who have pleaded guilty entered it, but I do not remember seeing the women. When the police pointed out the stolen property on the table I knew nothing of it. I produced the pocket-book and other things from my pocket when asked and they were placed on the table. Afterwards I asked if I could have my tobacco and I picked up my two pocket-books and tobacco from the table and put them in my pockets. When I was searched and the ticket found on me I said, "I cannot account for this; this must have been picked up from the table in my room. It is not my ticket at all."
Cross-examined. I dispute that I entered the house upon the 15th, two or three minutes after Cooper and Evans had entered. I do not know when they went in. I think Evans did say to Sergeant Goodwillie after he had asked me "How do you account for possession of it? " meaning the property, "For God's sake don't take old Jim,
he is a good sort; I shall answer for it all, but please don't take him." I am 69 years old. I told the police, "This is all foreign to me, I know nothing whatever about it. My wife kept some secondhand clothes in stock."
Sergeant GOODWILLIE, recalled. I found no other property there except these in the case and their own personal belongings.
The jury disagreed. The five prisoners were put back till next Sessions; bail refused.
LEWENSTEIN, Lewis (37, merchant) , incurring certain debts and liabilities to Zalkind Stalbow to the several amounts of ₤63 9s. 8d. and ₤34 16s. 3d., to Szaya Brotmacher to the several amounts of ₤30 19s. 7d. and ₤45, to William Woolf to the amount of ₤50, to Abraham Levy to the amount of ₤35 12s. 2d., to Max Palast to the amount of ₤35 9s. 1 ½d., and to Morris Haltrecht to the amount of ₤8 6s. 1 ½d., unlawfully did obtain credit from the said several persons to the said amounts under false pretences and by means of fraud other than false pretences.
Mr. Purcell prosecuted; Mr. Huntly Jenkins defended.
ZALKIND STALBOW , lace merchant, 40, Middlesex Street. On June 19 prisoner called upon me. I had had very small dealings with him before. He asked me for a class of goods he had never bought before; very expensive embroidery, for children's skirtings and ladies' robes, as he had a special order to manufacture that sort of stuff. He said it was a big order. I showed him some embroidery goods, about twenty times as good as he had had before, from 8d. to 2s. a yard. What he had had before averaged 3s. to 4s. per gross yards. He. selected goods worth ₤63 9s. 8d. He then owed me ₤36. He said he had a special order which would not take him long to make and get the money for, and he offered two bills of about a month or six weeks. He came again on the 21st and asked me to send the goods immediately, which I did. The bills were dishonoured and I never got my money. On June 30 I saw him again; he asked me for some more goods of the same class. I asked him what he had done with the others. He told me he had worked them up and sent them out. I asked him to pay cash as he had not paid for the last. He made no answer and I refused to supply any more, except for cash. On July 17 I went to his premises, 8 and 9, Aldgate Chambers, at 3 o'clock, and found them shut. He called on me the next day and asked me what I had called on him for. I said, "What is the matter with you? " He gave me no definite reply. I said, "What have you done with such a big stock, much larger than usual? " He said, "Surely you don't take me for such a fool I should tell you where I have them." I asked him also, "Can you tell me who are the other people you have obtained goods from? I should like to know." He promised to give me a list of them the same day, but I saw no more of him till the police court proceedings. I have never had a penny of my money. I believed at the time I parted with my goods he had a shipping order for South Africa. I believed that he intended to pay me.
Cross-examined. I am one of those who have subscribed to prosecute this man. I charged him because I thought he had defrauded me. I have known prisoner for about a year. I have had 11 transactions with him this year, about ₤4 or ₤5 each. I had several last year. They were cheap goods for shipping. He usually asked for 2 ½ or three months' credit. He gave me a bill for ₤25 13s., but I do not remember if it was February 20. That bill was met. We do not give any discount in our trade. With the exception of the last three transactions the accused has always paid his debts. On July 20 I received a letter from his solicitors asking for a statement of his account.
Re-examined. He gave me no information as to where he had taken the stuff.
SZAYA BROTMACHER , embroidery dealer, 1, Aldgate Avenue. On June 15 prisoner called upon me and said he had a special order from South Africa for robes to be made up and he bought ₤30 worth of high-class goods. He gave me a bill. He came again on June 27 and said he had repeat orders for the same goods. He selected goods worth ₤45 and gave me a cheque, dated July 15, for ₤20 7s. and a bill for ₤25, due in September. The cheque was not met and on July 15 I went to see him. I asked him why the cheque had been returned; he told me to present it again on the Monday and it would be paid. It was not paid. I went again to see him on that Monday and found the place locked up; he had gone. I had had dealings with him before on a very small scale; ₤8 was the biggest amount. On July 17 I joined a body of his creditors and on July 21 received a letter from his solicitors. We had put the matter in the hands of our solicitors on July 20.
Cross-examined. When he gave me the post-dated cheque I thought he would meet it. I had had a few transactions with him and found him trustworthy up to this time, but they were for very small amounts. The last two transactions were for a different class of goods to those he had had before.
WILLIAM WOOLF , embroidery merchant, 59, High Street, Whitechapel. On June 27 prisoner came to me. I had never seen him before. He said, "I can do with some raw stuff; I have a very big order for South Africa. I have sent a son to South Africa; I can do with some embroidery." On the table there was a lot of embroidery. I told him the price. He said, "All right, I will have it." At all the prices I mentioned he said he would take it; he never offered me less. That was unusual. He selected goods worth ₤50. I said to him, "What about cash? " He said, "I take everywhere two months, but as you are the first transaction I am taking only one month." I said, "I want some cash." He said, "I am sorry I cannot give you cash, because it will take me two weeks to make the goods; I will give you a reference to the London and South-Western Bank and two more references." I said I would make inquiries and let him know. I made inquiries, but I was not very satisfied with the references. On June 28 I sent him the goods he had selected and agreed to give him a month's credit. He gave me a bill for ₤50 at
one month. When it became due it was dishonoured. On July 16 I met him and said, "What are you doing now? " He said, "I am very busy now; I have plenty of cash; I can do with some more of your goods." I said I had not got it at present. I had had information that he was going wrong. I have never been paid. When he ordered the goods I thought he intended to pay and I believed his story about the special big order.
Cross-examined. I know when a person orders goods from me and they have an order to fulfil, they do not get their money till they have made the goods. He told me in two weeks he would have them made and would give me the money. I did not execute the order till I had made inquiries. The people told me the man was a very small buyer, but at that time he told everybody he had orders for South Africa.
Re-examined. Prisoner only gave me the names of two people as references and one was Mr. Brotmacher.
ABRAHAM LEVY , A. Levy and Co., Manchester warehousemen, 46, Commercial Street, E. On June 8 prisoner came to me. I had seen him before, but had not served him. He said he wanted some cheap stuff and I showed him some. He said he wanted something better. I said, "Is not that a rather high price for shipping purposes? " He said it was for a special order. I let him have goods value ₤27 6s. He came again on June 20 and bought calico worth ₤16 3s. He came again on June 27 and bought more goods worth ₤35 12s. 2d. He wanted them delivered before July 10, so as to give him time to make them up before the season closed for South Africa. I said, "Can you do with so much in such a short time—can you place it all? " He said, "Oh yes, I can deliver them as fast as I make them if you can only deliver them to me; I have an open market for them; I have people to take them up for me in South Africa; as quick as they are made they will take them from me. There is no question of that, but you must deliver before July 10." fie gave me ah acceptance for July 8, which was dishonoured. I have never been paid for any of the goods he had. I let him have the goods, believing his statement that he was a manufacturer and had an open market for cheap stuff and that he intended to pay for them. He came again on July 4 for more goods, but I said I had not any at his price. He saw a parcel there and asked what it was. I said, "Calicoes, but it is above your price." He said, "Oh, never mind; I must have a few pieces of calico to-day, " and he selected goods worth ₤17 is. 8d.; but I did not send them.
Cross-examined. It is common in business to give bills, but a man knows whether he will be able to meet them some little time before. I had one reference from the accused.
Re-examined. He gave as a reference Mr. Rous, of Bethnal Green. He is one of the creditors now.
MAX PALAST , A. Palast and Co., 151, Minories, embroidery and trimming importers. Shortly before June 16 I saw prisoner. He said he had had a big shipping order for South Africa and wanted a lot of embroidery. I showed him some and he selected goods worth
₤47 5s. He arranged to pay by bills, one in 20 days and another in 35 days. I agreed to that, believing his statement that he had a big order. I believed he intended to pay me. The first bill was dishonoured and the second was due after his closing up. I have never had any money for my goods.
Cross-examined. The transactions were on account of my father, but I am his partner. I was there when the goods were sold.
Re-examined. When this case was before the magistrate my father was in Germany. I heard all that took place between my father and prisoner.
MORRIS HALTRECHT , Manchester, warehouseman, 143, Brick Lane, E. On July 11 I called on prisoner at his place of business, 8 and 9, Aldgate East Chambers, to remind him about two bills relating to a past transaction. He asked me if I had any longcloths for shirts to offer him to send to South Africa, a shipping order. I showed him a sample I had with me and he gave an order for ₤8 6s. 1 ½d. worth. He took all I had of it. He said he would pay me cash on delivery. I took him the goods, but he did not pay for them, and told me to call the following morning; he wanted to check them first, he was too busy to do so then. I called the next morning, but he has had not been to check them and asked me to come again. He came to me on the 13th and he promised to send a cheque that night. He asked to see samples of more goods, saying he had a big shipping order for South Africa. He took away samples worth ₤1 4s. 2d., which I never got back nor had the money for. He told me to come on the following Monday, which I did, and found the premises closed. I believed his statements, otherwise I would not have trusted him with the goods.
Re-examined. I cannot say that he did not have an order for South Africa. I have known him for about four years. I have sold him altogether ₤275 worth of goods for which I received cash. He has hitherto met his obligations. I did not tell the solicitor in the case to apply for a warrant.
Re-examined. The total of the goods supplied which have not been paid for is ₤80 19s. 10₤d. The two bills I went to prisoner to inquire about have never been met.
EDWIN BELL , estate agent, Aldgate East Chambers. On July 16, Sunday afternoon, from information received, I went to Aldgate East Chambers and found a van there, loaded with sewing machines, just leaving the premises. Prisoner occupied premises on the second floor. His rent was in arrear. I jumped on the van and they sent for prisoner. He then paid me part of the money owing. I asked him what he meant by going away without paying the rent. He said he was in money trouble. I asked him the necessity of this moving; did he expect the sheriffs after him. He said he had lost a lot of money and could not pay his creditors.
Cross-examined. He seemed much upset that he could not pay his creditors. He had been at my premises two years and always paid his rent of ₤77 10s., taxes, and water rate.
(Thursday, October 24.)
Cross-examined. There was nothing unusual in my taking the goods to Fruitenan's.
LILIAN JACOBS . I have worked for prisoner 19 months. On July 17 the place was shut up. The stuff produced looks better than the stuff I used to make up into garments. There were about 16 or 17 other girls at work there.
Cross-examined. There was always plenty of work right up to July 15.
JULIUS LEVINE . I am employed by Mr. Stalbow. I lodged in prisoner's house, 38, Riversdale Road, Stamford Hill, up to July 28. The prices per yard of the stuff produced range from 9d. to 2s., whereas the prices of the stuff he previously bought from Stalbow ranged from 3s. to 4s. per gross of yards.
Cross-examined. He selected special colours and would not take anything I offered him.
Cross-examined. The goods included fittings and machinery; there was no stock.
SIMON OPPENHEIM , lace dealer, 94, Brick Lane. On July 18 I was at Mr. Stalbow's place when prisoner was there. I heard Mr. Stalbow ask him what he had done with the goods he had from him in the last month and his machinery. Lewenstein replied, "You don't take me for such a fool as to tell you where I have put it."
Detective-sergeant GEORGE WESTON, H Division. I served the summons on prisoner's wife, as she told me he had gone to Paris.
Cross-examined. He appeared in due course in answer to it. I have made inquiries of different firms of good standing with whom prisoner did business, and they produced their books showing that he had done a large and bona fide business with them right up to July 15.
LEWIS LEWENSTEIN (prisoner, op oath). I carried on business as a manufacturer and warehouseman at 8 and 9, Aldgate East Chambers for two years up to July 15. I have been in business four years altogether. On May 10 I received a large order from Dent's, of Fore
Street, for goods to the value of ₤490, to be delivered on June 10. I went to various firms and bought goods to fill the order, but I could not get sufficient credit, and on June 28 Dent's sent me a letter cancelling the order. I produce the original order and the letter cancelling it. I also produce my bankers' pass-book and original orders showing my total dealings for the six months ending July, amounting to ₤2, 253 12s. 3d. As soon as I found I could not carry On business any longer I got my solicitors to send the circular-letter produced to my creditors.
Cross-examined. I sold the good I obtained to fill Dent's order, as the firms from whom I bought them would not take them back, of course, and I paid prior creditors with the money.
At this point the Jury stopped the case and returned a verdict of Not guilty.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE SCRUTTON.
(October 23 to November 1.)
Mr. Bodkin, Mr. Graham-Campbell, and Mr. Montague Shearman, junior, prosecuted; Mr. Eustace Fulton and Mr. J. L. Myers defended Butt.
In addition to the evidence given at the former trial the following witnesses were called:
EDGAR COHEN , 8, Clarges Street, W. 1 was a shareholder in the Anglo-Spanish Copper Company, Limited, and calls were made in respect thereof. I left the matter in the hands of Ashurst, Morris, Crisp and Co. I communicated with no other persons but them. I forwarded a cheque for ₤213 odd to them understanding that that was in settlement of the litigation. I have never heard of Clarke Barber.
CHARLES CRISP , solicitor, Ashurst, Morris, Crisp and Co., 17, Throgmorton Avenue, E.C. Just prior to the settlement of the action of the Anglo-Spanish Company against Cohen, Reitlinger, and the United Investment Corporation I took over the conduct of the action for the defendants. I only saw Mr. C. W. Brown, solicitor, with the reference to the settlements which were embodied in Orders of Court. On May 7 we gave this cheque (Exhibit 33) for ₤809 12s.; the cashier was instructed to draw it as an open cheque in consequence of something that had been reported to us. I never heard of Clarke Barber. The matter was carried out in the usual way between solicitors. We did not get any commission and costs back again.
Cross-examined by Hogg. I have three brothers. I have never seen you before.
At the conclusion of the case for the prosecution Hogg (who was undefended) submitted that there was no case to go to the jury against him on Counts 1, 3, 13, 14, l6, and 17, 19, and 21.
After argument, Mr. Justice Scrutton stated that he would withdraw Counts 4, 5, 6, 9, 11, 19, 20, and 21 from the jury, this leaving open for the consideration of the jury only matters with reference to the amounts of ₤800, ₤259 12s. ₤386 7s. 6d., and ₤125.
WILLIAM EDWARD TURNER PRICE (called by Hogg). I was your clerk for 14 years, during which time I carried out the chief part of the correspondence and was acquainted with a great deal of your private business. You were in the habit of keeping in your safe in London a considerable amount of gold and notes, with which you would provide persons.
Cross-examined by Mr. Bodkin. This was about four years ago at 34, Gresham Street. It was Mr. Hogg's private money I know, because it was his safe and could be nobody else's. Sometimes I used to pay his directors' fees in cash, which he would put in the safe.
Verdict, Hogg, Guilty on Counts 1, 3, and 7; Butt Guilty on Counts 10, 12, and 16; each Not guilty on the other counts. (This verdict found Hogg guilty of the charges relating to the ₤800 and the ₤125 cheques and Butt guilty to the charges relating to the deductions for "commission and costs.")
Sentences: Hogg, Twelve months imprisonment, second division, on each count, to run concurrently; Butt, Four months' imprisonment, second division, on Count 10and Eight months' imprisonment on Count 16, to run concurrently
BEFORE JUDGE LUMLEY SMITH.
(Tuesday, October 24.)
Verdict, Not guilty.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Tuesday, October 24.)
Mr. Travers Humphreys prosecuted.
slot gas meter at 72, Colebroke Road; prisoner was out, but I saw his wife; the meter showed that there should have been 6s. 6d. in the box, of which I should have returned 2d., owing to the reduction in price of gas, whereas I only found three pennies and 13 old uncurrent coins (produced). I left them in the box and reported the matter to the company.
Cross-examined. When I called prisoner's wife asked me to leave the meter until I saw prisoner, but I refused, as we have a right to examine meters at any convenient time. I did not ask for the money.
CECIL JOHN JONES , collector, Gas Light and Coke Company. In March and April I made collections from prisoner's meter and found them correct. When I called to make another colletion on June 13 according to the meter there should have been 10s. 7d., of which I should have refunded 3d. for the difference in the price; there was only 3s. 3d. in the box; I then reported the matter. On August 28 I made another collection and the money was correct.
Cross-examined. On June 13 I asked prisoner for 7s. 2d., whereas the money in the box was 7s. 4d. short; this discrepancy probably arose from my allowing 2d. for gas which had not been consumed.
WILLIAM CHORLEY , collector, Gas Light and Coke Company. On June 17 I asked prisoner at his house about the 7s. 2d. which was short; he muttered something about it being "gas without payment, " meaning that the meter had gone wrong, he then paid me the money owing. On September 27 I called and again examined his meter; I could see by the seal that it had not been touched since September 20. (To the jury.) Meters often work wrongly.
Cross-examined. When prisoner's meter was short and he paid me the debt he was in the service of the company and remained after that in the service of the company.
ARCHIBALD JOHN GREEN , senior clerk, Gas Light and Coke Com- pany. Prisoner was employed by the company from January 7, 1901, to October 15, 1904, as an assistant meter collector; from 1904 to 1906 he collected from the penny-in-the-slot meters, when he was provided with a key to open the meters. Key (produced) is not one of the keys which we supply; it has evidently been filed. From 1906 down to the time of his arrest prisoner was employed by my company as a clerk; he had no key to open meters. Prisoner would know that we have prosecuted many people for taking money out of the meters.
Prisoner's statement before the Magistrate: "When I took the money I had no intention of defrauding the company."
think there is anything wrong in that. I understood that I was the responsible custodian of the meter and the money in it.
Cross-examined. When I was collector for the company I possessed a key with which I used to open the meter; I afterwards threw that away; I knew that if I was caught borrowing money from the meter I should have been reprimanded, but I did not think it was criminal. If I had not been able to borrow money to pay back what I had borrowed from the meter the company would have been the losers.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Wednesday, October 25.)
Sentence, Six months' hard labour.
This jury also disagreed.
(Thursday, October 26.)
ARTHUR WEBBER , manager, Messrs. Bateman's, 83, Great Portland Street, W. I identify the glasses by the number which is on the bottom bar as belonging to a packet which was sent to us. I have no doubt at all in my own mind that this is the actual glass which was stolen from our shop on September 6. I was watching the whole transaction. Two gentlemen called in for a glass. I have not been able to identify them. I do not think I see either of them here.
Cross-examined by Mr. Fox-Davies. The glasses are manufactured by the Busch Optical Company. I have not been in their employ. I do not know their system of numbering. I cannot say no other pair has been manufactured with that number on. It was an error of Ellor's in the police court to call it a Zeiss glass; it is a Busch glass.
Cross-examined. For three days I took only milk. For dinner on the 6th I had a bit of scone cake. On the 7th I was a bit better and had a bit of breakfast, porridge. I had a glass of milk in the middle of the day. I do not remember what I had in the evening, but it would be nothing but cake or bread and milk. I cannot quite remember who gave me my breakfast on the 6th; I think it was the land lady's daughter. The boss gave me my scone. He also gave me my breakfast on the 7th. There are other lodgers in the house. One of them is named Ferrari. I saw him in the morning about 10 o'clock as well as in the evening on the 6th. He is here as witness. Neither the proprietor nor the landlady's daughter is here.
Cross-examined. The man who was with me has gone to Australia. I could not say if this glass was the actual one I took; it is similar.
Alberici was brought up and, the prosecution now offering no evidence, a verdict of Not guilty was entered with respect to him, and he was discharged.
Upon the indictment against Ruffino in the Gamage case the prosecution offered no evidence.
Darioli was stated to be of good character and to have been led into the crime by Ruffino. He was released on his own recognisances in ₤10 to come up for judgment if called upon and to return to Italy and not return to this country, the Italian Consul's representative having funds supplied by his friends and undertaking to see him off. Sentence on Ruffino, Three months' hard labour; recommended for expulsion under the Aliens Act.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Thursday, October 19.)
MEASURES, Robert Herbert (72, managing director) , being a director, to wit, managing director of a public company called Measures Brothers, Limited, unlawfully making, circulating, and publishing certain written statements and accounts which he then knew to be false in material particulars, with intent to deceive the shareholders of the said company, and with intent to induce divers persons to become shareholders in the said company, to wit, on January 31, 1905, a certificate of the weight and average cost price of the stock on hand on December 31, 1904; on February 1, 1905, a profit and loss account and balance-sheet for the year ending December 31, 1904; on December 31, 1905, a certificate of the weight and average cost price of the stock on hand on December 31, 1905; on January 3, 1906, a profit and loss account and balance-sheet for the year ending December 31, 1905; on December 31, 1906, a certificate of the average cost price of the stock on hand on December 31, 1906; on February 7, 1907, a profit and loss account and balance-sheet for the year ending December 31, 1906. Unlawfully making certain written statements and accounts which he then knew to be false in material particulars, with intent to deceive the shareholders of the said company, and with intent to induce divers persons to become shareholders in the said company, to wit, on December 31, 1904, a summary of summaries of the weight and average cost price of the stock on hand on that date; on December 31, 1905, the summary of summaries of the weight and average cost price of the stock on hand at that date; on December 1, 1906, stock sheet No. 137; on December 1, 1906, stock summary sheet No. 4; on December 1, 1906, stock summary sheet No. 5; on December 31, 1906, a summary of summaries of the weight and average cost price of the stock on hand on that date. Unlawfully and with intent to defraud altering and making and concurring in making false entries in certain papers and writings then belonging to the said company, to wit, on December 1, 1906, did falsely enter in stock summary sheet No. 4 the total weight on stock sheet No. 92 as 30 tons 11.2.9., instead of 11 cwt. 2.9.; on December 1, 1906, did falsely alter the total weight on stock sheet No. 137 from 9 cwt. 2.0 to 137 tons 0.0.0.; on December 1, 1906, did falsely enter in stock summary sheet No. 5 the total weight on stock sheet No. 137 as 137 tons 9.2.0., instead of 9.2.0.; on December 1, 1906, did falsely enter in stock summary sheet No. 5 total money on stock sheet No. 147 as ₤311 3s. 3d. instead of ₤117 13s. 4d.; and on December 1, 1906, did falsely enter in stock summary sheet No. 5 the total money on stock sheet No. 148 as ₤422 1s. 7d. instead of ₤147 11s. 7d.
The Attorney-General (Sir Rufus Isaacs, K.C., M.P.), Mr. Muir, Mr. Rowlatt, and Mr. Leycester prosecuted; Sir Edward Carson, K.C., M.P., Mr. C. F. Gill, K.C., and Mr. Randolph defended.
(Friday, October 20.)
WALTER DUNMORE , 23, Little Russell Street, W.C. I left Measures Brothers, Limited, last July, having been employed as foreman 29 years. I used to take my orders from Mr. Kitson, the manager, and also from prisoner. I worked at the Measures' Wharf, which had a yard; we were about three minutes from Holland Wharf. Goods were brought by boats from ships and landed at the company's premises. Sometimes they come by rail, but in both cases they would sometimes remain in stock stacked in the yard. They
would consist of joists, angle iron, etc., and would sometimes have to have work done upon them before they went out. Stock was generally taken at the end of the year; it began about the end of November The joists would be sorted out according to lengths and I and a man would count them, putting the result on a stock board. We would mark each stack with a piece of paper after it had been counted. There might be several entries of the same lengths on the same stock board. This is a specimen stock board (Exhibit 2). If we were dealing with a consignment, part of which was in the barges not landed, we would land the rest before taking stock, but if none had been landed of a consignment in the barges we should leave them there, not landing the goods until the stock-taking was over. Having sent the stock boards up, I would send a return to the office of what there was in of such goods on each barge as it was landed. This stock-taking would take about a day and there would be from 18 to 24 stock boards. At times we used to have to retake portions of the stock to find out mistakes. There was nothing more afer the stock-taking of 1906 in this way than might happen in any year. Generally the stock was very heavy; I cannot compare it with what we had at the other two wharves. The returns made of goods on the barges would be on pieces of paper and they would identify where the goods came from; they would show the number of joists and sections, but not the lengths.
Cross-examined. About 20 men were employed, and a considerable business was done. The work being done on the joists would be partially eased up when we were taking stock, but we should have to go on just the same with carrying out deliveries. Three or four men were engaged in counting at the same time, each man having a separate board. Prisoner had nothing to do with the counting. After the stock was taken the stock not yet landed would be put into the stock in the ordinary way; this could happen between November 30 and December 31.
Re-examined. It is possible that goods of the same section might not be placed all in one stack. I did not check the boards of the other men, but I would look at them and could tell by the lengths whether any stack had been missed; I should know, too, if two men had counted the same stack.
SIDNEY MAURICE CROKER . I have been a clerk to Measures Brothers, Limited, 15 years and have acquired a general knowledge of the business. On Isaac Measures retiring, prisoner was head of the firm. I have taken part in practically every stage of the stock-taking except giving the value per ton, which prisoner would generally give me, but which sometimes would be given me by Herbert Measures, his son. I have done the counting in the yard at Southwark Street. When the stock boards reach the office they are transferred to stock sheets, each of which deals with a separate section as far as possible. I have myself copied on to the stock sheets, but prisoner generally dictated in his private office from the stock boards to me. Exhibit 3 is a sample stock sheet, part of which is in my writing, probably taken
from dictation. The entries on the stock sheet are then transferred to the stock summary sheet and these are then copied into the stock summary book; this last was discontinued after 1907. Exhibit 3 is the stock sheet No. 4 for December, 1905, the total weight in which is carried into the stock summary book (Exhibit 4) and is priced out at ₤6 per ton, forming part of the total of ₤2, 095 11s. 10d. The calculations as to weight and money are checked by persons other than those who make up the sheet and the stock summary book; it should appear on the summary sheet who checked them. Before being entered into the stock summary book a summary of summaries is made and copied into the book. The first item on Exhibit 75, which is from a copy of page 27 of that book, is a summary of sheets Nos. 1 to 4, the total being ₤7, 042 10s. 5d. The totals added together show the total amount of the stock in weight and in value, and in that way on page 27 a total is obtained of ₤70, 598 3s. In addition to this there is the stock which is invoiced, but not landed, which comes into account during December each year. It is put on to a separate summary sheet, but this part of the stock-taking I have not been concerned with. On page 27 of the stock summary book, "G. to L" represent the numbers of stock sheets, but I cannot say what "V. U.9/11 " below means; I take it that the whole page is an exact copy of the summary and summaries. I see I vouch that it has been correctly copied by my initialling it at the foot. I do not know who was responsible for the summary of summaries, however. Exhibit 6 is a stock sheet for 1906, the blacklead figures running out the weight are in my writing and the checking is in Tarling's; the whole of the subtraction stun at the bottom of the sheet is in prisoner's handwriting; the "137 " is the number of the sheet Tarling checked for calculation. Exhibit 7 is stock sheet No. 71 for December, 1905; it is all in my writing except the third column and the checking of the calculations; the third column is the first thing in the stock-taking and I cannot say in whose handwriting that is. The sheet relates to joists of section 8 in. by 4 in. at Holland's wharf. The reason why in the left-hand column there are different entries of numbers of pieces of the same length is that there might be more of one stock of the section in a yard, and the entries would be made from different stock boards. The red ink figures in the second column adding up the figures in the first column are in my writing; this represents the second course that this sheet goes through in tie. stock-taking; the final column is the multiplication of the pieces by the feet. If I were dealing with an order I would require to look at the working stock book to see if we have got enough of the various lengths in to supply that order. Folio 35 of this working stock book (Exhibit 14) is not in my writing. The items in the stock summary book (Exhibit 4) relating to 1904 are not priced out in the same way as they are in 1905 and 1906; in some instances they are not described at all. I assisted the shareholders' committee in their examination of the affairs of the company and the three sheets marked "Analysis" in Exhibit 8 are made by me. On one occasion when stock-taking was going on I went to prisoner's house; I
went down twice on two parts of days; Mr. Ridley went with me on only one occasion. I have only a faint recollection of what happened, but I know it was on private business. I can remember nothing more. The stock-taking went on in the same manner at all the yards. The counting and the sending in of the stock boards would be completed in two or three days, but the stock-taking would not be over for several weeks.
Cross-examined. I should say there were about 60 or 70 clerks in the business and about 250 workmen. There were several thousands of customers and a large quantity of goods was going in and out every day. Large numbers of customers and agents went in and out every day, the most important of which prisoner would see. He also attended to the correspondence, the accounts, the tenders, and the ordering of stock. I have known him to take away work at night. The stock-taking would come as an addition to all this work. He would be frequently summoned from his private office when at work with me to interview people. He was away ill during one stock-taking, and I believe that was the occasion I and Mr. Ridley went down to see him. Prisoner took no part in the counting. On an average there would be 200 stock boards. If prisoner were called away while dictating from a stock board to me I would go on copying. As a rule there would be over 200 stock sheets, which involved a tremendous number of calculations, which were not made by prisoner but, with the checking, were done by a number of clerks. I do not know how the goods in transit were dealt with in 1905, only that they had to be added to the stock. Prisoner never suggested I should do anything wrong with the sheets. There is nothing on this stock sheet (76) as in the other stock sheets to indicate what were goods in transit, and when I entered the items I did not know what were goods in transit. It seems apparent that I must have added the numbers in the slock book (Exhibit 77) with the green rings round them after the sheet had been presented' to whoever kept the stock book, but I do not recollect how I came to do it; it is possible that having preserved a list of these in the office or amongst the sheets, I thought they should be added; I am certain I was not told by prisoner to add them. There is nothing in the summary or summaries which includes stock sheet 71 to show there had been a duplication. As to these stock sheets 52 to 64 I do not know how the duplications came about; some of them are run out by Tarling and checked by me and others are run out by me and checked by Tarling. I do not recollect what instructions he gave me about them. We have always had instructions from him to check each other's calculations. I have never known the entries from the stock boards to the sheets being checked. No suggestion was ever made to duplicate. The auditors came fairly regularly and stopped weeks at a time. It was in 1908, I believe, that I made the analysis of the 1904 stock. The red ink entries are not mine.
Re-examined. Mr. Ridley generally used to deal with the goods in transit. I might have taken sheets 52 to 64 down from the dictation of prisoner or Mr. Herbert Measures, or I might have copied them
from the stock boards; it is not impossible somebody in the office may have copied from the sheet in the office the goods in transit on to the stock board by mistake, though I have never known such a thing to happen. I have no recollection of adding in the duplications whatever.
To the Court. It was the practice of the office to make up the sheets from the stock boards only. I should see whether a person dictating to me was reading from a board or a sheet.
CLARENCE CHARLES NORMAN and THOMAS SAXON SNELL(shorthand writers) produced and proved transcripts of the shorthand notes they had taken of prisoner's evidence in the Board of Trade enquiry from July 8 to July 16, 1909 (Exhibits 50 to 58).
(Monday, October 23.)
ALBERT EDWARD TARLING , clerk to Buck and Hickman, Whitechapel-road, ironmongers. I was with Measures Brothers for about eight years up to 1906 in the estimating department, taking part in stocktaking, writing up the stock boards in the yard, making calculations on the stock sheets and additions on the summary sheets. The stock sheets were mostly entered up from the stock boards in prisoner's private office, from copying or dictation by prisoner or another clerk. Stock sheets 147 and 148, dated November 30, 1906, contain entries of customers' goods, No. 147 amounting to 311 cwt. 3 qr. 23 lb., value ₤117 13s.; No. 148 to 422 cwt. 1 qr. 27 lbs., value ₤147 11s. 10d.; they are partly in Croker's handwriting and partly in mine. In the summary of summaries the money is entered for 147 ₤311 3s. 3d., for 148 ₤422 1s. 7d. The amount should be ₤117 13s. and ₤147 11s. 7d. I cannot account for the error; it is more likely to have happened in copying than in dictation. Foreign stock book, page 15, is in my writing; the figures should correspond with those in the second column of stock sheet No. 71; a number of them do not; 25 is entered 43; 23 is entered 58; 13 is entered 40. The working stock book is referred to constantly, and discrepancies would be readily discovered. Stock summary book 1905, page 26, contains a list of goods, "invoiced but not landed, " in Croker's writing. The summary should be made from stock boards which would only contain goods landed. Invoices of goods not landed would be in prisoner's possession; a list of them would be made by Ridley. In the summary of summaries at page 49 there is in my writing "add customers 250 tons, etc., ₤699"; that includes "materials partly unloaded."
Cross-examined. Several clerks assisted in the calculation of the stock-taking; prisoner was very busy; there were about sixty clerks and a great number of men in the yards; prisoner had general supervision of the business. I never did anything I knew was erroneous, or purposely helped to make the calculations wrong. There were about 200 stock sheets and thousands of calculations. Herbert Measures supervised the stock-taking at Southwark.
of goods not landed—those of 1905 amount to ₤5, 462 5s. 3d.; that amount is added in the summary of summaries at page 26. I do not know where the original sheet containing the entry is. During the stock-taking of 1905 prisoner was very ill. I went to his house at Streatham with Croker, taking the invoices of goods lying at the ports, the parts of winch were abstracted on a sheet of foolscap under the direction of prisoner. I was there about three-quarters of an hour. Goods invoiced but not landed is also entered at page 27 as ₤5, 408 Is. 6d.; freight, etc., ₤54 3s. 9d.; total, ₤5, 462 5s. 3d. There was nothing unusual in my going to prisoner's house one year when he had been ill and going through the invoices and making out the statement. It was done every year, the only difference being that it was done at his house that year instead of at the office. It was something that had to be done to see what the invoices of the unlanded goods amounted to. When I had finished that work I took the results of it back to London, and the invoices were distributed round to the different departments. Prisoner certainly did not suggest to me to make any improper use either of the list or the invoices; I do not know who prepared the certificates of the stock signed by prisoner, or the figures.
FREDERICK JOHN BREEZE . I am employed by Measures Brothers (1911), Limited. I was for many years with the old firm. In 1904, 1905, and 1906 I was in the estimating department. My duties were chiefly estimating and maintaining the stock at its normal level. For that purpose I prepared "Too many" and "Wanted" sheets once a week. I had nothing to do with making the actual stock sheets such as Exhibit 7, but they came before me in order that I might regulate the stock. The second column was usually filled up, if not I used it without. The filling up was generally done after I got the sheet. I did not keep them more than a day and a half and then I passed them back to the managing director's office. Foreign stock books like Exhibit 16 were always kept. I have made entries in them, and at times also in the horizontal line. When I filled it up the first horizontal line was generally done from dictation from the stock sheets by the managing director. The pencil entries, which I chiefly made, represent goods which arrived after the stocktaking. They were made from the boat lists—that is, a list of the goods that came by each boat, under the various sections. The lists were sent to the managing director. The figures showing what went out were entered from a sheet called the "To order" sheet. That sheet was made by me and it showed the lengths and sections and the number of pieces. The managing director made the entries at the bottom of the book on Monday as a rule. The goods coming in were entered as they arrived. We had a standard list of the numbers and lengths of each section to be kept in stock, and I did the ordering every week.
Sir Edward Carson admitted that some of the goods in transit in 1905 and 1906 were erroneously duplicated. It was therefore agreed to prove only one set of duplications, the goods per Auricula in December, 1905, being selected as an example.
Examination continued. It was my duty to provide the managing director at the end of each year with a list showing the prime cost prices of all stock from the contracts made during the year. I made an average for the year, adding extra for special sections. Sometimes I made an average over three years. I had nothing to do with calculating the expenses that had to be added. I do not know who did that. I do not know whether my calculations are recorded in any book, and I have no special recollection of what I did with regard to them in 1904, 1905, and 1906. I have no recollection of anything being done in those years different from the ordinary practice. There was is considerable amount of stock charged aft extra prices—for instance, I see an extra of 93s. a ton here, which would be 100 per cent, more than, the basis price of the foreign joists, and many of them come to 25s. or 30s. I handed my calculations to the managing director or, in his absence, Mr. Herbert Measures. There were duplicate sets of stock books kept, one in the managing director's office and one in the working departments; they contained the same information. Any substantial mistake in the stock would be discovered at the stocktaking; nine or ten years ago there was an awful mistake made in one large section to the extent of several hundreds of tons that was Dot discovered until next stock-taking. If there had been, a heavy run on the section we should have found it out before.
Cross-examined. I have known the business for 32 years and know it very well indeed. Prisoner is 72, and with his brother founded the business forty years ago. When I went there first he and his brother used to be at the works at six o'clock in the morning. He was a very hard working man. The business had something like 10, 000 customers all over the country. That involved an enormous amount of estimating work, and there were 60 or 70 clerks and several hundred workmen. Prisoner on arriving at the office each day first of all dealt with the correspondence, some hundreds of letters daily. Then he had to deal with the customers' accounts, and he took an active part in the estimating, and in almost everything. The annual sales amounted to about ₤200, 000, and there was nothing remarkable in there being 20 or 25 vans in the depots at one time. Prisoner's private office had glass all round it, where he could sit and command a view of everything that was going on in the place and see people coming into the premises. That is where he would be when dealing with any documents connected with the stock-taking, and generally he had a clerk sitting beside him. During the months of November and December the stock-taking was done in addition to the ordinary business, and everybody working at high pressure and working overtime. No suggestion was ever made to me to make any wrong entry or do anything improper with regard to the documents. I was a shareholder in the company. Prisoner's health has not been good of late years. Whenever he was well enough he was always at business and overworking himself.
Re-examined. Stock-taking is always a busy time, and it was busier in years before; when trade was brisker. Trade was very brisk in 1904, 1905, and 1906.
FREDERICK FORBES , accountant, 71, Langham Road, Wimbledon. I was secretary of Measures Brothers and am now secretary of the new company. In 1904 the company paid a dividend of 3 ½ per cent, on the ordinary stock. Up to that period it had never paid less than 5. In the first years it paid 10, then 7 ½, and then 5. Exhibits produced, Nos. 31 to 35, are the company's reports and balance sheets for the years 1902 to 1906.
(Tuesday, October 24.)
FREDERICK FORBES , recalled. Further examined. The year 1905 is the first year in the history of the company in which no dividend was paid on the ordinary shares. There were 70, 000 vendors' shares on which dividend was paid. There is a balance sheet and profit and loss account. The material figures on the right hand side of the balance sheet are in the entry "By stock on hand, as certified by the managing director to be taken at average cost price, London, ₤56, 187." On the left-hand side, "Add profit this year, ₤15, 527 6s. 8d." There is also an entry of an interim and final dividend of 5 per cent. The trading account is shown in the private ledger. I have the trading account. The ledger shows goods purchased, goods sold, and stock on hand at London, "To profit and loss account, ₤56, 187." That is the balance that is usually carried to trading account. There is also "By stock and the gross profit, Croydon, ₤11, 459." By October, 1907, prisoner had ceased to be director or chairman of the company. When the stack-taking took place, for the year 1907 there was a shortage of 345 tons 17 cwt., that is on the basis of the London stock having been 12, 130 tons. (Prisoner's report to witness was read.) By January, 1909, the shareholders' committee had been appointed; I believe they appointed themselves.
Cross-examined. I was there 20 years. I was there before it was turned into a company. After the year 1907 I believe administration and other expenses were added by prisoner. That system obtained for several years previous to that. In 1905 the stock was taken at present cost price instead of average. The entry on December 31, 1905, "Transferred from the contingency value to reduction of stock value, ₤15, 299, " would be before the auditors. It Lad to be transferred to make good the deficiency. The certificates given by the managing director were seen by the auditors each year. In the auditors' report to the shareholders for 1905 they introduced the words, "present average cost price." Instead of taking three years' average they took it at the actual cost price. The minute of January 31, 1906, is: "It was moved by Mr. R. H. Measures, seconded by Mr. R. T. Measures, and carried unanimously, that the auditors having sent in a rough balance sheet the same be adopted, subject to adjustment, and that it be printed and sent to the shareholders in the usual manner. It was moved by Mr. R. H. Measures, seconded by Mr. R. T. Measures, and carried unanimously, that after due consideration of the balance sheet no dividend be recommended on the ordinary shares, the balance of profit being carried forward to 1906." That was the year in which
there had been no dividend, except in the case of vendors' share, which were partly held by prisoners—about half, I should think. The minute of January 30, 1905, is: "It was moved by Mr. R. H. Measures, seconded by Mr. R. T. Measures, and carried unanimously, that ₤2, 500 (be taken from the contingency fund, and that a dividend of 3 ½ per cent, be paid for the year 1904 on the ordinary shares to all shareholders now on the books of the company." There had been no interim dividend. The contingency fund was put by out of profits of previous years. In one year prisoner declined to take half of his salary—I believe it was 1902 or 1903. It was a year in which there was a considerable fall in prices. It is shown in the auditors' report. In 1903 the vendors got nothing on their shares, The directors all worked in various department. The letter of November 28, 1908, was before the shareholders' committee commenced work. It is an offer by prisoner to help to manage and to supply capital on a second debenture. It was resolved that prisoner should be invited to attend a special board meeting to discuss the situation. There was no need to preserve the stock sheets for more than a year, but we found them for two years in the estimates' office on a shelf. Prisoner had a clerk down at Streatham to check his estimate of the stock. He says in his letter of January 31, 1908, "A you know I took the stock I dealt with on what the sheets showed it to be." That was accurate. I wrote letters to prisoner at the direction of the committee and not of the beard of directors. The committee had practically possession of the office. Prisoner was away ill during a considerable portion of the stock-taking of 1905.
Re-examined. I first found out that in prisoner's method of calculating prices there were additions included for administration and other expenses, when I was helping the committee, the Official Receiver, and the defendant in their investigations a few years ago; I did not learn it from prisoner personally. Stock was taken in December, 1905, at the market price of similar articles. In the books there is no copy of the trading account for 1905, but there is an account in the stock summary book which relates to foreign goods.
Further cross-examined. The company's head bookkeeper received the trading account from the auditor and entered it in the ledger without putting in the details, but the results agree.
Further re-examined. ₤15, 299 is credited to stock account and marked "Dec. 31 by Contingency Fund for reduction of value of stock, ₤15, 299."
HERBERT JAMES THOMAS MEASURES . I was a director of Measures Brothers, Limited, from the formation of the limited company and have been in the firm about 23 years. I gave the shareholders' committee certificate (produced) of what was the fair amount to allow for expenses attendant on the delivery of goods to the company.
Sir Edward Carson objected that this was not evidence, being founded on mere opinion, and not having any reference to the figures in books or contracts.
Mr. Muir stated that he was not putting the document qua document, but as showing the amount added to the stock.
Examination continued. The certificate, which I signed, shows what I added to prime cost of the stock when I took it on in 1907, after prisoner had left. In my opinion those were proper amounts to add for that year, but not for any year; the charges vary—I cannot say as to what extent. These figures are based on actual payments extending over a number of years; the total amount which ought to be added for expenses is ₤1 0s. 5d. per ton. I usually superintended the stocktaking.
Cross-examined. This estimate has no particular relation to the year 1904 or any previous year. After 1905, when we wrote off ₤15, 000 from the stock, a different method of valuation was adopted. The auditors knew there was an addition made to the value of the stock prior to 1905 for administration expenses of ₤1 per ton, and they accepted that method of valuing the stock; that method was used from 1899 to 1905.
Re-examined. I forget how the ₤1 for administration expenses was made up.
ALFRED JOHN DEARBERG I have been 25 years, first as manager and after 1907 as a director, in Measures Brothers, Limited. I produce correct list of average extra prices for special sections and long lengths made from the actual contracts.
Cross-examined. The committee handed me that list and I corrected it.
FREDERICK DAVEY , examiner, Department of the Official Receiver in Companies Liquidation. I have been entrusted with the investigation of the affairs of Measures Brothers, Limited. The only record of the stock-taking for 1904 is in the stock summary book; but for 1905 I have the stock sheets, stock summary book, but no stock summary sheets; while for 1906 I have stock sheets, stock summary sheets, and stock summary book. I have not been able to check the weight of the stock in 1904 and have taken prisoner's certificate as being correct. I have estimated the value by means of the average cost price, which I have calculated by taking the average of the highest contract prices in 1902, 1903, and 1904 for British and foreign joists separately; to this figure I added ₤1 0s. 5d. per ton for foreign joists and 13s. 3d. for British joists for expenses. Also in the cases of special sections I have added the extras certified by Dearberg. Those goods which I could not identify I have valued at the highest prices in the stock summary book of 1905. In the case of miscellaneous goods, not joists, I have taken the highest stock-taking price used by the company in 1905. I estimate the value of the stock at ₤69, 864 13s. 3d. for 1904, whereas the value stated in the certificate is ₤82, 058 5s. 9d., giving an excess of ₤12, 193 12s. 6d.
(Wednesday, October 25.)
HENRY CHARLES MARTIN , journalist. I assisted the committee of inspection and was present throughout the Board of Trade inquiry when prisoner put in analysis (produced) of goods unloaded in December, 1905, which appears in stock summary book, page 26; prisoner also put in a schedule (produced) of his share transactions.
Cross-examined. The inspector asked prisoner to make out these analyses.
FREDERICK DAVEY , recalled. Balance sheet of the company for 1904 shows the stock in hand in London to be ₤82, 058 5s. 9d., which is described in the certificate as "Stock in hand certified by the managing director to be taken at average cost price." The company's balance sheet and profit and loss account both show a net profit of ₤9, 868 0s. 8d., whereas, according to my figures, there is a loss of ₤2, 325 11s. 10d. In 1905 all the items are priced out in the stock summary book, but I find no document or book to show how these prices were calculated. On page 15 of the stock summary book there is a price of ₤5, with various items added to it, making up "₤5 18s. 8d., say, ₤6, " but there is nothing to show what the added item represents. There is no item of ₤1 a ton added for establishment expenses. In a number of cases the entries on the stock sheets for 1905 do not agree with the working stock book. On the stock sheet I find 713 pieces which are not in the working stock book, and which correspond, length by length, " with 712 pieces, "Invoiced, but not landed." I find such discrepancies on 43 of the 206 sheets of that year, making a difference of 7, 404 pieces, value ₤5, 927 5s., between stock sheets and stock book. These 7, 404 pieces correspond with 7, 513 pieces invoiced, but not landed, so that these come in twice, once upon the stock sheets and once as goods unlanded and make an improper addition of ₤5, 927 5s. There are also small errors tending to lessen the value of the stock in hand. As a results there is an excess over my figures of ₤5, 772 12s. 11d. entirely independent of any question of over value, and an excess altogether over my figures of ₤10, 857 17s. Id., my estimate being ₤59, 740 5s. 11d. on 9, 523 tons. The balance sheet shows ₤70, 598 3s. on 9, 970 tons, plus 455 tons work in hand, included twice. In 1905 ₤15, 299 was transferred from the contingency fund to the stock account, but beyond the contingency fund account being debited and the stock account credited I can find no entry in the books to explain that writing down of stock. In 1906, as in 1905, goods invoiced but not Landed are wrongly entered on stock sheets, thus appearing twice in the stock value, making an improper increase of ₤7, 841 8s.. 4d.; also in two sheets "cwts." were copied as pound (money), making an improper addition of ₤468 0s. 3d.; so that in 1906 there is an excess over my figures of ₤8, 309 8s. 7d., quite independent of over valuation. The summary of summaries on page 49 of the stock summary book shows a total weight of 12, 483 tons odd, from which there is a deduction for customers' weights, leaving 12, 130 tons odd. From the total value which goes into profit and loss account no regard has been had to the deduction for customers'
weights. Higher up there are some other items the value of which is taken into the total value, but the weight of which is not taken into the total weight. Lower down there is "Acid work partly priced not charged in December sent on"; ₤235 16s. is carried into the value column, but there is no weight at all. I have made out a list of stock really on hand in 1906, making all the necessary adjustments for mistakes in copying, and pricing the goods out on the same method as I have used for 1904 and 1905. I make the difference between my value and that in the balance sheet ₤12, 266 6s. 2d., of which ₤8, 356 18s. Id. is due to over valuation. Exhibit 129 is my calculation of the shortage for 1907. The stock summary book showed the total weight in stock with which they would start in 1907 as 12, 543 tons, which includes the 18 tons and the 42 tons referred to, and the 353 tons customers' weights. Adding to that the total purchases for that year, deducting the sales as shown by Exhibit 59, the balance left is 10, 921 tons odd. To that I add 625 tons for book waste, giving a total of 11, 546 tons odd, which would represent that really ought to be on hand at the end of 1907, but, in fact, there was an actual shortage of 1, 384 tons. Taking the value of this into account the result would be a heavy loss in the profit and loss account. The private ledger (Exhibit 157) shows a loss of ₤14, 302 18s. 9d. Exhibit 139 shows the dividend paid by the company, starting in 1899 at 10 per cent, and ending in 1905 with 5 per cent. Exhibit 142 is a. list of shares held by prisoner from January, 1905, to April, 1907, which I have extracted from his own. schedule (Exhibit 141). In 1905 he transferred 30, 089 ordinary shares, of which 6, 500 were to members of his family and others without consideration, the balance being sold for ₤21, 232. In 1906 he disposed of 22, 189, 7, 557 being for nominal consideration, the balance being sold for ₤12, 375. These transfers included 12, 800 transferred from R. I. Measures to prisoner and sold by him. In 1905 he held 68, 122, but in 1909 only 2, 891. At the beginning of 1905 his holding in debenture shares was 2, 557; 1906, 4, 047; 1907, 10, 447; 1906, 6, 547; and 1909, 6, 347, and in March., 1909, only 172. As to preference shares, in January, 1905, he had 4, 770; 1906, 3, 586; 1907, 8, 386, and eventually June, 1909, 164. The 10, 447 debenture shares in 1907 include 9, 000 he acquired from R. I. Measures and the 8, 386 preference shares in 1907 include 8, 000 shares acquired in a similar manner.
To the Jury. The discrepancy in weight in 1906, including the under-statements, pomes to one ton odd.
Cross-examined. According to the summary in this schedule (Exhibit 141) prisoner from 1899 to 1908 bought 94, 800 ordinary shares, for which he paid ₤109, 547, in addition to which he was originally allotted 29, 820. Schedule B shows be sold, excluding those he disposed of for nominal consideration, shares for ₤57, 930. In 1908 the shares had gone down to 6s. 9d. and in 1909 to 11d. In 1899 he acquired 29, 802, not including those allotted to him. (The witness gave details as to number of shares acquired by prisoner to the year 1908, making up the 94, 800 mentioned by him.) Of these 94, 800 he sold 58, 056 for ₤56, 466, according to his own schedule, which I have taken as
correct; he also disposed of 45, 127 shares for nominal consideration according to his schedule B. In December, 1907, he held 22, 190 shares; I have arrived at this figure by excluding two blocks of shares of 5, 000 and 3, 760; I do not know that these were merely transferred as qualifying shares to directors.
(Thursday, October 26.)
FREDERICK DAVEY , recalled. Further cross-examined. At the end of 1907 prisoner held 30, 950 ordinary shares, ₤6, 547 debentures, and 6, 386 preference shares; during 1907 he transferred ₤4, 000 debentures and 2, 000 preference shares to members of his family. In 1907 when he left the company he was the largest shareholder. In 1905 he transferred and sold a large number of shares before the report for 1905 was published; a number of shares transferred were sold by prisoner in 1905. In 1906 6, 215 shares were sold; no shares were sold in 1907. In October, 1909, the affairs of the company first came into my hands. I had the evidence and material before me of the Board of Trade inquiry, lasting seven months, of the committee of shareholders' investigation, and I spent 18 months investigating. Prisoner did not personally keep any of the books of the company. I do not say my figures are absolutely correct, but they are the highest I can bring the value to, allowing for everything. It may have been usual for the company to add ₤1 per ton for administration purposes; if that be correct, prisoner's valuation would only be in excess ₤1, 596. If prisoner overpriced ₤1 per ton for administration expenses in one year he would have to overprice to the same amount next year in order to get a correct figure. In December, 1905, prices were higher than at any other time of the year, and goods were sold at more than ₤5 per ton. Unless prisoner went through the Laborious process of going through all the invoices and comparing them with 200 stock sheets, he would not see that goods in transit had been wrongly entered. Some of the stock sheets for 1906 are numbered and checked in defendant's handwriting, and there are a long list of elerical errors. My allowance for waste is not an exact figure; I have adopted the allowance in previous years.
Re-examined. Prisoner acquired 29, 820 ordinary shares by allotment in Measures Brothers, Limited, as part of the consideration money. In addition to those he acquired 94, 800. He transferred 121, 729. The total number of shares given to the family were 40, 527. I have here that the total amount of shares disposed of by vendors for nominal consideration was ₤183, 307. In January, 1905, he held 68, 122 shares. During that year transfers were registered for 20, 055, so that he started 1906 with 48, 072 shares. During that year transfers for 31, 072 were registered and he acquired 12, 800 from Richard Isaac Measures. He started the year 1907 with 30, 850 shares and transferred 9, 760. At the beginning of 1908 he had 22, 190 and transferred all except 2, 891. I do not know what shares were transferred in 1905. (Witness then gave evidence as to the errors in the stock sheets.)
WALTER WILLIAM SCOTT , Kingston Hill. I was a member of the shareholders' committee. I was present at the annual general meeting of shareholders at Winchester House in February, 1906. Prisoner was in the chair. He addressed the shareholders. He said, "The stock could not be replaced to-day for anything like the amount that it stood in the balance sheet at." A shareholder asked whether it had been taken at the market price of the day or at what it actually cost. Prisoner said it had been taken at what it actually cost the company. Then I think the auditor whispered to him and announced loudly that it had been taken at market price. Prisoner was asked about his holding; he said, "My holding is practically the same as it has been throughout the year." I took it he meant 1905.
Cross-examined. I could not say offhand if the price of joists had risen in February. I distinctly remember the auditor saying that the stock had been taken at market price.
FREDERICK HEYHURST , Wimbourne, Heaton Moor, Stockport. I am a holder of 1, 000 ordinary shares in Measures Brothers, Limited. I was a member of the shareholders' committee. I remember being in London soon after July, 1906. I saw prisoner at the office of the com- pany. I asked in the face of the dividend of 5 per cent, which had been declared, could he give me any reason why the shares were falling away. He said there was no reason whatever; the business was improving. I said I could ill afford to lose my money. I was taken round the works by an official and afterwards prisoner assured me I need not be alarmed at all at the price of the shares; the reason 1905 had been such a bad year was that they had written down the stocks ₤3 per ton and they usually held 10, 000 tons, and that I could go home perfectly satisfied the concern was all right and that eventually we should come to the 10 per cent, dividend. He further consoled me by saying that he was interested to the amount of ₤80, 000 and it was the worst day's business he ever did when he turned the concern into a limited company. He said, "One of my sons only said to me the other day, 'Father, I am buying all the shares I can lay my hands on.'" When I told him the shares were down at 16s. he said, "Between you and me, now is a good time to average."
Cross-examined. I got in touch with a Mr. McKnight in January or February, 1908, at the annual meeting. He was a member of the committee of inspection. We had a conversation. I made a statement to the Board of Trade inspector. I have made no statement since. When I went over the works I possibly expressed my surprise to prisoner that the premises were not more imposing. When I purchased my shares I had not seen any balance sheet.
Cross-examined. I remember that prisoner was so ill in 1905 as to have to be away from the office. During the time he was away matters had to be postponed until they could be dealt with by him.
(Friday, October 27.)
HENRY CHARLES MARTIN , recalled. Further examined. I produced latter from, defendant of June 11, 1906, from the Woodlands, Streatham, to A. Mandeville, Esq., London and Paris Exchange, Limited, "Dear Sir,—Referring to your favour, I shall be quite willing to let you have an option, but not until an interim dividend is paid.—Yours truly, R. H. Measures"; and letter to J. H. Scott, Esq., dated January 28, 1907: "Dear Sir,—Re proposed option for the three months for 32, 000 shares. Confirming our conversation re above I make the average price 17s. 7d. per share, and should be agreeable to it being either taken at 17s. 6d. all round, or the following: 3, 000 at 16s. 6d.; 3, 000 at 17s. 6d.; 3, 000 at 17s. 9d.; 3, 000 at 18s.; 3, 000 at 17s. 3d., 3, 000 at 17s. 6d.; 3, 000 at 17s. 9d.; 3, 000 at 18s.; 2, 000 at 18s. 6d.; 2, 000 at 19s.; 2, 000 at 19s. 6d.; 2, 000 at 20s. Total equals 32, 000. Payable net cash without any brokerage, discount, or commission whatever, and against transfer forms. I have no doubt that the balance sheet will show a balance of from ₤11, 000 to ₤14, 000 of cash to be dealt with, and this after providing for all outgoings, such as debenture interest, preference dividend to end of year, and the interim dividend on ordinary shares subject to auditors' final figures. I do hot care for this offer to remain over for more than a week from audit, but, of course, the option for the 32, 000, if accepted at once, is to be for a period of three months.—Yours truly, R. H. Measure; " On page 51 of stock summary book there are some pencilled sums of money; those figures were written by the defendant at the Board of Trade inquiry.
Cross-examined. The defendant wrote these pencilled figures in the course of questioning; when the inspector saw him making the figures, he said: "Do not put any more in that book." Letters which I produced were not originally sent to me and I had nothing to do with them; I was employed by the committee. I do not know whether anything came of the letter to J. H. Scott.
The Attorney-General stated that the prosecution acmitted that there was no transaction; the letter simply proved that prisoner intended to sell shares.
HENRY CREWDSON HOWARD , partner in Crewdson, Youatt, and Howard, 70a, Basinghall Street, chartered accountant. From the formation of Measures Brothers, Limited, up to April, 1908, my firm acted as auditors to the company. During 1904, 1905, and 1906 I supervised the auditing, which consisted of vouching the cash payment, checking the cash postings, and certain of the day book postings; examining the invoices and checking in particular the postings to the personal ledger of the general expenses for the profit and loss account. I think it was the practice to insert in the private ledger the balance sheet containing the statement of assets and liabilities, also the profit and loss account and trading account. The trading account is not exactly a copy of the stock ledger, because the balance on the stock account (₤57, 418) does not agree with the balance on the trading account (₤35, 327). Balance sheet for 1905 was made by
servants of the company. In order to arrive at the balance in the trading account—that is, the gross profit, it would be necessary to know the value of the stock in hand at the close of the financial year. If the value of the stock in hand is overstated it necessarily follows that the profit and the assets are overstated. Stock must be valued at the end of the year on the same basis as at the begining of the year. It was not my business to value or check the values put upon the sock in hand of Measures, Limited. I had not sufficient technical knowledge to enable me to do, so; I relied upon prisoner as managing director, who each year signed a certificate of the value of the stock in hand, which I accepted without any check, except comparing his weights with the totals in the sales and purchases books. We also made an allowance for the book waste of 3 to 4 per cent, on the sales. For the purposes of our audit we saw the summary and the summary of summaries, the stock summary sheets, but not the stock boards, the stock sheets, or the working stock books. We checked the arithmetical calculations on the summary and on the summary of summaries. Stock-taking went on from November into December; we checked from the day book whether there was an increase or a diminution of stock during that time. If we found that the result of the check which we applied to the weights in prisoner's certificate did not correspond we made him explain it before we certified the balance sheet. Lettter dated February 6, 1909, from prisoner to the secretary, states "the actual items I cannot give from memory, but the details were all worked out and the various stock sheets and summaries were produced to the auditors year by year." I do not remember seeing the stock sheets. So far as I can see stock certificate for 1904 is not in the handwriting of anybody in my firm, I think it is prisoner's language. In the 1904 stock-taking I received the customary certificate from prisoner, "I hereby certify that the London stock on December 31, 1904, has been taken in the same way and art the same price as in 1903, namely, average cost price." I checked his figure in the usual way and found a surplus of 510 tons over the weight calculated by us from the books without allowing any percentage for book waste. I have no recollection of hearing while I was auditing of any allowance of ₤1 per ton on the average cost price. I do not know of any entries in the books to show that such a charge was made and I have never been consulated by the directors of the company as to whether it would be a proper and reasonable method to adopt. Defendant's certificate of December 31, 1905, says: "I hereby certify that the London stock on December 31, 1905, has been taken in the same way as in 1904, at present average cost price, the total London stock, material, and work in hand being run out at 9, 970 tons—as per actual taking ₤70, 598." I told prisoner as that year there had been a re-valuation of stock, it should be then taken at present value. An entry was made transferring ₤15, 000 from contingency account to stock account. Prisoner told me there had been a re-valuation that year—there were no details in the books showing how the figure was got at. On January 26, 1903, I wrote to prisoner that stock in hand lad been taken at ₤7 17s. 5 ¾d. per ton—considerably in excess of
market prices on December 31, 1902. On June 22, 1905, I wrote that as the valuation was again above existing market value we should have to draw attention to it in our certificate and suggesting that a portion of the contingency fund should be carried to reserve fund to meet the deficiency. In the summary of summaries of 1905 there is a total of 9, 970 tons 19 cwt., value ₤67, 823, and a note "Add work in hand 455 tons 12 cwt. 3 qr. 11b.—₤3, 713, " which is included in the ₤67, 823 but not included in the 9, 970 tons. My. note book of the audit shows, an amount of 967 tons excess between the certified weight and the in and out book weight; this is about 4 per cent, on 24, 520 tons sales and is what has been called "book waste." There was added in the day book to the 9, 970 tons, 455 tons for work in progress. Prisoner explained to me that that was work in progress and should be added at present prices—₤2, 492, making a total of ₤70, 598 3s., as shown by prisoner's certificate. In February, 1906, I attended the meeting of shareholders. A shareholder asked what was the basis of the valuation of stock. I stated it was the current prices at the end of 1905 plus cost of handling, etc. I think prisoner then corrected me and said the stock had been taken out.
Cross-examined. Ernest Crewdson, John Youatt, and myself were the partners of my firm when the company was formed. During my 10 years' auditing I have never suspected prisoner of any dishonesty; I have investigated all the books and never found anything to raise my suspicion; any books or documents I have asked for I always got; there has been no attempt to keep anything back. My firm was paid an annual fee of 100 guineas for auditing. I think my memory enables me to swear that neither I nor anybody in my firm saw the stock sheets for the purpose of our audit. I do not think we ever asked for them. I wrote letter dated August 27, 1907, "In accordance with your instructions we beg to submit the enclosed draft balance sheet, profit and loss and trading account for six months ending June 30, 1907, for the consideration of the board. We desire, however, to point out that we have taken the stock figures of London and Croydon for the purpose given to us, but we have not yet seen the stock sheets, nor checked the figures in any way, there are other items which require consideration and adjustment before we feel ourselves in a position to certify the balance sheet." By "stock sheets" I should there refer to the summary. It appears from that letter that we were sending the balance sheet before we had seen the summaries. In my note book of the audit of 1905 there is "Completing sales, bought ledger balance, casting and posting of books, checking extensions and additions of stock sheets." If the clerk had started checking some I was not aware of it at the time. I do not disassociate myself from my staff in any way. Again in my note book there is "Writing up audit in book, making up list of allowances and checking stock sheets." That again meant summaries. On stock sheet produced there is a letter in the corner which looks like an E or B. I cannot say if it is a Y; it is not my partner Mr. Youatt's initial. We used different ink for different years. Sheet produced is checked in green ink. Stock sheets (produced) for 1908 are marked in violet ink; I have no reasonable doubt
that these are our ticks for that year; I withdraw the statement as to not seeing the stock sheets in that year. I will not swear that the initialling on the stock sheet just shown me is not the initialling of G. Youatt, an employee of our firm; there is certainly a similarity. My note book also says as regards the ₤88112s., "N.B. Mr. Measures took a note to include this in stock sheets next year." That would, of course, mean the stock sheets. In 1905 I think I sent the prisoner a draft of the previous year's certificate for his signature. I could have seen the stock sheets any year if I had wished. On looking through the stock sheets one would not necessarily see that there was duplication. I knew in 1904 that the stock had been priced at very much above market price for some years. I have no reason to suppose that the valuation was done in 1904 differently to 1903. I will not swear that prisoner did not tell me he was adding ₤1 per ton for administration expenses; I do not remember. If the company overpriced in 1903 they would get the disadvantage in 1904. If the price of the stock had been falling for years the excess valuation in 1904 would be the accumulation from these years. The valuation in 1904 being much above market prices I suggested that something should be taken from the contingency fund and the stock written down; prisoner then transferred ₤15, 299, which I have no doubt was a proper sum and was properly put down in the books of the company. When that was done it would be improper to continue to take the valuation of the stock on the same basis as before, i.e., on the three years' average; that would be taking the amount from contingency fund in as profit and not writing the stock down in fact. The stock was taken at actual value on December 31, 1905, and was described as "taken at present average cost price, " which I think fairly represented the transaction. There was no attempt to conceal from me that the 455 tons odd had not been added into the summary of summaries. I am still uncertain as to whether that was correctly omitted or not. In 1905 there is a note, "If taken at present price add ₤2, 492"; on prisoner's valuation that was right.
Re-examined. I myself never compared stock sheets with stock summary sheets. It is clear from my note book that the Croydon tools were included in some account other than the stock account; they were fluctuating in quantity and they ought to have been included in the stock in hand. After I advised writing off the stock I saw no calculation showing what was written off. I do not know whether the price in 1905 was higher or lower than in 1904. The amount of stock, ₤82, 058 5s. 9d., in balance sheet of December, 1904, is carried forward to 1905; the result of crediting ₤15, 299 from contingency account is to show a profit of ₤9, 000 on the year's trading: without the ₤15, 299 it would have been ₤6, 000 less; as I understood the ₤15, 299 was transferred from contingency fund because the stock had been overvalued in 1904. (To the Common Serjeant.) If the value at which the stock was taken in 1905 was as great or greater than it was taken at in 1904 there was no writing down. I believe the rate was lower in 1905 than in 1904; I will ascertain by Monday morning.
(Monday, October 30.)
HENRY CREWDSON HOWARD , recalled. Further examined. There is a difficulty in finding from the stock sheets what was the average price at the end of 1904, because the stock sheets for that year are missing, and the summary gives no decided prices. I divide the total money value by the number of tons in 1904 and average the price per ton at ₤7 14s. 2d. In the Croydon stock sheets it was taken at ₤6 8s. 6d., showing a difference between Croydon and Southwark of ₤1 5s. 8d. At the end of 1905 the certificate figure was 9, 970 tons; multiplying that by 25s. we get about ₤12, 500. I got the ₤6 8s. 6d. by simply dividing the money by the weight.
Cross-examined. A difference in the price of stock might account for the difference between the ₤12, 000 and the ₤15, 000.
Re-examined. For 1904 I have taken the money at ₤81, 781; the weight at 10, 599 tons. For 1905, I took the price appearing on the summary of summaries—₤6 8s. 6d. per ton—₤67, 823 2s. 6d.; to which 5s. a ton is added, making ₤70, 598; dividing that by 9, 970 tons you get over ₤7 a ton; that does not include 455 tons customers' goods. (To Sir E. Carson.) If the stock were written down in June, 1905, I and the value had risen by December that increase should be added. In Dece✗ 1902, stock was priced out at ₤7 17s. 5 ¾d.; in December, 1903, a✗ ₤7 14s. 3 ½d.
GERALD YOUATT, clerk to Crewdson, Youatt, and Howard. Since 1899 I have assisted at the audit of the books of Measures Brothers, Limited. Violet ink ticks on sheet produced (Exhibits 159 and 160) were made by me—they are not stock sheets, but working or calculation sheets. The initials on Exhibit 159—heet of December 1, 1906, are not mine—I do not recognise them.
Cross-examined. It would not be true to say that no stock sheet ever came before my firm. The sheets produced I called off into the stock sheets or stock summary sheets. I say those produced are not stock sheets. Exhibit 162 is signed by me—it is headed, "Summary for 1906."
Re-examined. In 1908 I read off what I call collection sheets.
Passages from prisoner's evidence given by the Inspector of the Board of Trade were them read.
(Tuesday, October 31.)
The Attorney-General stated that the prosecution would ask for a verdict only on counts 1, 2, and 3, under section 84 of 24 and 25 Viet. c. 96 (alleging the publication of false statements in the balance sheets of 1904, 1905, and 1906); counts 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8, under Section 83 (as to the 250 ton 177 tons, and ₤468) being dropped; at the same time relying on the evidence as to those false statements in support of counts 1, 2, and 3.
Sir Edward Carson submitted that there was no evidence of knowledge in prisoner that the statements were false or of intent to defraud under counts 1, 2
and 3, the mode of valuation of the stock having been that adopted from 1899 to 1903, as to which no complaint was made.
The Common Serjeant held that there was evidence for the jury on counts 1, 2. and 3.
Sir Edward Carson called no evidence. His speech on behalf of prisoner, and the reply, occupied the remainder of this day and the whole of Wednesday, November 1.
(Thursday, November 2.)
Verdict, Guilty on counts 1, 2, and 3; not guilty on remaining counts.
Sentence, Seven months' imprisonment, second division.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Tuesday, October 10.)
Prisoner was released on his father's recognisances in ₤20 and his own in ₤10 to come up for judgment if called upon.
BEFORE THE COMMON SERJEANT.
(Saturday, October 14.)
Prisoner was tried upon the first indictment.
MARY ANN BAKER , the wife of Charles Baker, printer, 3, Park Grove, West Ham. On July 28 prisoner called at my house and said he wanted a furnished room for his wife and himself. He said he had come up from Kelverton, where his wife still was. He saw the room. I asked 4s. 6d. rent and he offered 5s. He paid a week's rent in advance. He said he had been a surgical-instrument maker by trade but was now doing a little canvassing. He said he had come upon purpose to see his solicitors, Messrs. Lewis and Lewis, Ely Place, Hoi born, as his brother had left him all his money, ₤1, 800, and shares that brought him in ₤18. On July 31 he and his wife came. No luggage arrived. He said he had just come from his solicitors and expected to draw ₤100. On August 2 he was in a way about his
luggage, and he said if he had the money he would send down and have it sent direct up. He asked me if I would lend him money for that purpose and I advanced him 5s. The same afternoon he said as the carmen's strike was on he was afraid he would not get his luggage up, and he asked me to advance him his fare to go down to Kelverton and see about it. I advanced him another 5s., believing his statements. No luggage arrived. He returned about eight and said it was coming by Pickford's. On August 4 he said he was going to Rolls Court, Chancery Lane, and had to pay a fee of 10s. 6d. to get an advance. I advanced him 10s. When he came back to the house he said it would be all right. On August 5 he asked me to lend him his fare to go to his solicitors, and I lent him a shilling. He came back about one o'clock, disappointed again. He said his solicitors would not allow him to pay ₤20 to the bank for the loan of ₤100, but would rather advance it themselves. Later in the day he said his wife had to go to see the solicitors with him on the Tuesday and he could not take her in the clothes she was wearing; would I advance him sufficient money to get her clothes out of pledge? I advanced him a sovereign. After that I saw some fresh clothes, a skirt and blouse and shoes. I do not know where they were pledged, but I know they brought them back. On August 9 prisoner made another statement. He had been disappointed several times and I began to get a little bit suspicious. He told me he had been to his solicitors and asked them to pay me ₤5 for the services I had rendered him. Previously to that I had seen a document for ₤100. He told me I should hear from his solicitors during ✗ afternoon, and when I got the letters I was to bring them up to him. In the afternoon a registered letter arrived with that promissory note in it (identified) and I had a letter card. I opened them both and took them up to him. (Documents produced.) "78/1911. Under the instructions of H. Wolard, Esq., we will pay over to you the sum of ₤5 on Friday, the 11th inst. Please bring this bill with you.—Lewis and Lewis, Solicitors."—Prisoner examined it and said, "That is right. You must come on Friday with me and my wife, and you will have to sign in my presence." He said, "By the way I must put my stamp on that, " and he stamped it on the back with a rubber stamp, "H. Wolard, 3, Park Grove, West Ham." The next day, the 10th, he and his left very suddenly, about six, in the evening. No luggage had ever arrived. At 9.30 I received this letter: "17, Bancroft Road, Bow Road.—Dear Mrs. Baker,—You had left home last evening but a few minutes when I received a telegram to go to the above address, and in consequence of what was told we started for Kelverton about our boxes. Please keep our room open for us, and do not worry about the trifle we owe you, as you will receive it or see us on Tuesday.—Yours, truly, H. Wolard, 21, Chapel Street, Kelverton." I never saw him afterwards. On Friday I went to Messrs. Lewis and Lewis, and saw Mr. Poole, and in consequence of what he told me I communicated with the police.
Cross-examined by prisoner. You did use the name of Mr. Lewis, Bancroft Road, Bow. You told me those documents were sent by him.
REGINALD POOLE , of Lewis and Lewis, Solicitors, Ely Place, Holborn. The promissory note (produced) is not in the handwriting of the firm, or of anyone authorised by them. I do not know prisoner at all; he has never been a client of ours. There was no matter re Wolard deceased in our office, and I had no money to hand to prisoner, and I did not propose to pay him ₤20 out of my own pocket. We have no branch at Bow, or anywhere. I do not know a Lewis, a solicitor, practising at Bancroft Road.
Deteotive-Insipector WILLIAM BURBELL, K Division. On August 23 I saw prisoner at 25, Deanery Road, Stratford, and read to ham the warrant for his arrest. He said, "All right." I commenced to search the room and prisoner handed certain documents (produced) over to his wife. I took them from her. "August 21, 1911. No. of order, 1922. Received of Sir J. Thomas, Rolls Court, Chancery Lane, W.C., the sum of ₤1, 721 2s. 4d. Henry Wolard, 255, Deanery Road, Romford Road, Stratford, E." "Payable on or before the 22nd. inst. Official order for payment of ₤1, 721 2s. 4d. This sum will be paid to Sir J. Thomas's order, 16/8/11. Thomas Walls, clerk, etc." They are all fictitious. When formally charged prisoner made no reply; at prisoner's request the statement made by him on August 23 to the officer and taken down by him was read. It stated that he was discharged from Dartmoor prison on June 17, 1910, on a medical order issued by Doctors Murray and Smith, and sent to London under a medical escort; that later in the year he was taken to Bethnal Green Infirmary by the police; that two months ago he was seized with a fit in Farringdon Road and taken by the police to the Royal Free Hospital, from which he was discharged at his own request against the doctor's washes; that he had a paralytic stroke while at Dartmoor and another since he had been home. He had lived as an agent since his release, and had tried to get some money due to him. The party who had been interceding for him gave him the name of A. Lewis, solicitor, 17, Bancroft Road, Bow, and told him he was connected with Lewis and Lewis, solicitors, Ely Place. The letters he had received from time to time came from him.
SIDNEY REGINALD DYER , medical officer, Brixton Prison. Prisoner has been in hospital at Brixton Prison since August 28 and I have had him under inspection. His general health is indifferent. Some years ago he had a stroke and he has a double rupture. He has very much improved under medical treatment. I have had several long conversations with him, but I have never been able to detect any evidence of insanity about him. It so happened that I was medical superintendent at Dartmoor prison when he was there. It is true he was removed at the expiration of his sentence, under medical escort. Prisoner was under prolonged observation while at Dartmoor, and I never observed any signs of insanity. I do not think that his state of health would make him irresponsible for his actions. I think he knows quite well the difference between right and wrong.
Police-containable ERNEST CRAWFORD, 572 J. On September 13, 1910, I took prisoner to Hackney Infirmary. He was sent by the doctor, who said he was suffering from heart attack and giddiness. I found him in Weeds Street, Hackney, leaning against a wall. He gave the name of Henry Arthur Barnes, and lived at 39, Norman Road, Bow. He was discharged from the infirmary the next morning.
Police-constable ALFRED HOLMES. (To prisoner.) I was not on duty in Clerkenwell Road on May 23. I have never had you in, my charge at any time. I took a man to the hospital in Gray's Inn Road, suffering from a fainting fit, but it was not you.
Prisoner stated that he wanted the officers who took him away on an ambulance. He had written to the Commissioner of Police and asked for those two officers.
HENRY WOLARD (prisoner, not on oath). Before I ever was in a prison I was in a lunatic asylum. I suffered from epilepsy and disease of the mind. I have learned that I was sent there from the Strand Union—that I went into a chemist's to buy poison, and that I was condemned and sent there, but I was not told what for, only that my mind was wrong. I was born in April, 1837. I am debarred from legal aid because I have been in prison, because I cannot help myself. I swear I am under the belief now that I have money due and have made ₤1, 500 over to my wife. I do not care what they do with me; it is my wife's interest I am looking after.
Prisoner handed up documents to the Judge, which he wanted read.
The Common Serjeant said they had nothing to do with the case, except one letter from a solicitor saying he could not defend prisoner unless the costs were guaranteed.
The indictment further charged prisoner with having been convicted at Clerkenwell on October 10, 1905, under the name of Henry George Wolard, of obtaining money by false pretences.
Prisoner said that he had no recollection of this.
Detective HENRY RUTTER, H Division. I was present at Clerken-well Sessions on October 10, 1905, when prisoner pleaded guilty of obtaining money by false pretences and was sentenced to three years' penal servitude.
Six other convictions were proved against prisoner under various aliases: July 8, 1867, this Court, fraud, 12 months' hard labour; February 8, 1869, Muddlesex Sessions, fraud, five years' penal servitude; December 18, 1873, Greenwich Police Court, stealing, six months' hard labour; January 30, 1876, this Court, fraud, 10 years'penal servitude and two years' police supervision; June 23, 1884, two indictments for fraud, two terms of five years' penal servitude, to run consecutively; May 20, 1895, this Court, fraud, 10 years' penal servitude.
Inspector BURRELL, recalled. Prisoner has been sentenced altogether to 45 years' imprisonment. He was liberated on June 17 last and was allowed by the Home Secretary to report by letter. He
made one report, and from the very commencement, 10 days after his liberation, he renewed his old career of crime. I have at least 14 offences which prisoner has committed similar to those on the indictment. In all, he has had ₤60 18s. 6d. from various persons, the majority widows who could ill-afford to lose the money. On three occasions he induced a widow to part with her jewellery that he might pledge it and get money to institute proceeding's to get his money. It was the most plausible fraud at each of the places I have been to.
Sentence, Three years' penal servitude.
Prisoner. Will you allow the license to run concurrent?
The Common Serjeant: I have nothing to do with anything else. That is your sentence.
BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Monday, October 16.)
Mr. George Metcalfe prosecuted.
MORRIS LEVY , 138, Victoria Park Road. On September 2 at 10.30 p.m. I was closing my shop, when prisoner, using bad language, said, "You do not give any money for the boys, " and said he would kill us, burn the place up, there would be nothing left of us if we would not give him money. I sent for the police and threw prisoner out; there were about 100 others outside. On September 4 at 10.30 a.m. prisoner came into the shop and said, "Is the governor in? " I told him to clear off. He said, "I want some money for the damage you did to me, " that Was in throwing him out of the shop; he said he would kill us, burn the place down, etc., as before.
Cross-examined. I did not lock prisoner up the first time because he ran away.
Detective JOSEPH PAGE, K Division. At 8.30 on September 4 I saw prisoner at Canning Town Police Station. I told him I was a police officer and that he would be charged with attempting to obtain money by menaces from Mr. Levy. He said, "Thank you." When charged he said, "I bet he does not remain long on the Marsh, " meaning the Victoria Docks.
Prisoner's statement. "I do not see that I went to ask Mr. Levy for money, I had been to work four days and earned 35s. l0d. My wife has my previous character. I have never asked the man for money in my life. I have no witnesses."
Prisoner, called upon for his defense, handed up a statement: "I was going home on Saturday night, September 2 last, when I saw a crowd outside Mr. Levy's shop and Mr. Levy came out and hit me in the mouth, knocking me down, and when I got up he had gone into his shop. I used no threats and I did not ask for money. I came back in the afternoon and found a police-constable there."
Prisoner was stated to have been twice convicted of drunkenness and also in December, 1906, of willful damage, breaking a window.
Sentence, Nine months' hard Labour.
BEFORE JUDGE LUMLEY SMITH.
(Wednesday, October 25.)
Mr. Metcalfe prosecuted; Mr. Hutchinson (for Mr. Curtis Bennett) defended.
HENRY HOLMES , stevedore. I have known prisoner for about six months. On September 4 I was with him from 7 till 11 a.m., drinking in various public-houses. I saw prisoner's wife and another woman, and they rowed with me. One of them took her shoes off and hit me on the head with it. I got away from them and went to my house, 122, Jersey Road, Custom House. In the afternoon I saw prisoner coming up the street, and I went and told him his wife had struck me; he said, "Serve you right, " and he struck me. I then went indoors and got two pokers. I came out and struck at Him with one of he pokers; as I went to strike him. I stumbled and fell; he got the poker away from me and struck me on the head with it. I remember no more till I found myself in the hospital; I was detained there for & week.
Cross-examined. I had had a good lot of drink that morning. I had been fighting with a man in Prince's Lane; there were several women about; Mrs. Taylor called me a big beast because the man I was fighting fell down and cut his head. She and another woman took their shoes off and hit me with them. When I saw prisoner afterwards I did not say to him, "That is a nice cow of a wife of yours." My mother and my brother tried to stop me going out to meet prisoner, as they knew he was a boxing man. Prisoner only hit me once with the poker.
HENRY MCKAY , stevedore. On this morning I was in the Jersey Road. I saw Holmes with two pokers; he was saying, "Come on, Ben Taylor." He made a blow at Taylor with the poker; prisoner tackled him and forced him back over the kerb; he picked him up and bashed his head against the brick wall. Holmes fell down; prisoner took away the pokers and hit Holmes with one 10 or 12 times
about the head and body; Holmes was then on the ground with prisoner standing over him; prisoner kicked Holmes four or five times about the body; then he moved a few yards away and picked up a zinc dustbin, which was full of refuse, and threw it at Holmes.
Cross-examined. I helped to take Holmes to the hospital; he was taken in a van; seeing a policeman in the van, he said, "I hope they won't lock me up." It is not right that Holmes fell down; prisoner threw him down against the wall. Prisoner was standing all the time; he was never on the ground. He threw the dustbin violently at Holmes; it was a thing that weighs a hundredweight full up.
GEORGE CHALK , lighter man. I saw Holmes with the pokers and saw prisoner spring at him, wrench the pokers away and strike him with one of them across the arm; this caused him to roll over on to his hands and knees; prisoner kicked him four or five times; then he took hold of him and slewed him against the wall; he walked to a dustbin and picked that up and threw it down on to Holmes.
Cross-examined. They both fell together while prisoner was trying to get the pokers away.
WILLIAM EDWARD BOWRON , house surgeon at the Seamen's Hospital. Holmes was brought in about 4 p.m., on September 4; he was semi-conscious. He had slight concussion of the brain; two scalp wounds on the right side of his head; two contused wounds behind the left ear; various bruises on the chest and back. The first-mentioned wounds could have been caused by the poker (produced).
Police-constable CHARLES JARMAN, 765 K. About 3.15 p.m., on September 4, I went to Jersey Street. Outside No. 122 there was a large pool of blood on the pavement. I went to No. 145 with Police-constable Vanner, and there saw prisoner. I asked him if he would accompany us to the station He said we had better get a warrant; he said he would shoot us if we threatened to take him. We went out and stayed till a sergeant came. The sergeant asked him to come to the front door; he said he would not; he said that if we attempted to enter the door he would shoot us—there would be a Sidney Street siege, or something like that. After some time he was induced to accompany us, and he went to the station quietly. When charged, he said, "He came out of his house with two pokers in his hand and aimed a blow at me; I guarded the blow and took the pokers away from him and hit him with his own weapon."Then he added, "I never hit him with the poker."
Cross-examined. I am certain he said, "I hit him with his own weapon, " not, "I took the pokers away from him and did the best I could." We found no pistol or firearms in prisoner's house.
have got." I said, "I have never spoken to you in my life; what is the matter with you? " and with that I shoved him and went to walk away. The next thing I know is he is out in the road challenging me to fight with two pokers. He hit me across the shoulder and knocked me to my knees. I got up and got hold of him; we closed. As I was struggling with him for the pokers I might have hit him once or twice, but not more; then I walked indoors. The policeman's account is wrong. I did not say anything about the Sidney Street siege. I said, "Anyone would think this was Sidney Street to see so many people here and policemen." At the station I said, "This man came out after me with two pokers and he hit me once or twice; I took them away and tried to do the best I could." I did not hit him harder than was necessary. Prisoner was mad drunk.
Mrs. TAYLORspoke to seeing the same fight. Holmes was fighting an old man, and she cried "Shame"; Holmes ran at her and said, "I know who you are—you are Ben Taylor's whore."
MRS. HOWARD, who was with Mrs. Taylor, corroborated.
Verdict, Guilty, but under very great provocation.
Several convictions for assault were proved, the last in 1905.
Sentence, One month's hard labour, dating from commencement of this Session.
SURREY CASES. BEFORE THE RECORDER.
(Wednesday, October 11.)
Prisoner was stated to have refused to give any account of himself and to have been twice convicted of petty offences in this year.
Sentence, Nine months' hard labour.
Prisoner confessed to having been convicted at South London Sessions on February 15, 1910, receiving 18 months for burglary. About 20 other convictions, commencing in 1885, for stealing, etc., were proved.
Sentence, Three years' penal servitude.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Wednesday, October 11.)
Prisoner was released on his own and another's recognizance's in ₤10 to come up for judgment if called upon.
BEFORE MR. JUSTICE SCRUTTON.
(Friday, October 13.)
WEBB, May (18, servant) and MOLD, Arthur (17, groom) , both attempted murder of May Webb, the infant child of the said May Webb; both willful murder of May Webb ; Webb— Coroner's inquisition for the wilful murder of her child May Webb ; Mold— Coroner's inquisition with being an accessory before the fact to the murder of the said May Webb .
Mr. Muir, Mr. Graham-Camp bell, and Mr. Briggs prosecuted; Mr. G. S. C. Rantoul defended Webb; Mr. Montague Shearman, junior, defended Mold.
The case was opened on the charge of wilful murder.
Mr. Justice Scrutton intimated that, having read the deposition of the medical witnesses, he should direct the jury to return a verdict of Not guilty of murder.
SARAH NORFIELD , nurse, Kingston Infirmary. Female prisoner was admitted to infirmary on July 6 with her child, one day old. They were both discharged on August 1 in good health. On the 2nd I saw the child again in the infirmary.
Cross-examined by Mr. Rantoul. There was no sign of tubercular about the child. Female prisoner was not hysterical.
EMILY SEWELL , cook, Kingston Infirmary. I saw Webb and baby leave on August 1. The baby was dressed in the Shaw and gown produced. Male prisoner was waiting for Webb at the entrance and they went away together.
ARTHUR ROBINSON , house-porte, Kingston Infirmary. About 7.40 p.m. on August 1 prisoner Moid called at the lodge and said he had come for May Webb and the baby and I sent for them. I was not present when they left.
GEORGE STEEL , laborer, Brook Cottage, Robin Hood Farm. About 8.45 p.m. on August 1 I was in a field in Robin Hood Lane when male prisoner came into the field and asked me the way to Wimbledon Common. I went outside and directed him and then I saw the female prisoner. She had something in her arms wrapped up in a white shawl. Prisoners went off together in the direction of the brook.
when I heard screams coming from the direction of Beverley Brook. I ran to the spot and found a naked baby lying on its back in the centre of the stream screaming. The water was about six inches deep. I called to a Mrs. Blenheim, living close by, and handed the child to her. I afterwards pointed out the spot to a detective. Photographs produced show the place.
Cross-examined by Mr. Rantoul. When I first heard the cries I was about fifty yards away. I think the baby was in danger because in its struggles its head went under the water. The brook is deeper at the sides. This is a favorite walk and on a fine summer night there would be a lot of people passing. Passers-by could not have helped hearing the cries. Where the child was lying the water was not deep enough to cover its body.
Cross-examined by Mr. Shearman. When the baby was found I was there with two friends and Mrs. Brenham's cottage is close by the brook.
Mrs. CAROLINE BLENHEIM, Brook Cottage, Robin Hood Farm. My cottage is about fifty yards from the brook. On August 1 I heard someone calling and ran to the brook and saw a child struggling in the water, screaming. Its head was above water. Last witness handed me the baby and I took it home, wrapped it in blankets, and sent for the police.
Cross-examined by Mr. Shearman. The child screaming in the posi- tion in which it was would have been sure to attract attention if any-body happened to be passing.
Police-constable RICHARD MCNAMARA, V Division. I conveyed the baby from Mrs. Brenham's cottage to Dr. Roots, who ordered me to take it to the Kingston Infirmary.
WILLIAM PERCIVAL , confectioner, High Street, Merton. About 10 p.m. on August 1 female prisoner came into my shop and bought some sweets and asked me to take care of a parcel for her till the following morning. I did so and she said she would call between nine and ten. She was quite calm. She did not come and the next time I saw her was at the police court. I handed the parcel to the detective when he called for it. He opened it in my presence, and the letters produced were taken out of it, amongst other articles.
EMMA MOLD , 3, Granville Road, Wimbledon, mother of male prisoner. My son is 17 and lives at home. On August 3 I found the two letters (Exhibits 9 and 10) in one envelope in his bed. The bundle of letters produced are in my son's handwriting.
ARTHUR WEBB , carpenter, 32, Chapel Street, Mitcham, brother of female prisoner. My sister came to my house at 10 p.m. on August 1 and stayed the night. Soon after she left next evening a policeman called. I showed him my sister's box; he took the shawl and the other articles produced from it. Exhibits 9 and 10 are in my sister's handwriting.
Detective-sergeant FREDERICK EGBOROUGH, V Division. On August 2 I went with Inspector Babcock to 3, Granville Road, where Babcock arrested Mold. Mold said to me, "I did not know she was in the family way till I got a letter from her telling me she was in Kingston Infirmary with a child. I went and fetched her and the baby from the infirmary Last night, and it was while we were walking home across the common that she took its clothes off and threw the child in the water." On August 3 I conveyed female prisoner from the police court to the station. On the way she said to me, "They are going to try to put all the blame on me by showing my letters. I have had letters from him baying that it would be the best thing to do. I left them in a newspaper parcel, together with my clothes, at the fourth sweets tuff shop on the left in High Street, Merton." I went too Perivale's shop, and he handed me parcel produced containing clothes and letters, together with the envelopes.
Police-constable CHARLES YOUNG, V Division. On August 2 I went to 32, Chapel Street, Mito ham, where I saw Arthur Webb. He handed me a box, from which I took the baby's gown and shawl pro duced. Next day I went to Beverley Brook with Frost, and took the photographs produced, showing the depth of the brook and the spot where the baby was found.
Cross-examined. The stream varied in depth from four inches to a foot; where the baby was found in the centre the water was of medium depth; the deeper places are nearer the bank.
WILLIAM HENRY ROOTS , divisional surgeon, Kingston Police. On August 1 about 10.30 p.m. a police-constable brought a baby to my house. The child was well-nourished and very healthy, but collapsed with cold. I ordered its removal to Kingston Infirmary. On August 28, in conjunction with Dr. Armstrong, I made a post-mortem examination of the child and came to the conclusion that it died from meningitis caused by shock or convulsions; it could have been caused by cold or a sudden immersion in cold water.
Cross-examined by Mr. Rantoul. The meningitis was not tuber- culler, it was common meningitis. There are other means of bringing on this form of meningitis than shock. Bad milk or feeding in the hospital might have produced the symptoms.
PATTERSON ARMSTRONG , Resident Medical Officer, Kingston Infirmary. I saw female prisoner and her child on August 1 before they were discharged. The child Was then healthy. It was brought back to the infirmary in a condition of collapse by the police the same night about 11. There were no marks of violence. It recovered temporarily, but relapsed after a couple of days and died on the 26th. It was fed under my direction on milk or modifications of milk; that was the only proper feeding. In conjunction with Dr. Roots I made a post-mortem examination and formed the opinion that the child died of convulsions secondary to meningitis. I attribute the meningitis to the shock due to what happened before the child came in. I found no other cause of meningitis.
Cross-ermined by Mr. Rantoul. The shock in cold water alone,
however severe, would not produce meningitis; it might bring it to the surface if it was there before. The child might get it from some food poisoning, or something wrong with the milk. Taking a baby from the mother's breast and feeding it on other food is a common cause of babies being upset. It was my previous knowledge of the case that caused me to attribute the meningitis to shock.
Inspector EDWARD BADCOCK, V Division. On August 2 I went worth Egborough to 3, Granville Road, Wimbledon, where I saw male prisoner. I said to him, "We are police officers and are going to arrest you for being concerned with May Webb in attempting to murder her infant by throwing it into Beverley Brook last night." He said, "She took its clothes off and threw it into the waiter. I told her if she did I would have no more to do with her. We went home to Wimbledon, where I left her at 10 o'clock. I arranged to meet her at 7.15 to-night at the Grove." I went to the Grove at 7.15 and saw female prisoner. I said to her, "I am a police officer." She said, "What of that? " I said, "I'm going to arrest you for being concerned with Albert Mold in attempting to murder your child last night by throwing it into Beverley Brook." She said, "I threw it in, he did not; he would not take it home and I did not want it. I took its clothes off and threw it in, and then we ran away. The clothes are in my box at my brother's at 32, Chapel Street, Mitch am, where I slept last night." I took her to Wimbledon Police Station, where both prisoners were charged together; they made no. reply. Male prisoner's mother handed me Exhibits 9 and 10.
Cross-examined by Mr. Rantoul. I have made inquiries about the girl, She is of good character and is spoken well of in the places where she has been.
Cross-examined by Mr. Shearman. The lad also bean an excellent character and was, until arrested, working on a railway.
Verdict (each prisoner), Not guilty of murder; Guilty of attempted murder, with a very strong recommendation to mercy.
Sentences, Webb, Three years' detention in a Borstal Institution; Mold, two months' imprisonment, second division.
BEFORE JUDGE RENTOUL.
(Wednesday, October 18.)
The prosecution offering no evidence, a verdict of Not guilty was returned.
APRIL, 1911, TO OCTOBER, 1911.